J Edurev 2019 02 001

Accepted Manuscript
A Systematic Review of Teacher Guidance During Collaborative Learning in Primary

and Secondary Education
Anouschka van Leeuwen, Jeroen Janssen
PII: S1747-938X(18)30340-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.001
Reference: EDUREV 266
To appear in: Educational Research Review
Received Date: 16 July 2018

Revised Date: 29 January 2019
Accepted Date: 4 February 2019
Please cite this article as: van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., A Systematic Review of Teacher Guidance
During Collaborative Learning in Primary and Secondary Education, Educational Research Review,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.001.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Running head: TEACHER GUIDANCE OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING 1
PT
RI
A Systematic Review of Teacher Guidance During Collaborative Learning in Primary and
SC
Secondary Education
U
Anouschka van Leeuwen and Jeroen Janssen
AN
Utrecht University
M
D
Author Note
TE
Anouschka van Leeuwen, Department of Education, Utrecht University; Jeroen Janssen,
Department of Education, Utrecht University.

EP
This research was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Initiative for Educational
Research (NRO), grant number 405-15-712.

C
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anouschka van Leeuwen,

AC
Department of Education, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584CS Utrecht, the
Netherlands. Contact: A.vanLeeuwen@uu.nl

Running head: TEACHER GUIDANCE OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING 1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
PT
A Systematic Review of Teacher Guidance During Collaborative Learning in Primary and
RI
Secondary Education
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
TEACHER GUIDANCE OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING 2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Abstract
For this review, we synthesized quantitative and qualitative research on collaborative
learning to examine the relationship between teacher guidance strategies and the processes
and outcomes of collaboration among students (66 studies). The results show that several
PT
aspects of teacher guidance are positively related to student collaboration, for example when
teachers focus their attention on students’ problem solving strategies. During student
RI
collaboration, opportunities arise for students to engage in collaborative activities that support
SC
their learning process. The way teachers take more or less control of these moments
determines whether these opportunities can be turned into real moments of learning for the
U
students. This review highlights the important yet challenging role of the teacher during
AN
collaborative learning.
Keywords: Collaborative learning, cooperative learning, systematic review, teacher

M
guidance strategies.
D
TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
A Systematic Review of Teacher Guidance During Collaborative Learning
Collaborative learning (CL) refers to instructional arrangements that involve two or
more students working together on a shared learning goal (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016;
Dillenbourg, 1999; Gillies & Boyle, 2008). CL emphasizes the importance of positive
PT
interaction among students (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Lou et al., 1996): during CL, students
are encouraged to ask questions, give elaborate explanations, exchange arguments, formulate
RI
new ideas and problem solutions, and so on. CL is considered a “success story” (cf. Johnson
SC
& Johnson, 2009) because of the large number of studies that demonstrate positive effects of
collaboration on cognitive, meta-cognitive, affective-motivational, and social aspects of
U
learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Several meta-analyses (e.g., Chen, Wang, Kirschner, &
AN
Tsai, 2018; Kyndt et al., 2014; Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo & Miller, 2003; Roseth,
Johnson & Johnson, 2008) show that students working in small groups indeed achieve higher
M
learning outcomes than students working on a task individually (e.g., increased learning
D
gains, increased performance on standardized or teacher-made tests). However, these positive

TE
results can only be achieved when teachers make adequate instructional decisions (Cohen,
1994; Kaendler, Wiedmann, Rummel, & Spada, 2015; Van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen,
EP
2010). Particularly while students are collaborating, teachers need to monitor which problems
students encounter and to intervene when necessary (Van de Pol, Volman, Oort &
C
Beishuizen, 2015). The aim of this review is to synthesize the existing empirical literature
AC
that investigates the role of primary and secondary education teachers while guiding the
collaborative process. By doing so, we aim to determine which aspects of teacher guidance
are most beneficial for fostering successful collaboration between students. We do this by
performing a comprehensive and systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative
studies that investigated the role of teacher guidance during CL.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Although some authors have used the terms ‘collaborative learning’ and ‘cooperative
learning’ interchangeably (e.g., Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2003; McInnerney &
Roberts, 2004; Sung, Yang, & Lee, 2017), others note important differences between both
terms (e.g., Dillenbourg, 1999; Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O'Malley, 1996; Slavin, 1997).
PT
When collaborative learning and cooperative learning are contrasted, this is often based on
the idea that cooperative learning involves division of labor, while collaborative learning is
RI
seen as the “mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem
SC
together” (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). The idea that cooperative learning should always
involve division of labor may stem from the so-called Jigsaw procedure employed in a
U
number of cooperative learning scenarios (e.g., Aronson & Bridgeman, 1979). This procedure
AN
is however far from the only procedure employed in cooperative learning scenarios. Other
procedures include for example Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (Slavin, 1994) and
M
Learning Together (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). These latter two procedures also emphasize
D
the importance of learning as a shared experience as advocated by proponents of

TE
collaborative learning. We therefore agree with Kreijns et al. (2003), who noted many
similarities between collaborative and cooperative learning. Specifically relevant to this

EP
review is the notion that the role of the teacher while guiding either cooperative or
collaborative learning is similar: he or she is seen as a facilitator with the aim to guide groups
C
of students. Furthermore, our definition of CL (see above) is sufficiently broad to fit with
AC
multiple approaches to peer learning, which aligns well with our goal to provide a
comprehensive synthesis of the empirical literature investigating the teacher’s role during CL.
For the sake of clarity however, we will from now on refer to all of these learning scenarios
as collaborative learning.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The role of the teacher during collaborative learning
Previous research has demonstrated that interaction among students is an important
predictor for whether students actually learn from CL (see for example Webb &
Mastergeorge, 2003). These studies highlight the importance of collaborative interaction (i.e.,
PT
the manner in which students work together) and also illustrate that student’ interaction needs
to be supported. Studies by Chinn, O’Donnell, and Jinks (2000) and Barron (2003) highlight
RI
the importance of on-task interaction among students. With on-task interaction, we mean
SC
interaction that is relevant for the task at hand. It is important to note that this is not limited to
cognitive activities (e.g., explaining, summarizing) or interaction focused directly at the
U
concepts involved in the task, but also includes regulative activities or social-affective
AN
activities that contribute to successful attainment of the group’s goals (Authors, 2007).
Moreover, work by Mullins, Rummel, and Spada (2011) shows that it is not only important
M
that students are on-task during CL, but that it is also crucial how they behave when they are
D
on-task: when students engage in high-level elaboration (e.g., give extended and elaborate
TE
answers or help, ask for reasons and clarification), this is positively associated with greater
learning. In sum, research has demonstrated that the way students interact with each other
EP
critically impacts their learning process during CL.
During CL, the teacher plays a crucial role in fostering positive student interaction
C
(Kaendler et al., 2015): the teacher for example diagnoses the progress of the group and
AC
intervenes when necessary (Van de Pol et al., 2010). Without adequate teacher guidance,
positive interaction between students is at risk. When teachers do not identify problems in
time and do not intervene adequately, the quality of the collaborative process and the
resulting learning outcomes might be hindered (Van de Pol et al., 2010). Research shows that
guiding groups of collaborating students is a demanding task for teachers (Authors, 2015).
For example, it requires teachers to master multiple advanced competencies (De Hei, Sjoer,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Admiraal & Strijbos, 2016; Authors, 2015). This is because during CL, teachers need to
monitor several groups at the same time, provide support concerning task content as well as
strategies for collaboration, and need to decide whether it is necessary to intervene, and if so,
what kind of intervention is most suitable. Thus, CL requires far more from the teacher than
PT
simply placing students in groups and instructing them to work together (Kaendler et al.,
2015; Authors, 2018). Studies that focused on teacher guidance of CL thus indicate that
RI
teacher guidance is indeed important for student collaboration. For example, Webb et al.
SC
(2008) showed that primary education teachers differed in the frequency with which they
asked students to explain their answers. These differences subsequently affected students’
U
discussions: when the teacher stimulated elaborate explanations (e.g., explaining a concept by
AN
giving arguments instead of merely providing the correct answer), students indeed gave more
elaborate explanations compared to situations when the teacher did not stimulate these
M
explanations. As another example, Chiu (1998) found that specific types of teacher
D
interventions were positively associated with student interaction during CL: when teachers
TE
offered compliments and support to groups of students, this increased students’ engagement.
There is thus empirical evidence that supports the assertion that the interaction among group
EP
members is associated with how teachers guide these groups.
Although several studies investigated the strategies teacher use to guide CL, these
C
studies differ considerably with respect to their focus and their methodology. Some studies
AC
primarily focus on describing the strategies teachers may employ to guide CL (e.g., Gillies &
Boyle, 2008). Others aim to uncover how teacher guidance is associated with collaboration
between students and with individual students’ learning gains (e.g., Dekker & Elshout-Mohr,
2004; Jadallah et al., 2011). Furthermore, the available studies differ substantially with
respect to their methodology. A number of studies use a qualitative methodology to describe
and classify teacher guidance strategies (e.g., Ding, Li, Piccolo, & Kulm, 2007; Authors,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2013). Another group of studies aims to quantify guidance strategies and investigates whether
context (e.g., academic subject, type of task, or level of education) and teacher characteristics
(e.g., experience, participating in an in-service education program) are associated to the
occurrence of specific teacher strategies (e.g., De Smet, Van Keer, De Wever, & Valcke,
PT
2010; Gillies & Khan, 2008). A last group of studies investigates teacher guidance of CL
using both quantitative and qualitative methods (mixed method studies, e.g., Emmer &
RI
Gerwels, 2002; Jadallah et al., 2011). In sum, studies investigating teacher guidance during
SC
CL show differences concerning research questions and research methodology, which
together provide varied and complementary perspectives on teacher guidance of CL. This
U
diversity in research perspectives and methodologies will be addressed in our synthesis of the
AN
literature by attempting to include both qualitative and quantitative studies.
Review studies concerning the role of the teacher during collaborative learning
M
Several recent review studies (e.g., Dobber, Tanis, Zwart, & Van Oers, 2014;
D
Kaendler et al., 2015; Webb, 2009) have attempted to provide an overview of the research
TE
concerning the way teachers guide CL. The reviews by Webb (2009) and Kaendler et al.
(2015) provide a theoretical description of the role and the importance of the teacher during
EP
different phases of CL (pre-active, inter-active, and post-active). These reviews describe how,
during the preparation phase (pre-active) of CL, teachers’ activities for example involve
C
composing the collaborating groups (heterogeneous versus homogeneous groups with respect
AC
to performance level or gender) and preparing students for the collaborative task (Webb,
2009). These studies also describe the importance of evaluating the collaborative process
afterwards (post-active), both for teachers’ professional development as well as for increasing
the effectiveness of future implementation of CL (Kaendler et al., 2015).
The existing reviews conclude that teachers can play an important role especially
during the interactive phase, when students collaborate. In this phase, teachers act as a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
reference or a role model for students by demonstrating how to interact with group members
(Dobber et al., 2014). Furthermore, teachers can stimulate students to explain their ideas to
each other and to ask follow-up questions that deepen the group discussion (Webb, 2009).
So far, these published reviews primarily aim to provide a theoretical framework for
PT
teacher guidance strategies and the possible effects of these strategies on students’
collaborative interaction. To a lesser extent, these reviews provide an overview of the relation
RI
between guidance strategies and students’ collaborative interaction. What these reviews do
SC
not provide, however, is a systematic synthesis of the available empirical work investigating
the relation between teacher guidance strategies and the collaborative process itself and the
U
resulting outcomes of collaboration (e.g., increased achievement, increased performance on
AN
teacher-made tests). Although the available reviews survey the existing body of research,
none of the reviews was set-up and executed as a systematic literature review. The reviews by
M
Dobber et al. (2015), Kaendler et al. (2015), and Webb (2009) lack the hallmarks of
D
systematic research reviews, such as a systematic and exhaustive survey of the literature,
TE
quality assessment of the uncovered studies, application of inclusion and/or exclusion
criteria, and a systematic approach to synthesizing the included studies. The goal of this study
EP
is therefore to provide a systematic overview of studies investigating the relationship between
teacher guidance during CL and students’ interaction and learning outcomes.

C
Goals and research questions of the present review study

AC
We aim to extend earlier reviews by performing a systematic literature search of
studies investigating the relationship between teacher guidance strategies and students’
interaction during CL and the resulting outcomes of that interaction. Furthermore, we aim to
do this irrespective of the research methodologies employed in these studies (quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed). We will therefore conduct a systematic review that incorporates
different types of evidence (Pope, Mays, & Popay, 2007). The following research question
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
was formulated: How are teacher guidance strategies during collaborative learning
associated with interaction among students and subsequent learning outcomes?
Method
Following recommendations by Van Wesel, Boeije, and Alisic (2015), our synthesis
PT
consisted of the following steps: (1) literature search, (2) study identification, (3) study
coding, (4) quality appraisal, and (5) thematic analysis.
RI
Literature search
SC
Publications had to meet three criteria to be included in the review. First, the context
of the study had to concern CL: a setting in which groups of two or more students learn or
U
attempt to learn something together with a shared goal (cf., Dillenbourg, 1999). Second, the
AN
study needed to focus on the presence of a teacher who guided student collaboration. Third,
the scope of the review was restricted to studies in primary and secondary education,
M
allowing for all types of education (public and private). For each of these criteria, synonyms
D
were formulated, leading to one search query which consisted of three OR-queries that were
TE
combined by means of AND-operators. The databases ERIC, PsycInfo, Scopus, and
WebOfScience were used to execute the search query in November 2018. No time
EP
restrictions were placed; the results thus included all studies from these databases until
November 2018. The search query was composed in English, thus leading only to studies
C
reported in English. CL was queried using terms such as ‘collaborative learning’,

AC
‘cooperative learning’, and ‘small group learning’. Teacher guidance was queried using
search terms such as ‘moderation’, ‘support’, and ‘guidance’. Primary and secondary
education studies were sought using search terms as ‘elementary education’ and ‘secondary
education’. The full search query is depicted in Table S1 (online only).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Study identification
After duplicates were removed, the search query led to 13.196 publications. Figure 1
shows the steps we followed to select relevant publications. The two authors and two
research assistants were involved in the process of study selection. They met on a weekly
PT
basis to discuss the application of the selection criteria outlined in the previous section
(collaborative learning, focus on role of the teacher, primary or secondary education) to the
RI
publications uncovered by our search query. This procedure ensured that the selection criteria
SC
were consistently applied. Abstracts were read and assessed using the three criteria. When
there was discussion about whether or not the abstract should pass the screening phase, the
U
first author made the final decision.
AN
This resulted in the identification of 234 publications that were potentially relevant.
Full texts were collected for these remaining publications; 200 were available. Based on the
M
Method-sections of the articles, 141 studies were excluded. Ten articles were theoretical or
D
overview studies and were therefore excluded. Other studies mentioned the presence of a
TE
teacher, but did not observe teacher guidance or report on teacher guidance strategies. Also,
studies in which context factors and dependent variables at the student level were measured,
EP
but not teacher guidance strategies, were excluded because they did not allow for conclusions
concerning the role of the teacher during student collaboration. Furthermore, when multiple
C
studies from the same author reported on the same dataset, only one publication was retained
AC
(the publication with the most elaborate results section). This resulted in a set of 59 empirical
studies.
At this stage, a snowballing method was used to search for additional publications.
Two strategies were used. First, the references of theoretical publications were checked.
Second, the bibliography of the authors whose work surfaced three times or more in the
included publications were perused for additional relevant publications. Snowballing

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
identified seven additional publications, leading to a total of 66 empirical studies that were
included in the review. See Tables S2 and S3 (online only) for an overview of included
studies and their characteristics.
Study coding
PT
Two common approaches can be used to combine quantitative and qualitative
evidence in a review study (Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005; Pope et
RI
al., 2007). The first of those consists of performing two separate review studies for the
SC
quantitative and the qualitative publications, followed by integration of the results (see for
example Van Wesel et al., 2015). The two reviews each go through the usual process of
U
judging quality of studies, extracting relevant data, and synthesizing findings. The second
AN
approach is by converting all evidence into qualitative form, and subsequently performing a
content or thematic analysis (see for example Dixon-Woods et al., 2006; Flemming, 2010).
M
The approach chosen for the present review study was a combination of both
D
methods. Common to the method of converting all findings into qualitative form, the 66
TE
remaining publications were processed qualitatively by reading the studies and formulating
summary phrases that captured their findings. These summary phrases reflected findings
EP
described in the Results section of a particular study. For example, a summary phrase could
be “Teacher explanations are positively associated with students’ on-task behavior during
C
CL”. It is important to note that a single study could yield multiple summary phrases if the
AC
study described multiple findings that were relevant to present review. From the 66 articles,
369 sentences were obtained (M = 6.0 sentences per study).
Quality appraisal
Next, in line with the method of performing two separate reviews, the quality of each
study was assessed. Based on this quality appraisal, a weight was assigned to each study. This
allowed us to take into account possible differences in studies concerning their rigor and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
validity. For the quantitative studies, the evidence-based librarianship critical appraisal
checklist (EBLCAC) was used to determine study quality (Glynn, 2006). For the qualitative
studies, the Qualitative Research Checklist (QRC) was used (CASP, 2006). Both instruments
were chosen because they were appropriate to the research domain (education), because they
PT
included clear guidelines on how to employ the checklist, and because they are commonly
used by other researchers. Both instruments consist of a number of yes/no questions that
RI
address the quality of the study. For example, the EBLCAC includes a question whether a
SC
control group was used, and the QRC includes a question whether the selection of
participants was appropriate. For both instruments, all questions were scored -1 (when the
U
answer was ‘no’), 0 (when the answer was ‘a little’ or ‘can’t tell’), or 1 (when the answer was
AN
‘yes’). The QRC consists of 10 questions, leading to possible score of -10 to 10. The
EBLCAC consists of 26 questions. Because the QRC includes questions about aims and
M
value of the study, whereas the EBLCAC does not, we added these two questions to
D
EBLCAC, leading to a total of 28 questions. Furthermore, three EBLCAC questions could be

TE
answered with ‘not applicable’, for example in the question “If based on regularly collected
statistics…” when the study did not include repeated measures. Thus, the possible scores for
EP
EBLCAC had a range of -28 to 28, with some studies having a possible range of -25 to 25.
To allow for comparisons between qualitative and quantitative studies, we standardized the
C
EBLCAC and QRC scores to a scale from 0 (low quality study) to 1 (high quality study).
AC
All publications were summarized and coded by four researchers (the two authors and
two research assistants). To establish interrater reliability, a sample set of 20 articles (= 26%)
was summarized and coded independently by all four researchers. Ten studies were assessed
with the EBLCAC and another ten with the QRC. This number was based on studies that
demonstrate that when using coding schemes with three options (-1, 0, +1), about 9-12 units
can be sufficient to determine Cohen’s kappa reliably with a power of 80% (Bujang and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Baharum, 2017). For the EBLCAC, a Cohen’s Kappa of 0.71 was established. For the QRC,
a Cohen’s Kappa of 0.68 was established. Both measures of interrater agreement can be
considered substantial (Landis & Koch, 1977). After establishing reliability of the
summarizing and coding methodology, each publication was assigned to two coders. The first
PT
coder formulated summary phrases and assigned a weight with the EBLCAC and/or QRC.
Especially when a value of -1 was assigned for one of the criteria, the second coder checked
RI
the results of the coding process. During the coding phase, weekly meetings were used to
SC
discuss eventual questions or doubts about any of the publications.
This method allowed us to process all types of evidence, including mixed method
U
studies that often included both quantitative and qualitative findings.
AN
Thematic analysis
In the final step, all summary phrases were collected and thematically categorized in
M
order to synthesize the separate studies. Our aim was to analyze the summary phrases derived
D
from the individual studies bottom up by letting the categories emerge from the data, but
TE
simultaneously, we tried to use a theoretical framework that could ground or unify the
categories we encountered within the phrases. This process was comparable to grounded
EP
theory (Boeije, 2010; Glaser & Strauss, 2007), where a data-driven approach is combined
with the use of sensitizing concepts to relate findings to existing theoretical constructs or
C
frameworks. We read the theoretical articles discovered during the literature search (see
AC
paragraph above) before we started to categorize all summary phrases. These articles
provided so-called sensitizing concepts. Sensitizing concepts are concepts that provide a
theoretical foundation for seeing and organizing data, and thereby provide direction to the
researcher during the coding process (Boeije, 2010). We then combined all summary phrases
by sorting them bottom up.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
All sentences were in the form “teacher guidance student outcome”. A coding
scheme thus had to be created for both teacher guidance (the independent or predictor
variable) and student interaction and outcomes (the dependent variable). After coding about a
quarter of the phrases, the categories that emerged for teacher guidance showed a distinction
PT
between, among others, how teachers observe or monitor CL, how they provide guidance,
and what the quality of this guidance was. At this point, the concept of scaffolding was
RI
introduced to make sense of these categories, since scaffolding was one of the sensitizing
SC
concepts in our collection of theoretical articles (i.e., Rojas-Drummond, Mercer, &
Dabrowski, 2001). Table 1 displays the full resulting coding scheme. We made a distinction
U
between interventions aimed at establishing students’ understanding (diagnosing) and
AN
providing guidance (intervening). Concerning interventions, a further distinction was made
between focus (what particular student activity the guidance was aimed at) and means of
M
interventions (how the guidance was enacted, Authors, 2013). The teachers’ focus may
D
address cognitive (task related) aspects or social aspects of collaboration. The former was
TE
identified as the content space of collaboration; the latter as the relational space of
collaboration (cf. Barron, 2003). A further distinction can be made between the performance
EP
level (execution) and meta (regulatory) level of student activity (Authors, 2013). For
example, students may discuss a task related concept (performance level) or discuss a
C
strategy for finding more information about this concept (regulatory level). In sum, four
AC
different foci of teacher guidance can therefore be distinguished (Authors, 2013): content
space performance level (e.g., explaining concepts), content space meta level (e.g., regulating
the learning process), relational space performance level (e.g., ensuring a positive group
climate), and relational space meta level (e.g., regulating the collaborative process).
Further characteristics of interventions were also coded, such as whether the
intervention was adapted to student needs (contingency), and whether control over the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
learning process was exerted by the teacher or the students (Van de Pol et al., 2010). Another
category of codes concerned how the teacher taught the lesson, for example what activities
were enacted and whether specific supportive objects were used. Table 1 shows the full
coding scheme for aspects of teacher guidance.
PT
For the process and outcomes of collaboration, a separate coding scheme was used.
Concerning outcomes, a distinction was made between individual and CL outcomes.
RI
Concerning the collaborative process, we used a coding scheme developed in earlier work
SC
(Authors, 2014a). This includes a dimension of participation (are students on task or not?)
and a dimension of elaboration (do students provide high or low level explanations?). Several
U
categories to code student guidance were comparable to the codes used for teacher guidance,
AN
namely the distinction between several types of activities students may engage in (which are
equal to the categories for the focus of teacher guidance in Table 1) and the distinction
M
between teacher and student control over the learning process. Table 2 shows the categories
D
that were used for outcomes of collaboration and students’ guidance during collaboration.
TE
Besides the independent and dependent variables of each sentence, the valence or
direction of each sentence was also coded. Each sentence could denote a positive, negative,
EP
or neutral relationship between the independent and dependent variable. In total, each
sentence was therefore assigned the following information: a thematic category for
C
independent and dependent variable, valence, and weight (based on the EBLCAC or QRC
AC
score of the publication the sentence was drawn from). A cross table was created that
displayed the independent variable × dependent variable, further refined for positive, neutral,
and negative evidence in terms of the sum of weight for each valence.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Results
Description of included studies
The final set of included studies consisted of 56 journal articles, eight conference
proceedings, one research report, and one dissertation. Thirty-three studies were conducted in
PT
primary education, and 33 in secondary education. The majority of studies were conducted in
the Math (n = 17) and Science (n = 20) domains. There was a wide range in sample size (1-51
RI
teachers). The majority of studies included between 1 and 10 participating teachers (n = 59).
SC
Five studies included between 10 and 20 teachers, and 2 studies between 30 and 50 teachers.
Similarly, the range in student sample size was considerable, namely 3 to 888. See Tables S2
U
and S3 (online only) for a complete overview of included studies and their characteristics.
AN
Quality appraisal
As the scores on the QRC and EBLCAC checklists determined the weight of each
M
article for answering the research question, we first discuss the average quality of included
D
studies, which is displayed in Table 3. On average, the 54 studies assessed with the QRC
TE
checklist scored 0.60 (SD = 0.14) on a scale from 0 to 1. As can be seen, most criteria score
at least 0.50 or higher. Two criteria stand out negatively, namely the relationship between
EP
researcher and participants (criterion 6), and ethical considerations (criterion 7). The average
score for these criteria is 0.11. Concerning criterion 6, this value is rather low as it was often
C
not clearly stated in research articles that performed observations or interventions, and how
AC
this affected the relation between researchers and participants. Concerning criterion 7, it must
be noted that very few articles explicitly explained how they dealt with ethical issues, such as
obtaining informed consent. It could be the case that ethical issues were indeed taken into
account, but that the article left no room for reporting on these issues.
On average, the 19 studies assessed with the EBLCAC checklist scored 0.63 (SD =
0.08) on a scale from 0 to 1. Because some criteria were not applicable to all studies, the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
number of studies is indicated in the last column. Again, most criteria score around 0.50 or
higher. The negative exceptions mostly have to do with the sample of the study (criteria 2 – 6
and 27), or ethical issues (criteria 8 and 20). Generally, the sample size of the studies was
rather low, and it was often the case that teachers were selected by means of convenience
PT
sampling. Studies that investigate teacher characteristics face the difficulty of having to
recruit a large number of classrooms in order for the number of teachers to be sufficient to
RI
obtain sufficient statistical power. It is therefore not surprising that these criteria related to the
SC
sample and sample size score low. Although small sample sizes in this case are thus
understandable, it often has negative consequences for the external validity (i.e.,
U
generalizability) of the included study.
AN
Association between teacher guidance and collaboration (process and outcomes)
Tables 4-8 display the results for several aspects of teacher guidance of CL. The
M
scores in the tables reflect the sum of the weights for each of the phrases for that particular
D
cell. The rows indicate aspects of teacher guidance of CL, and the columns indicate whether
TE
the included studies demonstrated a negative, neutral, or positive relation between that aspect
of teacher guidance and student behavior or learning outcomes.

EP
Association between teacher guidance and focus of student activities. Tables 4a
and 4b show the relationship teacher guidance and the focus of students’ activities during CL.
C
As the number of summary phrases shows, there is more research concerning students’
AC
activities in the content space (i.e., working on the task) than in the relational space (i.e.,
addressing group issues). Furthermore, the majority of available research investigated
students’ activities at the performance level (e.g., working on the task itself), and to a much
lesser extent activities at the meta level (i.e., how students regulate the learning and
collaborative process).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
A finding that emerges from Tables 4a and 4b is that students’ focus often mirrors the
focus of teacher guidance. When the focus of teacher guidance is on the content space of
collaboration (e.g., the teacher focuses on explaining subject matter or answers content
related questions), students mirror this by focusing their collaborative interaction on the
PT
content space. The mirroring effect is most clearly visible when teacher guidance addresses
the performance level of the content space (e.g., the teacher clarifies important concepts). For
RI
example, when teachers explain subject matter to students, students mirror this by also
SC
explaining subject matter to their group members. The mirroring effect is also visible when
teachers focus their support on the meta level. Interestingly, even more summary phrases
U
point to a positive association between teacher focus at the meta level and students’ activities
AN
at the performance level. Thus, when teachers discuss regulation of learning or collaboration
processes, this is positively associated with students’ engaging in learning activities and with
M
activities aimed at enhancing the group climate, more so than with students’ discussing these
D
regulating strategies themselves. Both Almasi, O’Flahavan, and Arya (2001) and Kuiper,
TE
Volman, and Terwel (2009) found that when teachers explicitly reminded students of rules
for effective collaboration (meta level), this was related to more supportive moves from
EP
group members (performance level).
In the content space at performance level, several means of teacher intervention are
C
generally positively associated with the occurrence of these type of student activities.
AC
Feedback, prompting and questioning are positively associated with students’ activities in the
content space. Results for the other means are less unambiguous; explaining or modelling and
summarizing or revoicing demonstrated positive as well as negative associations with the
occurrence of activities in the content space. Pifarré and Li (2012) for example showed that
when a teacher explains or models, this can sometimes cause a feeling of rejection of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
students’ ideas, thereby decreasing the number of student activities in the content space. The
same mechanism might hold for summarizing and revoicing of students’ ideas.
Similarly, diagnosing shows mixed results. Engeness and Edwards (2016) show
examples of when teachers attempt to check students’ understanding, it triggers students to
PT
summarize and further explain the concepts they are working on. Webb et al. (2009) found
that when teachers follow up with a clarification question on an explanation by a student, this
RI
sometimes led to further elaboration by the student. In other cases, following up with a
SC
clarification question was not associated with further student elaboration and in some cases
was followed by incorrect explanation by a student. According to Webb et al., diagnosing by
U
probing the student was effective when teachers used details of students’ answers in their
AN
question. Diagnosing was not effective when the teacher interjected his/her own thinking into
the verbalization.
M
Regarding the relational space at performance level, there are less outspoken results
D
for the means of teacher interventions. Explaining or modelling are both negatively and
TE
positively associated with the focus of students’ activities. Sandifer (2004) and Webb, Mari
Nemer, and Ing (2006) found that teacher explanations that are too general or too directive
EP
restrict the number of student activities in the relational space. On the other hand, Strømme
and Furberg (2015) found that using examples in teachers’ explanations was positively
C
related to students’ activities in the relational space.

AC
Teacher presence in general is associated positively with student activities in the
relational space at performance level. Thus, a teacher being present to survey while students
collaborate on the task seems to trigger more student activities concerning the group process.
The amount of control a teacher exerts can either increase or decrease the number of student
activities with a focus on the relational space. This seems to depend on the goal the teacher
has with being in control: in the study by Rozenszayn and Ben-Zvi Assaraf (2011), the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
teacher exerts control over the flow of the discussion to make sure a high and low ability
student succeed in being meaningful partners. In the studies by Groenke (2007), and Mercer
and Sams (2006), on the other hand, the teacher restricts students’ freedom in the content
space, thereby reducing students’ suggestions and responses. Thus, it appears teacher control
PT
or a substantial teacher presence may be appropriate when it concerns rules for collaboration.
RI
Association between teacher guidance and high and low level student
elaboration. Table 5 shows how teacher guidance is related to low and high level student
SC
elaboration (i.e., giving answers versus giving detailed explanations). The majority of
research has focused on studying high level elaboration. Most results demonstrate that
U
teacher guidance is positively associated with students’ use of high level elaboration during
AN
CL.
M
Concerning the focus of teacher guidance, focusing on the content space - either at
performance or meta level - generally increases the odds of high level elaboration occurring.
D
For the relational space, focusing on the performance level is associated with both low and
TE
high level student elaboration. Asterhan, Schwarz, and Gil (2012) for example found that
teacher guidance with this particular focus made students less critical towards each other’s
EP
ideas (low level elaboration). Franke et al. (2015) found that teacher interventions focusing
C
on the performance level in the relational space in some cases led to low level elaboration by
AC
students and in others to high level elaboration. This depended on the specific situation:
sometimes students needed more support from the teacher in the content space to be able to
engage in high level elaboration. This shows that follow-up support by the teacher is
sometimes necessary to stimulate students to use high level elaboration. Only one study
investigated the relationship between teacher guidance in the meta level of the relational
space and found a positive association with student elaboration.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Concerning the means of teacher guidance, almost all means were found to be
positively associated with high level elaboration. The exception is prompting: the included
studies documented negative (Lin et al., 2015), neutral (Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 1999),
and positive (Gillies & Khan, 2008) associations with high level elaboration. Lin et al. (2015)
PT
found that prompting led to less high level student elaboration when teachers also modelled
student behavior. That is, prompting without the occurrence of modelling seems to stimulate
RI
high level student elaboration to a greater extent. This confirms the finding by Gillies and
SC
Khan (2008), who found that prompts in the form of challenging students, led students to
provide reasons for their choices by integrating different sources. Thus, prompts seem to be
U
beneficial as long as the prompts leave room for students to initiate the elaboration by
AN
themselves.
Another finding that stands out is the influence of ‘teacher presence’ in general. We
M
found a number of studies showing a positive (e.g., Ellis, 2011) as well as a neutral (e.g.,
D
Woods-McConney, Wosnitza, & Sturrock, 2016) or negative association (e.g., Ros, 1993)
TE
between teacher presence and high level student elaboration. Two possible explanations for
the negative association between teacher presence and high level student elaboration are the
EP
timing and type of teacher support. Concerning timing, Ros (1993) found that longer duration
of teacher-student contact was related negatively with student elaboration. Thus, short
C
moments of teacher-student interaction seem preferable. Furthermore, only specific types of

AC
prompts led to high level student elaboration. The negative association between teacher
presence and high level student elaboration might thus be explained by the occurrence of
prompts that do not put students in control.
Association between teacher guidance and students’ on-task and off-task
participation. Table 6 shows the relationship between teacher guidance and students’ on-task
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and off-task participation. The majority of summary phrases concerns students’ on-task
participation. More than half of these phrases describe a positive relationship between teacher
guidance and on-task student participation. When teachers focus their guidance on the
relational space at performance level, this is especially beneficial for on-task participation.
PT
Thus, when teachers ensure there is a positive group climate, it stimulates students’ on-task
discussion. For example, Pijls and Dekker (2011) found that teacher support focusing on the
RI
relational space led to the occurrence of discussion between students more often and more
SC
eagerly.
Concerning the means of teacher guidance, all forms of intervention are positively
U
related to on-task discussion. In particular, asking questions can help to stimulate on-task
AN
participation. The means explaining or modelling show mixed results: both positive and
negative effects were found for on-task student participation. Negative effects are found
M
when the teachers’ support becomes too authoritative: students will gradually initiate fewer
D
episodes of discussion when the teacher models the required behavior for them (Almasi et al.,
TE
2001; Pifarré & Li, 2012; Tseng, Chang, & Lou, 2012). Instead, modelling should take the
form of a dialogue facilitator, so that students can continue mirroring this behavior when the
EP
teacher is not present (Sewell, St George, & Cullen, 2013). This is confirmed by studies that
investigated the amount of student and teacher control. When teachers give control to
C
students, this is positively related to students’ on-task participation. However, some studies
AC
demonstrated a positive relationship between teacher control and students’ on-task
participation, for example when students engage in off-task behavior and the discussion
needs to be redirected (Almasi et al., 2001).
Similar to findings discussed above, studies that examined the influence of the teacher
in general are not univocal. In some studies, teacher absence and teacher presence is not
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
associated with on-task and off-task behavior. Similarly, a positive association between both
teacher presence and teacher absence and on-task student participation is found. With
appropriate instructional design of the activity and guidance that is tailored to students’
needs, students are thus able to sustain on-task discussion without teacher presence (Pijls &
PT
Dekker, 2011; Van de Pol, Volman, Oort, & Beishuizen, 2015).
Association between teacher guidance and amount of teacher and student
RI
control, interaction with objects, and students’ perception of teacher. Table 7 shows the
SC
relationship between teacher guidance and several other process characteristics of CL,
namely the amount of teacher and student control, interaction with objects, and students’
U
perception of the teacher. As can be seen, the number of summary phrases in this table is
AN
rather low (n = 17), illustrating this is an area that is not yet investigated extensively.
Contingent teacher guidance is positively related to students’ perceptions of their teacher

M
(Asterhan & Schwarz, 2010; Van de Pol et al., 2015). Furthermore, the studies show that
D
teacher prompting can lead to both negative and positive perceptions of the teacher (Asterhan
TE
& Schwarz, 2010).
The expected mirroring between teacher and student control was found here as well:
EP
when teachers take more control, students show more dependency on the teacher (Ding et al.,
2007). Similarly, when teachers provide more control to students, students indeed show more
C
independent behavior (Almasi et al., 2001; Staples, 2008; Sutherland, 2006).

AC
Association between teacher guidance and outcomes of collaboration. A small
number of summary phrases concerned the association between teacher guidance and
outcomes of collaboration (see Table 8). A further distinction can be made between outcomes
in terms of collaborative products and individual learning outcomes. The first category
comprises of only four summary phrases, showing positive association between quality of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
collaborative products and teacher guidance in terms of employing CL elements, focusing on
the relational space on the meta level, and using the means feedback.
Concerning individual learning outcomes, 27 summary phrases were available. There
is about a fifty-fifty distribution between studies that find a neutral and a positive relationship
PT
between teacher guidance and individual learning outcomes. This was for the case for
contingency, focusing on the relational space at meta level, and the means feedback. These
RI
guidance strategies are not positively associated with individual learning outcomes (cf. Van
SC
de Pol et al, 2015; Oortwijn, Boekaerts, & Vedder, 2008). It is only when analyses are
controlled for specific other variables that teacher guidance is related to individual learning
U
outcomes. For example, Van de Pol et al. (2015) showed that high levels of contingent
AN
teacher support (i.e., when the specific support offered by the teacher is adapted to the needs
of the students) resulted in an increase in students' test scores only when students had a
M
relatively long time to work on the task.

D
In contrast to the earlier reported results, teacher presence was positively associated
TE
with individual learning outcomes. Studies that compared supervised and un-supervised
groups all reported increased learning outcomes for the supervised groups (Fung & Howe,
EP
2012; Hsieh & Tsai, 2012; Nuntrakune & Park, 2011). Fung and Howe (2012) demonstrate
this positive effect was due to supportive encouragement from the teacher, which led to
C
student motivation to elaborate and justify their opinions to the other group members.
AC
Discussion
The present study aimed to extend earlier reviews focusing on the role of the teacher
during collaborative learning (CL) by performing a systematic literature review that included
both qualitative and quantitative studies conducted in primary and secondary education.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Findings and contribution to scientific literature
Our review uncovered that several aspects of teacher guidance are positively associated with
student collaboration. It is important that teachers focus their guidance on the content space at
the meta level (e.g., giving feedback on students’ strategies or helping students plan their task
PT
progress) as well as on the relational space in general (e.g., giving feedback on students’
collaboration process or helping students resolve conflicts). The importance of focusing
RI
guidance on these types of activities is in line with reviews of collaborative processes that
SC
stress the beneficial effect of students discussing strategies for solving the task during the
collaborative process (e.g., Authors, 2012; Johnson & Johnson, 2009). This finding is also in
U
line with theoretical reviews of teacher guidance during CL that describe the distinction
AN
between several types of student activity that the teacher needs to support during CL (e.g.,
Kaendler et al., 2015). Apart from focusing directly at the task content (e.g., by answering
M
questions or giving feedback), it thus seems that it is even more important for teachers to
D
address how students can approach the collaborative task (at content meta level and in the
TE
relational space).
When teachers focus their attention on these aspects of student collaboration, we

EP
found that the most effective strategies for doing so are giving feedback, prompting and
questioning students, and transferring control over the learning process to students. In
C
contrast, not all teacher guidance is positively associated with students’ collaboration. Some
AC
aspects of teacher guidance were both positively and negatively associated with students’
collaboration. For example, when teachers are too present or absent during the collaborative
process, when they use explanations or act as a model, and when students experience too
much teacher dependence or teacher control. In our review, we tried to uncover why the
presence or absence of the teacher shows these mixed results. Studies that (quasi)
experimentally investigate the effect of teacher presence on student collaboration do not

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
always provide explanations for their findings, because information is often lost about which
type of interventions teachers performed and whether it was the student or the teacher that
was in control of the discussion. However, by combining quantitative and qualitative results,
more in-depth explanations of the role of teacher presence or absence were acquired. The
PT
explanation for the mixed results of teacher presence or absence seems to be that teachers are
required to walk a fine line between showing they are present, but simultaneously,
RI
transferring control to students over their own learning process. On the one hand, teacher
SC
presence is positively related to, among others, students’ on-task behavior. However, when
the teacher takes too much control over students’ learning processes, this is negatively related
U
to students’ collaboration. Thus, teachers need to be careful not to take away students’
AN
opportunities for learning, whilst still making sure they provide prompts, questions and
explanations at the right moments. This is especially beneficial when it concerns the meta
M
level of student activities (i.e., when teachers interact with students about their strategies for
D
solving the task or strategies for collaborating).

TE
It is also worth noting that when teachers explain or try to model effective
collaborative behavior that this not always contribute to students’ collaboration positively.
EP
This is in contrast to previous reviews that describe that teachers can be an effective model
concerning how to interact with group members (Dobber et al., 2014; Webb et al., 2009).
C
When reviewing the included studies, it becomes clear that teachers’ explanations and
AC
modelling behavior are not always beneficial for students’ collaboration. Again, available
studies seem to suggest that teachers are required to walk a fine line between explaining
sufficiently and explaining too much, and to find a balance in how much control teachers
should take over students’ collaborative process. We found that this relationship seems to be
complementary (Wubbels et al., 2014): when teachers take less control, students take up more
control, and vice versa. Our review therefore provides an initial indication that studying
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
teacher and student behavior in these terms could help to explain the role of the teacher
during CL (for example, see Wubbels et al., 2014 for a discussion of the interpersonal model
of behavior).
Implications for practice
PT
Our review points to particular foci and means of teacher guidance that are positively
related to student collaboration. Our results suggest that teachers should try to not only focus
RI
on the content of the task (performance level) while guiding groups of students, but also on
SC
the meta level of collaboration. They may do this by paying attention to strategies students
employ for solving the task and strategies they employ for collaboration. Furthermore,
U
teachers should try to transfer control over the learning process to their students, for example
AN
by letting students know help is available, but without imposing this help. The results showed
that teacher guidance during CL that focuses on students’ activities in the content space at
M
meta level or on the relational space in general is positively associated with student
D
collaboration and learning outcomes. It is therefore a promising direction for teacher

TE
education programs (either pre-service or in-service) to focus on developing teachers’
competences in those areas.

EP
Limitations and directions for future research
The strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from this review depend on the
C
quality of the included studies. As part of this review, we also performed a quality appraisal
AC
of the included studies. During our quality appraisal process, we noted that it was not always
straightforward to objectively assess the quality indicators included in the EBLCAC and
QRC checklists. Only after extensive practice and discussion between researchers and
research assistants, we managed to obtain Cohen’s kappa’s that were sufficient. Furthermore,
the quality appraisal process was sometimes hindered by the fact that studies do not report
information that needs to be assessed (e.g., whether informed consent was obtained). It could
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
therefore for example not be distinguished whether the authors did not explicitly report
whether informed consent was obtained, or whether they indeed failed to obtain it.
These challenges withstanding, we assessed all included studies with the EBLCAC or
QRC instruments. In general, the included studies scored well on most criteria, although
PT
sampling procedure and sample size scored considerably lower than one might want or hope.
Many studies employed a convenience sampling procedure. This could have introduced a
RI
source of bias because teachers mostly participate because they are interested in applying CL
SC
in their classroom. The small sample sizes employed in many studies limit the external
validity of the findings of these studies.
U
During this review we made a number of choices that affect the obtained results and
AN
the interpretation of those results. First of all, during our analyses we decided to use the
scaffolding framework for categorizing and coding the articles that were uncovered during
M
our literature search. Using other theoretical frameworks (such as the model of interpersonal
D
teacher behavior, cf. Wubbels et al., 2014) could inspire new avenues of theoretical
TE
development and investigation of teacher guidance.
Another choice in this review concerned the phase of collaboration that we focused
EP
on. In the framework by Kaendler et al. (2015), a distinction is made between the teacher’s
role during the pre-active, inter-active, and post-active phases of student collaboration. In the
C
present review, we have focused primarily on the inter-active phase. This means that our
AC
review does not provide insight into for example the effect of teachers’ decisions during the
pre-active phase. As described in the introduction and as the results of our review show, the
inter-active phase is very demanding for teachers because of the number of groups they have
to supervise and the balance they have to find between giving to students and taking control
over students’ learning process. As Staples (2008) notes, because the teacher is unable to
monitor each group for extended periods of time, it is essential that teachers establish certain
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
rules and goals for collaboration that indirectly provide support to students. The question is
thus whether teachers’ behavior in the preparation phase impacts how teachers guide students
in the inter-active phase. For example, when teachers consciously establish ground rules for
effective collaboration (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003; Rojas-Drummond et al., 2013),
PT
does this affect the support their students require during CL? Also, work by Kovalainen and
Kumpulainen (2005) shows that classroom norms are associated with how students
RI
participate during discussions, further supporting the view that teachers activities in the
SC
preparation phase affect activities in the inter-active phase. Thus, although it was not our
direct object of study, a hypothesis for future research could be that the preparation phase
U
(Kaendler et al., 2015) moderates the influence of the teacher during the execution phase.
AN
The present review focused on the role of the teacher during CL, and as such,
included studies that primarily reported on teacher characteristics. This means that more
M
detailed information about the students under guidance of those teachers was often not
D
available, and that we could not include student characteristics in our analyses. For example,
TE
research has demonstrated that collaborative interaction is affected by the familiarity of
students with their group members and the amount of experience students have with
EP
collaboration in groups (see for example Authors, 2009). In these situations students may
require less coordination and regulation of group processes and thus their teachers may need
C
to focus their guidance less on these activities. As stated, the studies included in our review
AC
did not include sufficient information to explore this possibility.
Similarly, we were unable to distinguish between different types of collaborative
tasks. In primary education, collaborative tasks are frequently highly structured and closed
(Cohen, 1994), whereas in secondary education, complex or even wicked collaborative tasks
are used more often (Van Bruggen, Boshuizen, & Kirschner, 2003; Munneke, Andriessen,
Kanselaar & Kirschner, 2007). As these different types of collaborative tasks require different
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
student activities to be successful, it may also be the case that effective teacher guidance may
be different for highly structured, closed tasks compared to complex open tasks. Similarly,
collaborative tasks differ in the learning objectives that they are targeted at. Although
collaborative learning tasks are often employed to obtain cognitive learning objectives,
PT
teachers also frequently employ collaborative learning to for example strengthen students’
collaborative problem solving or social skills (OECD, 2017; Authors, 2018). Furthermore,
RI
collaborative learning situations are increasing being used to develop students’ creative skills
SC
(Kumpulainen, Mikkola, & Jaatinen, 2013). In these CL scenarios, students might require
different guidance from their teachers compared to CL tasks that are aimed at cognitive
U
learning objectives. For example, in those situations students may require more support
AN
aimed at helping them carry out activities in the relational space of collaboration (e.g.,
discussing ways of working together, offering affective support and so on). In our review
M
however, we found that most studies investigated how teachers supported students in carrying
D
out activities in the content space of collaboration. It is therefore important that future
TE
research on teacher guidance during CL addresses different types of CL learning objectives
and investigate how teachers can best guide their students in these situations. Also, because
EP
many studies did not provide sufficient information to reliably determine the type of
collaborative task used, we are unable to investigate the role of these characteristics.
C
Furthermore, many studies we uncovered were of a qualitative nature; to investigate the

AC
effects of task type on teacher guidance and subsequent student collaboration, it is also
necessary that quantitative studies experimentally manipulate task type. Pursuing this avenue
of inquiry seems like a promising future direction for CL research.
Lastly, other internal and external factors influence teacher guidance strategies during
CL as well. Internal teacher factors are for example the number of years of teaching
experience: teachers with more experience concerning CL report to be more able to detect
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and respond to collaborative problems (Kopp, Matteucci, & Tomasetto, 2012). The number
of collaborating groups, the size of the class, and the use of technology to facilitate
collaboration are examples of contextual factors that affect what kind of guidance a teacher is
able to provide. For example, when the number of groups increases, it is harder for a teacher
PT
to provide adequate guidance (Schwartz & Asterhan, 2011). A quick initial search for all of
these internal and external factors showed that there is relatively little empirical work
RI
available that focuses on the possible moderating effects of these contextual factors. This is
SC
thus another area deserving of more research.
Another contextual factor, the use of technology, has indeed gained increased interest
U
in the last decade. So called learning analytics approaches capture student interaction data
AN
and provide analyses of these data to the teacher, with the aim of helping the teacher to
monitor student collaboration (Authors, 2014b). Similarly, teaching analytics provide

M
teachers with data about their own behavior, which could help them to deduce how prominent
D
or influential they were within the group, and adjust their guidance accordingly (Sergis &
TE
Sampson, 2016). This could also be a fruitful avenue for future research. Technology, in the
form of learning or teaching analytics, can be used as an alternative or addition to teacher

EP
education programs in supporting teachers when guiding groups of collaborating students.
The present review shows that, because this is such a complex task, such additional support
C
could be helpful.
AC
Conclusion
This review synthesized quantitative and qualitative evidence concerning the role of
the teacher during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Several types
of teacher guidance were shown to be especially beneficial for CL. With this review, we
therefore hope to have offered a theoretical contribution by expanding the knowledge about
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the role of the teacher during CL, and a practical contribution by indicating possible
directions for development of pre-service or in-service teacher education programs.
The results of this study show how teachers play a crucial role in supporting
interaction between students that stimulate learning. As Emmer and Gerwels (2005) fittingly
PT
state, the metaphor of the teacher as a facilitator of collaboration is sometimes falsely taken to
mean that the teacher has a passive role. This is by no means the case, as the results of this
RI
review confirm. The challenge for the teacher is to remain a central figure in supporting CL,
SC
without taking control of the moments in which opportunities to learn arise for students.
References
U
Studies marked with * are included in the literature review, see also Table S2 (online only).
AN
Authors (2007). Blinded for review
Authors (2009). Blinded for review

M
Authors (2012). Blinded for review.

D

TE
Authors (2014a). Blinded for review.
Authors (2014b). Blinded for review.

EP

C
*Alghasab, M. (2016). The impact of EFL teachers’ mediation in wiki-mediated collaborative

AC
writing activities on student-student collaboration. In S. Papadima-Sophocleous, L.
Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds), CALL communities and culture – short papers from
EUROCALL 2016 (pp. 1-6). Research-publishing.net.
doi:10.14705/rpnet.2016.eurocall2016.529
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
*Almasi, J. F., O’Flahavan, J. F., & Arya, P. (2001). A comparative analysis of student and
teacher development in more and less proficient discussions of literature. Reading
Research Quarterly, 36(2), 96–120.
Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In
PT
pursuit of common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4), 438-446.
*Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-
RI
argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
SC
5, 259–282. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9088-2
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden
U
Paths and Unexplored Territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164-187.
AN
doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
*Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B. B., & Gil, J. (2012). Small-group, computer-mediated

M
argumentation in middle-school classrooms: The effects of gender and different types

D
of online teacher guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 375–397.

TE
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02030.x
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307-
EP
359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
*Boardman, A. G., Boelé, A. L., & Klingner, J. K. (2018). Strategy instruction shifts teacher
C
and student interactions during text-based discussions. Reading Research Quarterly,

AC
53(2), 175–195. doi:10.1002/rrq.191
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. London, UK: SAGE.
Bujang, M. A., & Baharum, N. (2017). Guidelines of the minimum sample size requirements
for Cohen’s Kappa. Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health, 14, e12267-1-
e12267-10. doi:10.2427/12267
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CASP (2006). Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: the Qualitative Research Checklist.
Available from
http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_29c5b002d99342f788c6ac670e49f274.pdf
Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A., & Tsai, C. (2018). The Role of Collaboration,
PT
Computer Use, Learning Environments, and Supporting Strategies in CSCL: A Meta-
Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 799-843.
RI
doi:10.3102/0034654318791584
SC
*Chiu, M. M. (1998). Teachers effects on student motivation during group work: activity and
intervention level analyses. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
U
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED428043
AN
Chinn, C. A., O'Donnell, A. M.,& Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in
collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 77-97.

M
doi:10.1080/00220970009600650
D
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.
TE
Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
*Davidsen, J., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). ‘You should collaborate, children’: a study of
EP
teachers’ design and facilitation of children’s collaboration around touchscreens.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(5), 573-593.

C
doi:10.1080/1475939X.2015.1127855
AC
De Hei, M. S. A., Sjoer, E., Admiraal, W., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2016). Teacher educators’
design and implementation of group learning activities. Educational Studies, 42, 394-
409. doi:10.1080/03055698.2016.1206461
De Smet, M., Keer, H. Van, Wever, B. De, & Valcke, M. (2010). Cross-age peer tutors in
asynchronous discussion groups: Exploring the impact of three types of tutor training
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
on patterns in tutor support and on tutor characteristics. Computers & Education, 54,
1167-1181. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.002
*Dekker, R., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (2004). Teacher interventions aimed at mathematical level
raising. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 39–65.
PT
doi:10.1177/1745691612459060.
Dillenbourg P. (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning? In: P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),
RI
Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp.1-19). Oxford,
SC
UK: Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on
U
collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and
AN
machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
M
*Ding, M., Li, X., Piccolo, D., & Kulm, G. (2007). Teacher interventions in cooperative-
D
learning mathematics classes. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 162–175.

TE
doi:10.3200/JOER.100.3.162-175
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising
EP
qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health
Services Research and Policy, 10, 45-53.

C
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., … Sutton,
AC
A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to
healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6(1), 35-48.
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
Dobber, M., Tanis, M., Zwart, R. C., & Van Oers, H. J. M. (2014). Beter leren door
onderzoek: hoe begeleid je onderzoekend leren van leerlingen? NWO project number
411-12-209.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
*Ellis, A. B. (2011). Generalizing-promoting actions: how classroom collaborations can
support students’ mathematical generalizations. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 42, 308–345.
*Emmer, E. T., & Gerwels, M. C. (2002). Cooperative learning in elementary classrooms:
PT
teaching practices and lesson characteristics. The Elementary School Journal, 103,
75–92.
RI
*Emmer, E. T., & Gerwels, M. C. (2005). Establishing classroom management for
SC
cooperative learning: three cases. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
U
*Engeness, I., & Edwards, A. (2016). The complexity of learning: Exploring the interplay of
AN
different mediational means in group learning with digital tools. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 61(6), 650-667.

M
doi:10.1080/00313831.2016.1173093
D
Flemming, K. (2010). Synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research: an example using

TE
Critical Interpretive Synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(1), 201-217.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05173.x
EP
*Franke, M. L., Turrou, A. C., Webb, N. M., Ing, M., Wong, J., Shin, N., & Fernandez, C.
(2015). Student engagement with others’ mathematical ideas. The Elementary School
C
Journal, 116(1), 126–148. doi:10.1086/683174

AC
*Fung, D., & Howe, C. (2012). Liberal studies in hong kong: A new perspective on critical
thinking through group work. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(2), 101–111.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.002
*Fung, D, & Lui, W. (2016). Individual to collaborative: guided group work and the role of
teachers in junior secondary science classrooms. International Journal of Science
Education, 38(7), 1057-1076. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1177777

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
*Furberg, A. (2016). Teacher support in computer-supported lab work: bridging the gap
between lab experiments and students’ conceptual understanding. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 89-113.
doi:10.1007/s11412-016-9229-3
PT
*Gillies, R. M. (2011). Promoting thinking, problem-solving and reasoning during small
group discussions. Teachers and Teaching, 17, 73–89.
RI
doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.538498
SC
Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2008). Teachers’ discourse during cooperative learning and their
perceptions of this pedagogical practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1333-
U
1348. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.003
AN
*Gillies, R. M., & Khan, A. (2008). The effects of teacher discourse on students’ discourse,
problem-solving and reasoning during cooperative learning. International Journal of

M
Educational Research, 47, 323–340. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2008.06.001

D
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2007). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
TE
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.
Glynn, L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information research. Library Hi
EP
Tech, 24, 387-399. doi:10.1108/07378830610692154
*González, G., & DeJarnette, A. F. (2015). Teachers’ and students’ negotiation moves when
C
teachers scaffold group work. Cognition and Instruction, 33(1), 1–45.

AC
doi:10.1080/07370008.2014.987058
*Groenke, S. L. (2007). Collaborative dialogue in a synchronous CMC environment? A look
at one beginning English teacher’s strategies. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 24(2), 41–47.
*Hewitt, E. (2014). Emerging thoughts on an approach to engaging pupils in effective group
talk in science. Education 3-13, 42, 402–418. doi:10.1080/03004279.2012.713373

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
*Hofmann, R., & Mercer, N. (2016). Teacher interventions in small group work in secondary
mathematics and science lessons. Language and Education, 30(5), 400-416.
doi:10.1080/09500782.2015.1125363
*Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative
PT
scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions author(s). Cognition and
Instruction, 17, 379–432. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1704
RI
*Hsieh, Y.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). The effect of moderator’s facilitative strategies on
SC
online synchronous discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1708–1716.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.010
U
*Hudson, B. (1997). Group work with multimedia in mathematics: the role of the technology
AN
and of the teacher. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 257-270.
doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00033
M
*Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J.,
D
Dong, T, & Wu, X. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-
TE
led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–
230. doi:10.3102/0002831210371498s
EP
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
C
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
AC
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365-
379. doi:10.3102/0013189X09339057
Kaendler, C., Wiedmann, M., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2015). Teacher Competencies for
the Implementation of Collaborative Learning in the Classroom: a Framework and
Research Review. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 505-536. doi:10.1007/s10648-
014-9288-9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Kopp, B., Matteucci, M. C., & Tomasetto, C. (2012). E-tutorial support for collaborative
online learning: An explorative study on experienced and inexperienced e-tutors.
Computers & Education, 58(1), 12-20. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.019
Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2005). The discursive practice of participation in an
PT
elementary classroom community. Instructional Science, 33, 213-250. doi:
10.1007/s11251-005-2810-1
RI
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems. W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social
SC
interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of
the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353. doi:10.1016/S0747-
U
5632(02)00057-2
AN
*Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2009). Developing web literacy in collaborative
inquiry activities. Computers & Education, 52, 668–680.

M
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.010
D
Kumpulainen, K., Mikkola, A., & Jaatinen, A.-M. (2013). The chronotopes of technology-
TE
mediated creative learning practices in an elementary school community. Learning,
Media and Technology, 39, 53-74. doi:10.1080/17439884.2012.752383

EP
Kyndt, E., Raes, E., Lismont, B., Timmers, F., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2014). A meta-
analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or

C
verify earlier findings? Educational Research Review, 10, 133-149.

AC
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002
Landis J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
*Lin, T., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Baker, A. R., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Kim, I., … Wu, X.
(2015). Less is more: teachers’ influence during peer collaboration. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 107, 609–629. doi:10.1037/a0037758

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
*Liu, L. (2008). Trajectories of collaborative scientific conceptual change: Middle school
students learning about ecosystems in a CSCL environment. Unpublished
Dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996).
PT
Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–
458. doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004423
RI
*Maloch, B. (1999). Shifting to student-centered, collaborative classrooms: implementing
SC
student-led discussion groups. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
U
*Mandel, S. (1991). Responses to cooperative learning processes among elementary-age
AN
students. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.

M
McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Collaborative or cooperative learning. In T. S.

D
Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and Practice (pp. 203-2014).
TE
Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
*McIntyre, E., Kyle, D., & Moore, G. (2006). A primary-grade teacher’s guidance toward
EP
small-group dialogue. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 36–66.
doi:10.1598/RRO.41.1.2
C
*Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths
AC
problems. Language and Education, 20, 507–528. doi:10.2167/le678.0
Mullins, D., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2011). Are two heads always better than one?
differential effects of collaboration on students' computer-supported learning in
mathematics. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
6, 421-443. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9122-z
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Supporting interactive
argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1072-1088. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.003
*Nath, L. R., Ross, S., & Smith, L. (1996). A case study of implementing a learning program
PT
cooperative in an inner-city school. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(2),
117–136.
RI
*Noversa, S., Abreu, C., Varela, P., & Costa, M. F. M. (2013). Investigating shadows: a
SC
pedagogical intervention project with primary school children. Paper presented at the
Education and Training in Optics and Photonics conference, Porto, Portugal.
U
*Nuntrakune, T., & Park, J. Y. (2011). Scaffolding techniques: a teacher training for
AN
cooperative learning in Thailand primary education. The International Journal of
Pedagogy and Curriculum, 19(2), 103–114.

M
*Oakley, W. F., & Corcker, R. K. (1977). An exploratory study of teacher interventions in

D
elementary science laboratory groups. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
TE
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Cincinnati, OH.
OECD (2017). Collaborative Problem Solving. PISA in Focus, 78, doi:10.1787/cdae6d2e-en

EP
*Oortwijn, M. B., Boekaerts, M., Vedder, P., & Strijbos, J.-W. W. (2008). Helping behaviour
during cooperative learning and learning gains: The role of the teacher and of pupils’
C
prior knowledge and ethnic background. Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 146–159.
AC
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.014
*Oortwijn, M., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. (2008). The impact of the teacher’s role and
pupils’ ethnicity and prior knowledge on pupils’ performance and motivation to
cooperate. Instructional Science, 36, 251–268. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9032-7
*Panselinas, G., & Komis, V. (2009). “Scaffolding” through talk in groupwork learning.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(2), 86–103. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.06.002

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
*Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Lehtinen, E. (2005). Tutor scaffolding styles of dilemma solving in
network-based role-play. Learning and Instruction, 15, 571–587.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.08.002
*Pifarré, M., & Li, L. (2012). Teaching how to learn with a wiki in primary education: What
PT
classroom interaction can tell us. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(2), 102–
113. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.05.004
RI
*Pijls, M., & Dekker, R. (2011). Students discussing their mathematical ideas: The role of the
SC
teacher. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23, 379–396. doi:10.1007/s13394-
011-0022-3
U
*Pijls, M., Dekker, R., & Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). Teacher help for conceptual level raising
AN
in mathematics. Learning Environments Research, 10, 223–240. doi:10.1007/s10984-
007-9032-1
M
Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health
D
evidence: A guide to methods. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

TE
*Quebec Fuentes, S. (2013). Fostering communication between students working
collaboratively: Results from a practitioner action research study. Mathematics

EP
Teacher Education and Development, 15(1), 48–71.
*Rodriguez, B. J., & Anderson, C. M. (2013). Integrating a social behavior intervention

C
during small group academic instruction using a total group criterion intervention.
AC
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 234–245.
doi:10.1177/1098300713492858
Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-
assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240-257.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective
collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99-
111. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00075-2
Rojas-Drummond, S., Mercer, N., & Dabrowski, E. (2001). Collaboration, scaffolding and
PT
the promotion of problem solving strategies in Mexican pre-schoolers. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(2), 179–196. doi:10.1007/BF03173024
RI
*Rojas-Drummond, S., Torreblanca, O., Pedraza, H., Vélez, M., & Guzmán, K. (2013).
SC
“Dialogic scaffolding”: Enhancing learning and understanding in collaborative
contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 11–21.
U
doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.003
AN
*Ros, A. (1993). Peer work groups in Dutch classroom practice. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

M
Roschelle J., & Teasley S.D. (1995) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative
D
problem solving. In: O’Malley C. (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

TE
(pp. 69-97). Berlin: Springer.
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents'
EP
achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223-246. doi:

C
10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223
AC
*Ross, J. A., Haimes, D. H., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1996). Improving student helpfulness in
cooperative learning groups. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 31(2), 13–22.
*Rozenszayn, R., & Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O. (2011). When collaborative learning meets nature:
collaborative learning as a meaningful learning tool in the ecology inquiry based
project. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 123–146. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-
9149-6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to.
International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89-99.
*Sandifer, C. (2004). Teacher and curriculum factors that influence middle school students’
sense-making discussions of force/motion. Paper presented at the Physics Education
PT
Research Conference, Sacramento, CA.
Schwarz, B. B. & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in
RI
educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 395-
SC
442. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.553257
Sergis, S., & Sampson, G. (2016). Teaching and learning analytics to support teacher
U
inquiry : A systematic literature review. In A. Peña-Ayala (Ed.), Learning analytics:
AN
Fundaments, applications, and trends: A view of the current state of the art. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

M
*Sewell, A., St George, A., & Cullen, J. (2013). The distinctive features of joint participation
D
in a community of learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 31(1), 46–55.

TE
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.11.007
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Using student team learning (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
EP
University.
Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational psychology: theory and practice (5th ed.). Needham
C
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon

AC
*Staples, M. E. (2008). Promoting student collaboration in a detracked, heterogeneous
secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11,
349–371. doi:10.1007/s10857-008-9078-8
*Strømme, T. A., & Furberg, A. (2015). Exploring teacher intervention in the intersection of
digital resources, peer collaboration, and instructional design. Science Education, 99,
837–862. doi:10.1002/sce.21181
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sung, Y.-T., Yang, J.-M., & Lee, H.-Y. (2017). The effects of mobile computer-supported
collaborative learning: A meta-analysis and critical synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 87, 768-805. doi:10.3102/0034654317704307
*Sutherland, J. (2006). Promoting group talk and higher-order thinking in pupils by
PT
“coaching” secondary English trainee teachers. Literacy, 40, 106–114.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.2006.00436.x
RI
*Tseng, K.-H., Chang, C.-C., & Lou, S.-J. (2012). The process, dialogues, and attitudes of
SC
vocational engineering high school students in a web problem-based learning (WPBL)
system. Interactive Learning Environments, 20, 547–562.
U
doi:10.1080/10494820.2010.542756
AN
Van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for
cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J.

M
Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools

D
for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 25-47). London: Springer.

TE
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student
interaction: a decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.

EP
doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
*Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in
C
the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time in relation
AC
to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support. Instructional Science,
43, 615–641. doi:10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z
Van Wesel, F., Boeije, H., & Alisic, E. (2015). Towards a method for synthesizing diverse
evidence using hypotheses as common language. Quality & Quantity, 49, 2237-2249.
doi:10.1007/s11135-014-0105-9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
*Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., & Arsenault, A. (2007). Urban primary-grade
children think and talk science: curricular and instructional practices that nurture
participation and argumentation. Science Education, 91(1), 36–74.
doi:10.1002/sce.20232
PT
*Wanzek, J., Kent, S. C., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E. A., Roberts, G., & Haynes, M. (2015).
Implementing team-based learning in middle school social studies classes. The
RI
Journal of Educational Research, 108, 331–344. doi:10.1080/00220671.2014.893224
SC
*Warwick, P., Mercer, N., & Kershner, R. (2013). “Wait, let”s just think about this’: Using
the interactive whiteboard and talk rules to scaffold learning for co-regulation in
U
collaborative science activities. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 42–51.
AN
doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.004
Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom.
M
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1-28.

D
doi:10.1348/000709908X380772
TE
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). The development of students' helping behavior
and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 361-428.
EP
*Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K.
(2009). “Explain to your partner”: teachers’ instructional practices and students’

C
dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70.

AC
doi:10.1080/03057640802701986
*Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2008).
The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 33, 360–381. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.003

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
*Webb, N. M., Mari Nemer, K., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: parallels between
teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63–119. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501
*Woods-McConney, A., Wosnitza, M., & Sturrock, K. L. (2016). Inquiry and groups: student
PT
interactions in cooperative inquiry-based science. International Journal of Science
Education, 38(5), 842-860. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1169454
RI
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., Den Brok, P., Wijsman, L., Mainhard, T., & Van Tartwijk, J.
SC
(2014). Teacher-student relationships and classroom management. In: Emmer E.,
Sabornie E. J. (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management (pp. 363–386). New
U
York, NY: Routledge.
AN
*Yukhymenko, M. A, Brown, S. W., Lawless, K. A, Brodowinska, K., & Mullin, G. (2014).
Thematic analysis of teacher instructional practices and student responses in middle

M
school classrooms with problem-based learning environment. Global Education

D
Review, 1(3), 93–109.

TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1
Categories for Teacher Guidance
Main code Sub code Definition

Lesson structuring Classroom activities The type of learning activities teachers use in their
sessions (individual versus collaborative) and the
way these are ordered
CL elements The implementation of specific collaborative
PT
learning elements, such as interdependence between
students
Goals and objectives Clarifying or setting the goals and objectives of
collaboration
RI
Use of objects Using objects in the classroom such as an interactive
whiteboard or physical lesson planners
Diagnosis Asking Questions to understand the current
situation, what problem students may have, and to
SC
grasp students’ understanding
Means of Prompting Giving a hint or a reminder, without supplying the
intervention solution or detailed instructions.
Questioning Requesting particular information from students
U
Encouragement / Praise Encouraging or praising as a means to motivate
students
Explaining / Modelling Providing direct answers or information, or showing
AN
students how to proceed
Feedback Evaluating students’ behavior or work
Classroom management Maintaining order and structure in the classroom
Summarizing/revoicing Summarizing or paraphrasing what students said
M
Focus of intervention Content meta Defines what student activity the teachers’
Content performance intervention is aimed at. For definitions of the four
Relational meta types of activities, see Table 2.
D
Relational performance
Characteristics Contingency The extent to which guidance is adapted to the needs
of the students
TE
Temporal aspects/ pace Specific timing or ordering of interventions

Teacher control The extent to which the teacher takes control of
students’ learning processes, for example by
providing solutions or explicit instruction on how to
EP
proceed
Student control The extent to which students have control over their
own learning processes, for example by being able
to determine their own problem solving strategies
C
Frequency Teacher absence Absence of the teacher or of guidance provided by

the teacher
Teacher presence Presence of the teacher or the occurrence of
AC
guidance provided by the teacher

Other Bulk categories of teaching When teacher guidance is considered without further
behavior specification of for example the employed means
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2
Categories for Outcomes and Process of Collaborative Learning (CL)
Main code Sub code Definition

Process of CL
Activities Content performance Activities related to the task and acquiring a deeper
understanding of the associated knowledge domain,
such as formulating answers, verbalizing ideas and
PT
discussing concepts
Content meta Activities related to discussing the best strategy to
solve the task and related to monitoring task
progress
RI
Relational performance Activities related to enabling students to interact
meaningfully in the content space, such as focusing
the discussion and checking group members’
understanding
SC
Relational meta Activities related to discussing the best strategy to
collaborate on the task, such as planning and
monitoring the collaboration
Elaboration Low level elaboration Reflects lower quality interaction with little or no
U
elaboration
High level elaboration Reflects high quality interaction, such as instances
where the help given to other group members
AN
contains an elaborate explanation
Participation Participation on task When students are engaged with the learning
materials
Participation off task When students are engaged with topics other than
M
the learning materials

Characteristics of Teacher control The extent to which the teacher takes control of
activities students’ learning processes, for example by
D
providing solutions or explicit instruction on how to

proceed
Student control The extent to which students have control over their
TE
own learning processes, for example by being able

to determine their own problem solving strategies
Other Interaction with object / How students engage in interaction with objects
learning environment such as a digital learning environment
EP
Perception of teacher How students perceive the guidance provided by the

teacher
Outcomes of CL
C
Learning outcomes Collaborative Collaborative outcomes of collaboration, such as the

quality or correctness of the solution the group came
up with
AC
Individual Individual learning outcomes of collaboration,

measured for example with a knowledge test
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 3
Average Scores for the Criteria of the QRC and EBLCAC Checklists
# QRC M SD n
1 Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? 0.92 0.23 54
2 Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? 0.84 0.29 54
3 Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? 0.86 0.23 54
4 Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the 0.49 0.34 54
aims of the research?
PT
5 Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? 0.74 0.32 54
6 Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately 0.11 0.29 54
considered?
7 Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? 0.11 0.20 54
RI
8 Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? 0.57 0.36 54
9 Is there a clear statement of findings? 0.70 0.34 54
10 Is the research valuable? 0.71 0.33 54
SC
# EBLCAC M SD n
1 Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? 0.97 0.11 19
2 Is the study population representative of all users. actual and eligible. who 0.32 0.25 19
might be included in the study?
U
3 Are inclusion and exclusion criteria definitively outlined? 0.29 0.38 19
4 Is the sample size large enough for sufficiently precise estimates? 0.05 0.23 19
5 Is the response rate large enough for sufficiently precise estimates? 0.05 0.23 19
AN
6 Is the choice of population bias-free? 0.16 0.24 19
7 If a comparative study: 0.88 0.31 11
8 Was informed consent obtained? 0.13 0.28 19
9 Are data collection methods clearly described? 0.95 0.16 19
M
10 If a face-to-face survey: were inter-observer and intra-observer bias 1.00 1

reduced?
11 Is the data collection instrument validated? 0.53 0.35 19
12 If based on regularly collected statistics. are the statistics free from 1.00 0.00 4
D
subjectivity?
13 Does the study measure the outcome at a time appropriate for capturing the 1.00 0.00 19
TE
intervention’s effect?
14 Is the instrument included in the publication? 0.84 0.29 19
15 Are questions posed clearly enough to be able to elicit precise answers? 0.74 0.26 19
16 Were those involved in data collection not involved in delivering a service 0.42 0.42 19
EP
to the target population?

17 Is the study type / methodology utilized appropriate? 0.97 0.11 19
18 Is there face validity? 0.95 0.16 19
19 Is the research methodology clearly stated at a level of detail that would 0.82 0.30 19
allow its replication?
C
20 Was ethics approval obtained? 0.05 0.16 19

21 Are the outcomes clearly stated and discussed in relation to the data 0.92 0.19 19
AC
collection?
22 Are all the results clearly outlined? 0.82 0.30 19
23 Are confounding variables accounted for? 0.55 0.44 19
24 Do the conclusions accurately reflect the analysis? 0.97 0.11 19
25 Is subset analysis a minor. rather than a major. focus of the article? 0.92 0.25 19
26 Are suggestions provided for further areas to research? 0.92 0.25 19
27 Is there external validity? 0.26 0.26 19
28 Is the research valuable? 0.82 0.25 19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 4a
Evidence for the Association between Teacher Support and Focus of Student Activities in the Content Space
Content space meta level Content space performance level
PT
Negative Neutral Positive Negative Neutral Positive
Teacher behavior Score N Score N Score N Score N Score N Score N
Bulk 0.60 1
RI
Collaborative learning elements
Contingency
SC
Diagnose 1.30 2 2.65 4
Focus Content space meta level 2.38 4 0.65 1 5.65 8
U
Focus Content space performance level 2.85 4 0.65 1 11.38 17
Focus Relational space meta level 0.65 1 0.75 1
AN
Focus Relational space performance level 0.55 1 0.65 1 0.55 1
Frequency - Teacher absence 1.98 3 0.50 1
M
Frequency - Teacher presence 0.65 1 2.06 3
Goals and objectives
Means Classroom management 1.97 3
D
Means Encouragement or Praise 0.65 1 0.65 1
TE
Means Explaining or Modelling 2.70 4 0.65 1 5.15 8
Means Feedback 0.75 1 0.68 1 0.70 1 4.00 6
Means Prompting 0.60 1 5.10 8
EP
Means Questioning 0.85 2 0.65 1 6.10 10
Means Summarizing or revoicing 1.40 2 1.40 2
C
Teacher dependence/teacher control 0.80 1 0.60 1

Teacher independence/student control 0.65 1 0.70 1
AC
Temporal pattern 0.80 1 0.75 1 0.70 1

Use of objects
Total 2.20 3 0 5.26 9 15.58 23 1.90 3 50.51 77
Note. Score = sum of weights, N = number of summary phrases.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 4b
Evidence for the Association between Teacher Support and Focus of Student Activities in Relational Space
Relational space meta level Relational space performance level
PT
Bulk 0.66 1
RI
Contingency 1.00 2
SC
Diagnose
Focus Content space meta level 0.70 1
U
Focus Content space performance level 2.00 3
Focus Relational space meta level 1.33 2 0.65 1 0.62 1 3.15 5
AN
Focus Relational space performance level 0.70 1 0.87 2
Frequency - Teacher absence 0.35 1
M
Frequency - Teacher presence 2.68 5
D
TE
Means Explaining or Modelling 1.20 2 1.20 2 1.70 3
Means Feedback 0.68 1 1.94 3 0.70 1
Means Prompting 0.75 1 0.66 1 1.41 2
EP
Means Questioning 0.70 1
Means Summarizing or revoicing 1.45 2
C
Teacher dependence/teacher control 1.40 3 1.41 2

AC
Temporal pattern 0.70 1 0.75 1

Use of objects 0.55 1 0.70 1
Total 0 0 4.46 7 6.85 12 5.88 9 20.26 33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 5
Evidence for the Association between Teacher Support and Low and High Level Elaboration
High level elaboration Low level elaboration
PT
Bulk 1.34 2 0.70 1 0.75 1
RI
Contingency
SC
Diagnose 0.61 1 0.62 1 0.61 1
U
Focus Content space performance level 0.68 1 4.33 7 0.60 1
Focus Relational space meta level 0.62 1
AN
Focus Relational space performance level 2.10 3 1.82 3
Frequency - Teacher absence 1.22 2 1.22 2
M
Frequency - Teacher presence 2.21 3 1.92 3 4.45 6 2.44 4
D
Means Encouragement or Praise 2.08 3
TE
Means Explaining or Modelling 0.68 1 1.35 2
Means Feedback 1.08 2
Means Prompting 0.68 1 0.80 1 1.76 3 0.60 1
EP
C
Teacher dependence/teacher control 0.61 1

Teacher independence/student control 1.40 2
AC
Temporal pattern 1.55 2

Use of objects
Total 3.57 5 7.20 11 28.83 43 0.61 1 2.44 4 4.98 8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 6
Evidence for the Association between Teacher Support and Students’ On-task and Off-task Participation
Participation off task Participation on task
PT
Collaborative learning elements 0.60 1
RI
Contingency of kwaliteit 1.40 2 0.74 1
Diagnose 0.61 1 0.75 1 1.34 2 1.16 2
SC
Focus Content space performance level 1.83 3 0.85 2
U
Focus Relational space meta level 1.00 2
Focus Relational space performance level 4.74 8
AN
Frequency - Teacher absence 1.22 2 0.61 1 1.83 3 1.29 2
Frequency - Teacher presence 0.61 1 1.83 3 1.21 2 3.10 5 4.55 7
M
Goals and objectives 0.75 1
Means Classroom management 0.60 1 0.55 1 0.55 1
D
Means Explaining or Modelling 1.93 3 3.30 5
TE
Means Prompting 0.45 1 2.62 5
Means Questioning 0.75 1 0.60 1 4.50 7
EP
Means Summarizing or revoicing
Teacher dependence/teacher control 0.61 1 1.30 2 1.22 2 1.45 2
C

Temporal pattern 0.70 1
AC
Use of objects 0.75 1

Total 1.82 3 3.70 6 1.60 3 8.30 13 12.01 19 34.35 56
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 7
Evidence for the Association between Teacher Support and Teacher and Student Control, Students’ Perception of Teacher
Interaction with Perception of teacher Teacher Teacher
object or learning dependence/teacher control independence/student
PT
environment control
Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Neutral Positive
RI
Row Labels Score N Score N Score N Score N Score N Score N Score N
Bulk
Collaborative learning elements 0.60 1
SC
Contingency 1.19 2
Diagnose
U
Focus Content space meta level
Focus Content space performance level 0.65 1
AN
Focus Relational space meta level
Focus Relational space performance level
M
Frequency - Teacher absence
Frequency - Teacher presence
Goals and objectives 0.75 1
D
Means Classroom management
TE
Means Encouragement or Praise 0.65 1
Means Explaining or Modelling
EP
Means Prompting 0.45 1 0.45 1 0.65 1
Means Questioning
C
Means Summarizing or revoicing

Teacher dependence/teacher control 1.00 2
AC
Teacher independence/student control 0.65 1 0.70 1 1.90 3

Temporal pattern
Use of objects
Total 0.65 1 0.45 1 1.64 3 1.95 3 1.00 2 0.70 1 3.95 6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 8
Evidence for the Association between Teacher Support and Outcomes of Collaboration
Learning outcomes collaborative Learning outcomes individual
PT
Bulk
RI
Collaborative learning elements 0.67 1 0.67 1
Contingency 1.48 2 1.73 3
SC
Diagnose
U
Focus content space performance level 0.67 1 0.65 1
Focus Relational space meta level 0.67 1 1.96 3 1.35 2
AN
Focus Relational space performance level 0.67 1
Frequency - Teacher absence 1.48 2
M
Frequency - Teacher presence 0.76 1 2.27 4
Means Classroom management
D
Means Encouragement or Praise
TE
Means Explaining or Modelling
Means Feedback 0.67 1 0.67 1 1.35 2
Means Prompting
EP
C
Teacher dependence/teacher control

Teacher independence/student control
AC
Temporal pattern
Use of objects
Total 2.78 4 1.42 2 8.89 13 7.37 12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
PT
RI
U SC
AN
Figure 1. Flow chart of selection of relevant publications for the review.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Running head: TEACHER GUIDANCE OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
Highlights
• Teacher guidance during collaborative learning was systematically reviewed
• Sixty-six studies were synthesized, including quantitative and qualitative studies
PT
• Feedback, prompting, questioning, and transferring control are effective strategies
• The review highlights the important yet challenging role of the teacher
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

J Edurev 2019 02 001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Edurev 2019 02 001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript

A Systematic Review of Teacher Guidance During Collaborative Learning in Primary

Anouschka van Leeuwen, Jeroen Janssen

To appear in: Educational Research Review

Received Date: 16 July 2018

Anouschka van Leeuwen, Department of Education, Utrecht University; Jeroen Janssen,

Department of Education, Utrecht University.

Research (NRO), grant number 405-15-712.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anouschka van Leeuwen,

Department of Education, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584CS Utrecht, the

Netherlands. Contact: A.vanLeeuwen@uu.nl

For this review, we synthesized quantitative and qualitative research on collaborative

Keywords: Collaborative learning, cooperative learning, systematic review, teacher

A Systematic Review of Teacher Guidance During Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning (CL) refers to instructional arrangements that involve two or

collaboration on cognitive, meta-cognitive, affective-motivational, and social aspects of

gains, increased performance on standardized or teacher-made tests). However, these positive

performing a comprehensive and systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative

studies that investigated the role of teacher guidance during CL.

the importance of learning as a shared experience as advocated by proponents of

similarities between collaborative and cooperative learning. Specifically relevant to this

The role of the teacher during collaborative learning

Previous research has demonstrated that interaction among students is an important

cognitive activities (e.g., explaining, summarizing) or interaction focused directly at the

critically impacts their learning process during CL.

members is associated with how teachers guide these groups.

respect to their methodology. A number of studies use a qualitative methodology to describe

(e.g., experience, participating in an in-service education program) are associated to the

the effectiveness of future implementation of CL (Kaendler et al., 2015).

quality assessment of the uncovered studies, application of inclusion and/or exclusion

is therefore to provide a systematic overview of studies investigating the relationship between

teacher guidance during CL and students’ interaction and learning outcomes.

Goals and research questions of the present review study

We aim to extend earlier reviews by performing a systematic literature search of

do this irrespective of the research methodologies employed in these studies (quantitative,

qualitative, or mixed). We will therefore conduct a systematic review that incorporates

associated with interaction among students and subsequent learning outcomes?

coding, (4) quality appraisal, and (5) thematic analysis.

combined by means of AND-operators. The databases ERIC, PsycInfo, Scopus, and

reported in English. CL was queried using terms such as ‘collaborative learning’,

education’. The full search query is depicted in Table S1 (online only).

included publications were perused for additional relevant publications. Snowballing

studies and their characteristics.

369 sentences were obtained (M = 6.0 sentences per study).

EBLCAC, leading to a total of 28 questions. Furthermore, three EBLCAC questions could be

by sorting them bottom up.

Further characteristics of interventions were also coded, such as whether the

coding scheme for aspects of teacher guidance.

Concerning outcomes, a distinction was made between individual and CL outcomes.

Description of included studies

of teacher guidance and student behavior or learning outcomes.

Association between teacher guidance and focus of student activities. Tables 4a

addressing group issues). Furthermore, the majority of available research investigated

group members (performance level).

summarizing or revoicing demonstrated positive as well as negative associations with the

examples of when teachers attempt to check students’ understanding, it triggers students to

was followed by incorrect explanation by a student. According to Webb et al., diagnosing by

related to students’ activities in the relational space.

Teacher presence in general is associated positively with student activities in the

space and found a positive association with student elaboration.

moments of teacher-student interaction seem preferable. Furthermore, only specific types of

prompts that do not put students in control.

Association between teacher guidance and students’ on-task and off-task