Exploring Socially Shared Regulation Processes in Peer Tutoring: Focusing on the Functions of Tutor Utterances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study quantitatively and qualitatively examined socially shared regulation processes in peer tutoring. Participants were 22 teacher-candidate university students assigned to 11 peer-tutoring pairs. Peer tutoring included two sessions, in which one student was the tutor and another the tutee. Participants completed a socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) scale before peer tutoring and an academic engagement measurement afterward. Moreover, peer tutoring sessions were videotaped. Students were divided into two groups, based on high and low SSRL scores, and verbal protocols were analyzed. Tutoring utterances were analyzed and categorized by the following social regulation functions, namely “orientation,” “monitoring,” and “evaluation,” while distinguishing between deep- or surface-level. Tutors in high-SSRL groups adopted deep-level orientation more than low-SSRL groups. Qualitative analysis indicated deep-level orientation played a key role in peer tutoring. Additionally, regarding motivational factors, high-SSRL groups showed stronger agentic and cognitive engagement than low-SSRL groups. The implications for teacher-candidate university education are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".