Structuring Peer Interaction to Promote Higher-Order Thinking and Complex Learning in Cooperating Groups

  • Alison King
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 8)

A major challenge for teachers who implement cooperative learning tasks that have cognitively advanced goals is how to promote the kind of group interaction required to achieve those goals. Such complex learning requires learners to go beyond mere review of information or retrieval of previously-acquired knowledge to engage in thinking analytically about that knowledge, relating it to what they already know, and using that knowledge to construct new knowledge, solve new problems, and address new issues. This chapter presents Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning, a strategy that structures the interaction within a cooperating group to stimulate the cognitive and metacognitive processing appropriate to complex learning tasks. Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning has been found to be effective in promoting complex learning in a number of classroom contexts for groups of learners ranging from fourth graders to graduate students in a variety of subject areas. The teacher’s role in implementing this strategy is described along with the theoretical and research bases for the strategy’s effectiveness.


Cognitive Processing Collaborative Learning Cognitive Activity Individual Learner Cooperative Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bargh, J. A., & Shul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, and P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 114–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next–A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  4. Britton, B. K., Van Dusen, L., Glynn, S. M., & Hemphill, D. (1990). The impact of inferences on instructional text. In A.C. Graesser & G.H. Bower (Eds.), Inferences and text comprehension (pp. 53–87). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities. American Psychologist, 41, 1059–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, C. K. K., Burtis, P. J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Constructive activity in learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 97–118.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher C. (1994). Eliciting self explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom:Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.Google Scholar
  9. Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz, and P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 103–120). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Graesser, A. C. (1992). Questioning mechanisms during complex learning. Technical report, Cognitive Science Program, Office of Naval Research, Arlington.Google Scholar
  11. Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 35, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hacker, D. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687.Google Scholar
  15. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303–323.Google Scholar
  16. King, A. (1993). Autonomy and question asking: The role of personal control in guided student-generated questioning, invited article for Special Issue of Learning and Individual Differences: Question Asking and Strategic Listening Processes: Individual Differences and Their Consequences, 6, 162–185.Google Scholar
  17. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 338–368.Google Scholar
  18. King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational Perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King, A. (in press). Beyond literal comprehension: A strategy to promote deep understanding of text. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of Guided Cooperative Questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127–148.Google Scholar
  21. King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructive-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lepper, M. R., Aspinwall, L. G., Mumme, D. L., & Chabey, R. W. (1990). Self-Perception and social perception processes in tutoring: Subtle social control strategies of expert tutors. Self-inference processes: The Ontario Symposium (217–237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and the structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Donnell, A. & Dansereau, D. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Miller, N. (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reigeluth, C. M. & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional DesignTheories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status (pp. 335–381). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning: A study on processes and effects of cooperation between primary school children. Gronigen, The Netherlands: University of Gronigen.Google Scholar
  33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Webb, N., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem solving strategies and group processes in small group learning computer programming. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 243–251.Google Scholar
  36. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Cafree (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wright, L. (1995). Argument and deliberation: A plea for understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 92, 565–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison King
    • 1
  1. 1.California State University San MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations