Skip to main content

Table 1 Adapted coding scheme, inspired by Volet et al. (2009a) and Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2011)

From: Co-regulations of learning in small groups of chef apprentices: when do they appear and what influences them?

Regulation of learning
 Types of episodes (Volet et al. 2009a)
  Low-level content co-regulation Content-processing episodes represented clarification of basic facts
Multiple group members made verbal contributions. Sharing ideas, only; verbal interaction related to the ‘logistic’ accomplishment of the task
High-level content co-regulation Content-processing episodes referred to engagement in elaborating, reasoning, building on or linking ideas, explaining in one’s own words, or help seeking for understanding
Multiple group members made verbal contributions. Real co-construction of the knowledge
 Factors contributing in sustaining group engagement in high-level co-regulation episodes (Volet et al. 2009a)
  Tentativeness of explanation Direct and indirect tentativeness to explain what they are thinking, motivating the choices;
  Questions Sub-categories:
Confirmation (request of confirmation and/or approval),
Clarification (request of details),
Task question (related to the concrete and logistic organization and accomplishment of the task),
How question (request of explanations to better understand, ways to solve a problem, sharing ideas to solve)
 Group efforts to regulate their conceptual understanding, task work, and engagement (Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2011)
  Planning Reading and interpreting task directions, designating task assignments, discussing how to go about solving the problems; role division; something related to the future
  Monitoring Evaluating content understanding, the shared product, assessing progress, or evaluating the missing part to complete the task. Considerations on the task they are accomplishing; tentativeness to elaborate a state of the art of the situation
Interaction
 Positive socioemotional interactions (Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2011) Group interactions that support and encourage harmonious group functioning
  Inclusion Attempting to encourage the sustained involvement and contributions of group members through positive feedback and asking for everyone’s ideas; asking peers to remain in the task; asking the peers to be included
  Group cohesion Conveying that the group functions as a team (rather than as individuals) by working together, referring to the group as ‘we’
 Negative socioemotional interactions (Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2011) Group interactions that undermine harmonious group functioning
  Discouraging participation Undermining a group member’s task contributions by criticizing her/his work, not assigning him/her a portion of the task, ignoring their feedback or questions, ignoring a group member completely
  Disrespect Putting down a member of the group, grabbing papers away without permission, swearword addressed to a member of the group