Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2022 Sep 7;93(1):33–55. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12538

Academic help‐seeking interactions in the classroom: A microlongitudinal study

Kyle Davison 1,✉, Lars‐Erik Malmberg 1, Kathy Sylva 1
PMCID: PMC10087139  PMID: 36069315

Abstract

Background

Help‐seeking research has traditionally inferred behavioural responses to the need for help from post‐hoc reflections and experiments outside of the classroom context.

Aim

We aimed to gain an ecologically valid understanding of the help‐seeking process by examining the association between pupils' task‐specific perceptions and their help‐seeking interactions with teachers and peers during lessons.

Sample

Participants were 290 pupils in Years 4–6 (aged 8.22–11.48) and 12 teachers in 12 classrooms in three schools across two local authorities in South East England, UK.

Method

The microlongitudinal data consisted of 6,592 task‐specific reports. Pupils reported on their task understanding and need for help and their help‐seeking (teacher and peer) and help‐giving behaviours at the end of each lesson. On average, pupils completed 25.44 reports across 14.64 lessons, 13 school subjects and 4.80 days. Teachers reported on pupils' academic performance. Data were analysed using two‐level logistic and multinomial logistic regressions.

Results and conclusions

Task‐specific understanding and need for help were associated with help‐seeking and help‐giving behaviour during lessons. Understanding was associated also with the type of help sought and given among classmates and appeared to influence whether pupils were help‐seekers or help‐givers during peer interactions. There was an apparent reciprocity in peer help‐seeking interactions, occurring namely among girls and higher performers. Overall, girls were more likely than boys to seek and give help across tasks. Pupils for whom English was an additional language were less likely than classmates to seek help when they needed it. The study (1) sheds new light on the dynamics of everyday help‐seeking interactions in the classroom, (2) provides a conceptual framework for researchers interested in reciprocal processes of social interaction in self‐regulated learning, and (3) highlights groups who might benefit from intervention.

Keywords: co‐regulation, English as an additional language, gender, help giving, help seeking, help‐seeking interactions, intraindividual, metacognition, microlongitudinal, primary school, prosocial, self‐regulated learning, special educational needs and disabilities

INTRODUCTION

Knowing when and how to seek help is considered an important self‐regulatory skill linked to learning and achievement (Karabenick & Newman, 2006). In primary school classrooms, children are often novices at learning tasks and may have trouble reaching some achievement goals independently. An incorrect answer or lack of progress despite diligent efforts might indicate to the child that help is necessary. Turning to a teacher or classmate for assistance in these situations has the potential to be an adaptive strategy to continue the learning process (Nelson‐Le Gall, 1981). Evidence suggests that with age and experience, children become increasingly accurate at assessing when they are in need of help (Van der Meij, 1990), and proficient at matching the content of their help requests to the specific need at hand (Nelson‐Le Gall et al., 1990). However, our understanding of how children cope when they become aware of the need for help has derived almost exclusively from questionnaire studies on learners' help‐seeking intentions (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991) and experiments outside of the classroom context (Butler & Neuman, 1995), which focus on the help‐seeker only, thus limiting our understanding of everyday help‐seeking interactions during lessons.

The present study builds on a growing number of studies utilising behavioural methods to measure interactions between help‐seekers and help‐givers in real learning situations (Pöysä et al., 2018; Ryan & Shin, 2011; Zorn & Puustinen, 2022). Our aim was to gain an ecologically valid understanding of the help‐seeking process. To achieve this aim, we examined: (1) pupils' help‐seeking interactions with teachers and peers in English primary school classrooms; (2) the association between pupils' metacognitive awareness of their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and help‐seeking (teacher and peer) and help‐giving behaviours; and (3) whether pupil characteristics explained differences in these associations. Our study went beyond the literature by, (1) drawing from co‐regulated learning theory to develop an interaction model of the help‐seeking process that includes the activities of the help‐giver, (2) measuring the task‐specific perceptions and help‐related behaviours of both the help‐seeker and the help‐giver, (3) using microlongitudinal (intraindividual) data, rather than traditional cross‐sectional or experimental data, to examine whether variability in pupils' help‐related behaviours across lessons were associated with their task‐specific perceptions (understanding and need for help), (4) specifying random‐slopes models to examine whether the association between the need for help and help‐related behaviours varied significantly from one pupil to another and (5) using teacher reports to investigate whether these variances were explained by characteristics of the learner, including (6) learners who are underrepresented in help‐seeking research (e.g., pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and pupils for whom English is an additional language; EAL).

Awareness of the need for help

Help seeking can be an adaptive strategy used by self‐regulated learners to improve learning and performance (Karabenick, 2011). Self‐regulated learners are aware of their personal strengths in relation to task requirements and of strategies for learning and for overcoming academic problems (Zimmerman, 1995). These learners recognise which strategic actions are most effective for different situations or tasks and use their strategies adaptively and according to the perceived need at hand (Perry, 2022). This includes being able to identify when academic assistance from a more capable other is necessary (Karabenick & Newman, 2009).

Awareness of the need for help is a requisite skill of the help‐seeking process (Nelson‐Le Gall, 1981). As help seeking is conceptualised as an intentional strategy that can be instrumental to learning outcomes and success in academic settings, it is important that the necessity of help‐seeking behaviour is understood through the self‐assessments of the learner (Nelson‐Le Gall et al., 1990). Self‐observation (metacognitive monitoring) is a key component of self‐regulated learning (Schunk & Greene, 2018) and ‘the linchpin of the help‐seeking process’ (Karabenick & Berger, 2013: 248). Monitoring comprises an awareness of task comprehension and task performance (Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Learners who self‐regulate effectively and are metacognitively aware adapt their learning strategies to their evolving perception of the task (e.g., estimation of their task‐specific understanding; Çini et al., 2020). Those who are cognisant of their compatibility as learners with the learning task may determine that help is needed if their perceived understanding or performance drops below expected levels (Nelson‐Le Gall et al., 1990). In line with developmental literature on metacognition (Baker & Brown, 1980; Myers & Paris, 1978), there is substantial evidence to suggest that evaluating the need for help is a skill that is influenced by both maturation and experience (Puustinen, 1998; Van der Meij, 1990).

The link between need for help and help seeking

The association between perceived need for help and help seeking has been empirically supported in the literature by questionnaire‐based studies with cross‐sectional designs (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991; Newman, 1990). These studies have focused primarily on the association between academic ability and the intention to seek or avoid needed help. Findings from these studies suggest that the positive association between need for help and help seeking breaks down at the highest levels of need, indicating that those who need help the most (e.g., low academic performers) are the least likely to seek it (Karabenick & Berger, 2013; Karabenick & Knapp, 1991). High performing learners (those who tend to report relatively lower levels of need) are more likely to seek help if needed (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991; Karabenick & Newman, 2010).

From a theoretical perspective, the field has been greatly enhanced by questionnaire methodologies; however, researchers have highlighted the fundamental distinction between help‐seeking intentions and manifestations of help seeking in observable behaviour (Huet et al., 2013; Karabenick, 2011). Further, cross‐sectional correlation‐based designs do not capture the directional effect of self‐processes (e.g., self‐monitoring) on strategy use. Researchers interested in the metacognitive aspects of help seeking have addressed these issues by observing actual task‐specific question‐asking behaviour in response to experimentally manipulated goal conditions (Butler & Neuman, 1995; Nelson‐Le Gall et al., 1990; Newman & Schwager, 1995; Van der Meij, 1990). The findings of these experiments generally support those of questionnaire studies, suggesting that with age and experience, children become increasingly accurate at assessing when they are in need of help and proficient at matching the content of help requests to the specific need at hand. Older and higher performing learners were more likely to ask for adaptive help following an incorrect attempt at a solution, operationalised as asking the experimenter for hints (rather than the answer) and attempting tasks for longer before seeking needed help (Nelson‐Le Gall et al., 1990). Younger and lower performing learners were more likely to overestimate their task‐specific competence and underestimate their need for help (Puustinen, 1998) and to ask for correct answers (expedient help) instead of hints or explanations (Nelson‐Le Gall, 1987).

While experiments have enhanced our understanding of the association between the need for help and help‐seeking behaviour, the contexts of these studies are meaningfully different to the environments in which the decision to seek needed help is typically made. Researchers have, therefore, questioned the ecological validity of the results from experiments (Newman, 2002; Puustinen et al., 2004, 2009), and the extent to which they can be extrapolated to an everyday classroom context (Ryan et al., 2005).

Help seeking in socio‐interactive contexts

Literature suggests that the help‐seeking process is particularly sensitive to the learner's social environment (Wolters et al., 2003). The environment in which help is sought can influence comprehension monitoring (Karabenick, 1996), the perceived costs and benefits of seeking help (Karabenick, 2011) and from whom help is sought (Karabenick & Newman, 2009). The inherent interactivity of soliciting help exposes the help‐seeking process to social factors ‘to which other forms of self‐regulated learning are relatively immune’ (Karabenick & Berger, 2013: 239). Unlike other strategies that learners can employ when they encounter academic difficulty (e.g., rehearsal), revealing low task understanding may imply inadequacy (Newman, 1990), invite negative judgement (Newman & Goldin, 1990) and threaten self‐worth (Nadler, 1998). Perceived psychological threats associated with help seeking in social contexts can prevent some learners, such as low academic performers (Newman & Goldin, 1990), from seeking needed help (Karabenick, 2011), particularly in face‐to‐face situations (Ryan et al., 2001).

Increasingly, researchers are focusing on the interaction between features of the learning environment and the learner's own resources (Mäkitalo‐Siegl et al., 2011; Puustinen et al., 2009). This includes the role of teachers and peers in the help‐seeking process (see Mäkitalo & Fischer, 2011). This shift in help‐seeking research corresponds with a broader development in self‐regulation theory, where a growing emphasis has been placed on the role of self‐regulation in social forms of learning, such as co‐regulation (see Panadero, 2017; Panadero & Järvelä, 2015). Co‐regulation theory focuses on the interactions and dynamic processes through which social environments co‐regulate learning (Hadwin et al., 2011). This perspective is rooted in Vygotskian theory of higher psychological processes being socially contextualised and internalized through social interactions (McCaslin, 2009). Seeking academic assistance is considered unique among self‐regulated learning strategies as it involves an interaction, or exchange, between self and others (Karabenick, 2011). Researchers have argued, therefore, that full understanding of the help‐seeking process requires analysis of the interplay between the help‐seeker and help‐giver (see Puustinen, 1998; Puustinen & Karabenick, 2013; Winnykamen, 1992, 1993).

Despite there being general agreement that seeking help can be classified as a behavioural, social and self‐regulated learning strategy (Pintrich & Zusho, 2002), the role of others in traditional models of the help‐seeking process (Nelson‐Le Gall, 1981; Newman, 1994) has tended to be implicit, and extant research has focused almost exclusively on the characteristics and behaviours of the help‐seeker, with little attention given to the help‐giver (Karabenick, & Newman, 2009) or to the dynamics of the interaction (Puustinen, Arneton, et al., 2015; Puustinen, Bernicot, et al., 2015).

Recent technological advancements in teaching and learning have provided researchers with opportunities to address this gap and to measure both help‐seeking and help‐giving behaviour and capture the complexities of these interactions during learning situations (Cheng et al., 2011; Wood, 2009). Technology allows researchers to study help‐seeking interactions in response to standardized tasks (Roll et al., 2011) without disrupting the teaching and learning process and avoid ‘the complications of studying interactions in face‐to‐face education’ (Mazzolini & Maddison, 2007: 212). However, technology‐mediated learning bypasses many of the social factors known to influence a learner's decision to seek help (Mäkitalo & Fischer, 2011) and studies adopting technology‐based approaches risk excluding the experiences of pupils without access to highly digitally equipped classrooms. Moreover, researchers have identified idiosyncrasies in written computer‐mediated help‐related communication that distinguish this form of help seeking from traditional verbal communication (Puustinen et al., 2009, 2011; Puustinen, Bernicot, et al., 2015; Volckaert‐Legrier et al., 2009) and have observed learners exploiting properties of computer‐based learning environments in a way similar to seeking expedient help (Baker et al., 2005). It is, therefore, important that the complications of studying verbal help‐seeking interactions during traditional face‐to‐face learning are not avoided but overcome by ecologically valid research design.

To account for the influence of the socio‐interactive environment on the help‐seeking process, we situated our study in the natural learning environment of the primary school classroom and analysed the task‐specific perceptions and help‐related behaviours of both the help‐seeker and help‐giver.

Help seeking in primary school classrooms

English primary schools are diverse social environments that present opportunities to examine how learner characteristics explain differences in how metacognitive aspects of the help‐seeking process manifest in observable help‐seeking and help‐giving behaviours, including those of learners who are underrepresented in help‐seeking research (e.g., SEND and EAL). To our knowledge, the present study is the first to examine everyday help‐seeking interactions of English primary school pupils. Therefore, the following subsections draw insights from studies of help seeking in other educational contexts.

Gender and help seeking

The majority of primary schools in England are mixed sex. While there has been substantial research on the moderating role of gender on help seeking, there is mixed and inconclusive evidence of gender differences among young learners when it comes to seeking or avoiding necessary help. In studies involving kindergarten and elementary school pupils, gender rarely emerges as a significant predictor of help seeking (Nelson‐Le Gall & Glor‐Scheib, 1986; Nelson‐Le Gall & Jones, 1990; Newman, 1990; Van der Meij, 1988, 1990). Good et al. (1987) found that boys sought help more frequently than girls, whereas Butler (1998) found that boys with ability‐focused orientations sought help less frequently than girls and were more likely to request expedient help. Arbreton (1998) also found that boys were more likely to seek expedient help and to avoid help, however, when personal motivational goals were held constant, boys and girls no longer differed in these help‐seeking behaviours. Instead, a clearer gender difference emerges in studies of older samples. From middle school and onwards, girls tend to report more adaptive help‐related attitudes (Kessels & Steinmayr, 2013; Marchand & Skinner, 2007) and behaviours (Brown et al., 2021; Eccles & Blumenfeld, 1985) than boys.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and help seeking

In England, pupils are eligible for SEND support if they have significantly greater difficulty in learning than those of the same age, or a disability that impedes their use of educational facilities (Department for Education [DfE], 2015). Approximately, 12.6% of English primary school pupils receive SEND support (DfE, 2019). Previous research on help seeking and learners with learning difficulties or disabilities has focused almost exclusively on support seeking in higher education settings outside of England (Lancaster et al., 2001; Trammell & Hathaway, 2007). More recently, Puustinen and colleagues have begun to enhance our understanding of the relationship between academic help‐seeking behaviours and specific learning difficulties and disabilities, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD; Zorn & Puustinen, 2022) and visual impairment (VI; Gaborit et al., 2017; Gaborit et al., 2018; Lewi‐Dumont et al., 2016). Evidence from these small‐scale studies suggest that lower secondary school‐aged pupils with ASD and VI seek help from their teachers during lessons (Gaborit et al., 2018; Zorn & Puustinen, 2022). Initial interview and questionnaire studies, however, found that pupils and teachers differred in their perceptions of the frequency of these interactions (Lewi‐Dumont et al., 2016; Puustinen, Arneton, et al., 2015; Puustinen, Bernicot, et al., 2015; Zorn & Puustinen, 2022). Follow up observation studies found mixed results regarding the content of these interactions. The two VI pupils in Gaborit et al.’s (2018) observation study sought either adaptive help (e.g., explanations or hints) or confirmations (e.g., checking their answer or comprehension), whereas Zorn and Puustinen (2022) found that the content of the help requests fell predominantly within the three established categories of instrumental (adaptive) help, executive (expedient) help or confirmations.

English as an Additional Language (EAL) and help seeking

Another group about whom little is known in relation to help seeking are pupils whose home language is different to the language of instruction. EAL is an administrative category for learners who have a home language different from English (Strand et al., 2015). Approximately, 21.2% of English primary school pupils are EAL (DfE, 2019). To date, there has been little research on the effect of language or linguistic competency (i.e., vocabulary and reading comprehension) on help seeking. Research has found evidence that interactions between peers can augment learning gains (Topping, 2005; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003). A benefit to peer help seeking is that classmates ‘share a similar language’ and are able to translate difficult vocabulary or expressions in a way that is understandable to their peers (Webb & Farivar, 1994: 370). Evidence from studies in European contexts suggests that immigrant learners incorporate less verbal helping behaviour in their communication (Oortwijn et al., 2008) and are less actively involved during collaborative learning activities (Kirchmeyer, 1993; Oortwijn et al., 2008) due to a lower linguistic proficiency compared to national pupils (Oortwijn et al., 2008; Tesser & Iedema, 2001; Vedder & Horenczyk, 2006). There is inconclusive evidence, however, between the effect of linguistic proficiency on the quality of helping behaviours.

Help‐seeking interaction model

To facilitate examination of everyday help‐seeking interactions during lessons, we adapted existing conceptual models of the help‐seeking process (Nelson‐Le Gall, 1981; Newman, 1994) to include the activities of the help‐giver (Figure 1). Our model draws on co‐regulation theory to account for the mediatory role of others on self‐regulatory processes by describing an interaction between a help‐seeker and help‐giver. The model draws also from Efklides' (2008) multifaceted and multilevel perspective of metacognition and its relations with the self‐regulation process and co‐regulation of cognition. The model forms the interaction sequence used in the current study to investigate the associations between pupils' metacognitive awareness of their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and help‐seeking and help‐giving behaviours. It is not a complete model of the help‐seeking process as it omits important steps, such as help using (the application of received help; Nelson‐Le Gall, 1981). The decisions included in the model are the constructs explored in the current analyses.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Help‐seeking interaction model

In a given task situation, the help‐seeker may evaluate whether help is necessary to reach a goal (Nelson‐Le Gall, 1981; Newman, 1994). The self‐evaluated necessity of a help request may be informed by the help‐seeker's awareness of their task‐specific understanding and need for help (Van der Meij, 1990). A perceived disparity between current task performance and desired performance may indicate to the help‐seeker that a problem exists, and that help is needed (Nelson‐Le Gall et al., 1990). Being aware of the need for help and deciding to seek assistance actively from others, the help‐seeker may decide on the content of the help request according to the specific need at hand (e.g., explanation, answer or confirmation; Puustinen et al., 2004). The help‐seeker may decide also on the target of the request (i.e., potential helpers; Newman, 1994). In line with literature on metacognitive knowledge (Efklides, 2008), we suggest that the choice of target (teacher or peer) may be informed by a perception of who can provide needed resources based on situational assessments, such as metacognitive knowledge of others' task‐specific performance, as well as by individual characteristics (Newman, 2011). Next, the help‐giver receives the request for help. The help‐giver may choose to assist the help‐seeker by providing the type of help sought, a different type, or they may ignore the request (Fuchs et al., 1999). We suggest that the decision to give help and as to the type of help given may be influenced by the help‐giver's perceptions of the task (e.g., understanding and need for help), as well as by perceptions of the target and reason for the request (Weiner, 1980). Lastly, the help‐seeker processes the help they receive and evaluates the help‐seeking attempt, including the helpfulness of the help‐giver and the adequacy of the help obtained (Karabenick & Berger, 2013). The perceived success or failure of the help‐seeking interaction may influence whether the interaction cycle continues with the same help‐giver or different, or not at all (Barnett et al., 1982).

The decisions described in the process are not transitive and help‐seekers and help‐givers may skip steps (Karabenick, 1987). In line with research on metamemory (Robinson, 1983), activities of the individual may be implicit (nonconscious) or explicit (conscious). Lastly, some activities of the help‐giver (e.g., their task‐specific perceptions) may not be relevant to interactions where help giving is role‐related (e.g., teacher‐pupil interactions). Our cyclical model forms a plausible interaction sequence for elaborating key constructs to include in a microlongitudinal study of academic help seeking in the classroom.

The present study

The aim of the present study was to gain an ecologically valid understanding of the help‐seeking process. To achieve this aim, we examined (1) pupils' help‐seeking interactions with teachers and peers in English primary school classrooms, (2) the association between pupils' metacognitive awareness of their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and help‐seeking (teacher and peer) and help‐giving behaviours and (3) whether pupil characteristics explained differences in these associations.

Our examination of the metacognitive aspects of the help‐seeking process was guided by the following research questions (RQs):

(1a) To what extent is pupils' metacognitive awareness of their task‐specific understanding and need for help associated with their help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving during lessons?

(1b) Are there individual differences in the associations between pupils' task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and their help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving?

(2a) How are pupils' task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help associated with the content of their help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving?

(2b) Are there individual differences associated with the content of pupils' help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving?

METHOD

Participants and procedure

Three primary schools in two local authorities in South East England, UK were recruited to the study. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Departmental Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford. Consent was gained from the head teachers, and parents and carers were informed of the research and offered the opportunity to opt‐out their children.

The present analyses concern data from 290 pupils (54.1% girls) in Years 4–6 (aged 8.22–11.48) and 12 teachers in 12 classrooms. Of the participants, 14.9% were EAL, 20.8% were identified by their school as having SEND, and 73.1% were performing at the expected age‐related standard in reading, writing and numeracy, of whom 29.4% were performing above.

Data consisted of 6,592 task‐specific reports. Pupils reported on their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and help‐seeking interactions at the end of each lesson, across 13 school subjects, for two weeks. On average, pupils completed 25.44 reports (SD = 7.20, Range = 5–40) across 14.64 lessons (SD = 3.67, Range = 5.29–24.14), 3.10 lessons per day (SD = .87, Range = 1–7), for 4.80 days (SD = 2.82). Teacher reports on the academic performance of 283 pupils were included in the analyses.

Measures

Pupils' task‐specific perceptions and help‐seeking interactions were measured at the end of each lesson using the self‐report pen‐and‐paper Learning Experiences Questionnaire ‐ Help Seeking (LEQ‐HS). The LEQ‐HS was adapted from the Learning Experiences Questionnaire (Malmberg et al., 2013) to include help‐seeking and help‐giving items. Self‐reports are one of the most direct methods of accessing participants' perceptions (Zeidner, 2007) and experiential states (Baumeister et al., 2007), and possess good psychometric properties while being relatively simple to administer (Zeidner, 2007). This is important in studies using repeated measures to assess intraindividual variability over time given the time constraints associated with research in educational contexts (see Gogol et al., 2014).

Pupils were asked to rate their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and help‐related behaviours concerning the whole lesson, to provide information on the subject they were learning and the task they were doing and to provide identification information about themselves and the individuals (teachers and peers) from whom they sought or gave help.

Task‐specific understanding and need for help

To measure the metacognitive aspects of the help‐seeking process, participants' task‐specific understanding and need for help were measured using two single‐item measures (‘How much did you understand?’ and ‘Did you need help doing the task?’ 1 = not at all; 4 = a lot). Single‐item measures can be psychometrically sound alternatives to full scales when measuring intraindividual variability in ecologically valid settings (Gogol et al., 2014).

Help‐seeking interactions

Pupils' help‐seeking and help‐giving behaviours were measured by three dichotomous items (‘Did you ask your teacher for help during the lesson?’ ‘…a classmate for help during the lesson?’ ‘Did a classmate ask you for help during the lesson?’ 0 = no, 1 = yes). Each help seeking item (teacher and peer) consisted of a subitem that measured the target of the request (‘Who did you ask for help?) and a categorical subitem that measured the content of the help request (‘What type of help did you ask for? An explanation; the answer; check my answer’). The help‐giving item consisted of a subitem that measured the target (‘Who asked you for help?’) and a categorical subitem that measured the content of the help that was given (‘What type of help did you give him/her? Explained the task; gave him/her the answer; told him/her that their answer was right/wrong; I ignored him/her’).

Pupil characteristics

Teachers provided demographic information for each of their pupils, including whether English was an additional language and their SEND status, by completing the Teacher Questionnaire ‐ Help Seeking (TQ‐HS). Teachers also reported whether pupils were working towards, at, or above expected age‐related performance levels in reading, writing and numeracy.

Analytic procedures

We analysed the two‐level hierarchical data using multilevel structural equation modelling (MSEM) in Mplus (version 8; Muthén & Muthén, 2017). At the within level, intraindividual variation of task‐specific perceptions and help‐related behaviours were modelled across tasks. At the between level, interindividual variation was modelled between pupils. We adjusted standard errors for differences between classrooms (n = 12) using the COMPLEX command.

Models

As our key variables included binary and non‐ordered categorical variables, we specified logistic regression models and multinomial logistic regression models using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) in Mplus. To improve interpretability of the covariates at the within level, pupils' task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help were centred at the group (i.e., pupil) mean.1 At the between level, age was centred at the grand mean to provide a meaningful zero.2 A single academic performance variable was computed from pupils' mean performance in reading, writing and numeracy and grand mean centred (McNeish & Hamaker, 2019).

Multilevel logistic regression analyses

To answer RQ 1a, we specified a logistic regression model for each dependent variable of interest (help seeking from teachers and peers and help giving). The first level of our hierarchical models was the within level, which explored the associations between pupils' metacognitive awareness of their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and their help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving during lessons. We specified random‐slopes models to examine whether the association between help‐related behaviours and perceived need for help varied significantly from one pupil to another. At the between level of our logistic regression models, we addressed RQ 1b by examining the fixed effects of gender, age, SEND, EAL and academic performance on pupils' help‐seeking and help‐giving behaviours. Lastly, we added cross‐level interaction effects to the model to investigate whether the associations between help‐related behaviours and perceived need for help differed according to characteristics of the pupil.

Multilevel multinomial logistic regression analyses

To answer RQ 2a, we specified a multilevel multinomial logistic regression model for each dependent variable of interest (types of help sought and given). At the within level, we examined the associations between pupils' metacognitive awareness of their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and the type of help sought (teacher and peer) and given by pupils during help‐seeking interactions. Lastly, at the between level of our multinomial models, we addressed RQ 2b by investigating the fixed effects of gender, age, SEND, EAL and academic performance on the types of help sought and given.

Estimators of our two‐level models indicated good model fit. Indices (e.g., χ2/df, CFI, RMSEA, SRMRWITHIN and SRMRBETWEEN) fell within good cut‐off values (Hooper et al., 2008).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics for pupils' task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and help‐related behaviours are shown in Table 1. Pupils' understanding ranged, on average, from −2.79 to 1.67 and their need for help ranged from −2.46 to 2.87. Teacher help seeking was observed in 17.6% of total observations, peer help seeking was observed in 17.7% and help giving in 14.4%. As expected, task‐specific understanding was negatively correlated with teacher and peer help seeking (r = −.19 and r = −.11, respectively), while perceived need for help was positively correlated (r = .47 and r = .32, respectively). Correlations between help‐related behaviours were all positive, but the strongest correlation was between peer help seeking and help giving (r = .40).

TABLE 1.

Descriptives, intraclass correlations and Pearson correlation matrix for pupils' task‐specific understanding and need for help, help‐seeking and help‐giving behaviour and teacher‐reported characteristics

Scale n M/% SD Missing% ICC(1) a ICC(2) b Correlations
1 2 3 4
Within level (LEQ‐HS)
1. Understanding 1–4 6,557 3.54 0.69 0.53 .23 .88 –
2. Need for help 1–4 6,473 1.52 0.82 1.81 .23 .88 −.31** –
3. Teacher help seeking 0, 1 6,579 17.63 0.20 .25 .90 −.19** .47** –
4. Peer help seeking 0, 1 6,592 17.67 0.00 .23 .88 −.11** .32** .17** –
5. Help giving 0, 1 6,588 14.38 0.06 .23 .88 .02 .13** .13** .40**
Between level (TQ‐HS)
1. Gender 0, 1 290 43.20 0.00 –
2. Age 286 9.78 0.81 1.38 −.14** –
3. SEND 0, 1 288 19.52 0.69 .19** .05** –
4. EAL 0, 1 282 15.00 2.76 .05** −.09** .05** –
5. Academic performance −1 to 1 283 0.13 0.68 2.41 −.06** .13** −.47** −.10**
Open in a new tab

Note: LEQ‐HS instrument was used to measure pupils' task‐specific perceptions and help‐seeking and‐giving behaviour at the within level. The TQ‐HS instrument was used to measure pupils' individual characteristics at the between level. Missing data were handled using the Algorithm = Integration command in Mplus. Dichotomous scales are: 0 = no, 1 = yes; except for Gender (0 = girl, 1 = boy). *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

a

The intraclass correlation ICC(1) = τ2τ2+σ2.

b

The reliability of the level 2 aggregate ICC2=k×ICC11+k−1×ICC1.; k = M reports.

Level 1 intraclass correlations (ICC1) showed that only 23%–25% of the variance of pupils' task‐specific perceptions and help‐related behaviours was found between pupils, indicating that most of the variance was situational and occurred within pupils (i.e., varied from task‐to‐task), warranting the specification of two‐level models. The Spearman‐Brown reliability coefficient (ICC2) ranged from .88 to .90, indicating that the aggregated perceptions and behaviours were reliable between‐pupil indicators (Lüdtke et al., 2009).

Table 2 shows frequencies for the type of help sought and given by pupils during lessons. Overall, pupils sought and gave explanations more frequently than they did answers or confirmations. Pupils reported seeking the answer from peers (n = 294) more than they did from the teacher (n = 143).

TABLE 2.

Frequencies for the type of help sought (teacher and peer) and given

Teacher help seeking Peer help seeking Help giving
n % n % n %
Explanation 742 62.67 635 46.82 512 46.42
Answer 143 12.08 294 21.43 220 19.95
Confirmation 256 21.62 379 27.62 289 26.20
Ignored 23 2.08
Total 1,141 96.37 1,308 95.34 1,044 94.65
Missing 43 3.63 64 4.66 59 5.35
Open in a new tab

Help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving

To answer RQs 1a and 1b, we first regressed pupils' help‐related behaviours on their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help at the within level. As shown in Table 3, task‐specific understanding was not significantly associated with teacher help seeking. Perceived need for help was positively associated with teacher help seeking (β = 1.57, e4.80, p < .001). The odds ratio (OR) indicated that when perceived need for help was higher, the odds of pupils asking the teacher for help increased by a factor of 4.80, which equates to 380% higher odds per unit increase in need for help. The average teacher help seeking × need slope was B = 2.16, and the slope variance was significant (σ2 = 1.39, p < .001), indicating that the magnitude of the association between need for help and teacher help seeking differed significantly from one pupil to another. At the between level, girls (β = −0.40, p < .05) and lower academic performers (β = −0.66, p < .001) were more likely to seek help from the teacher during lessons compared to boys or relatively higher performers. Lastly, there was an interaction effect for EAL (β = −0.45, p < .01) on the association between perceived need for help and teacher help seeking. Compared to pupils for whom English was their home language, EAL pupils were less likely to seek help from the teacher when they needed it.

TABLE 3.

Pupils' help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving regressed on their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and individual characteristics

Fixed effects Teacher help seeking Peer help seeking Help giving
e β e β e β
β SE OR p β SE OR p β SE OR p
Intercept (b 0) 2.29 0.14 *** 1.61 0.18 *** 1.94 0.20 ***
Within level
Understanding −0.12 0.14 0.89 −0.16 0.08 0.85 * 0.22 0.09 1.25 *
Need for help 1.57 0.14 4.80 *** 1.08 0.15 2.95 *** 0.66 0.08 1.94 ***
Between level
Gender −0.40 0.16 * −0.73 0.20 *** −0.48 0.16 **
Age −0.04 0.16 −0.03 0.13 0.01 0.15
SEND 0.59 0.34 −0.25 0.22 −0.40 0.30
EAL 0.21 0.36 −0.36 0.29 −0.35 0.22
Performance −0.66 0.14 *** 0.01 0.14 0.48 0.17 **
Cross‐level (DV × Need)
Gender 0.07 0.26 0.06 0.22 −0.14 0.16
Age −0.02 0.12 0.26 0.14 0.18 0.05 **
SEND −0.40 0.25 −0.32 0.22 −0.05 0.19
EAL −0.45 0.16 ** −0.51 0.20 ** −0.28 0.13 *
Performance 0.17 0.16 0.46 0.15 ** 0.14 0.05 *
Random effects σ 2 SE σ 2 SE σ 2 SE
DV intercept (u0i) 1.55 0.24 *** 1.14 0.19 *** 0.93 0.18 ***
Need slope (u1i) 1.24 0.28 *** 0.99 0.13 *** 0.17 0.24 ***
DV × Need slope (u10) 2.17 0.17 *** 1.37 0.17 *** 0.74 0.07 ***
Open in a new tab

Note: N ti varied from 6,592 to 6,473. Ni varied from 290 to 282. All dependent variables are dichotomous/binary (0 = did not seek/give help; 1 = did seek/give help). *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001.

The steps were repeated for peer help seeking. At the within level, the results indicated that task‐specific understanding was negatively associated with peer help seeking (β = −0.16, e.85, p < .05). OR indicated that when understanding was higher, the odds of pupils asking a peer for help increased by a factor of .85, which equates to 15% lower odds per unit increase in understanding. Perceived need for help was positively associated with peer help seeking (β = 1.08, e2.95, p < .001). OR indicated that when perceived need for help was higher, the odds of pupils asking a peer for help increased by a factor of 2.95, which equates to 195% higher odds per unit increase in need for help. The average latent peer help seeking × need slope was B = 1.37, and the slope variance was significant (σ2 = .99, p < .001), indicating that the magnitude of the association between need for help and peer help seeking differed significantly from one pupil to another. At the between level, girls were more likely than boys to seek help from peers (β = −0.73, p < .001). Lastly, there was an interaction effect for EAL (β = −0.51, p < .01) and academic performance (β = 0.46, p < .01) on the association between perceived need for help and peer help seeking. Compared to non‐EAL pupils, EAL pupils were less likely to seek help from peers when they needed it. Conversely, higher academic performers were more likely than relatively lower performers to seek help from peers when they needed it.

Lastly, we repeated the steps for help giving. At the within level, task‐specific understanding (β = 0.22, e1.25, p < .05) and perceived need for help (β = 0.66, e1.94, p < .001) were both positively associated with pupils being asked for help by a classmate during lessons. ORs indicated that when understanding and need for help were higher, the odds of being asked for help increased by a factor of 1.25 and 1.94, equating to 25% and 94% higher odds per unit increase in understanding and need for help respectively. The average help giving × need slope was B = 0.74 and the slope variance was significant (σ2 = .17, p < .001), indicating that the magnitude of the association between need for help and help giving differed significantly from one pupil to another. At the between level, girls (β = −0.48, p < .01) and higher academic performers (β = 0.48, p < .001) were more likely to be asked for help compared to boys or relatively lower performers. Lastly, there was an interaction effect for age (β = 0.18, p < .01), EAL (β = −0.28, p < .05) and academic performance (β = 0.14, p < .05) on the association between perceived need for help and help giving. Compared to non‐EAL pupils, EAL pupils were less likely to receive help requests from classmates when they needed help themselves. Conversely, older and higher academically performing pupils were more likely to receive help requests from classmates when they needed help themselves compared to younger or relatively lower performing pupils.

The type of help sought (teacher and peer) and given

To answer RQs 2a and 2b, we first regressed the type of help sought (teacher and peer) and given by pupils (using explanation as the reference category) on their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help at the within level. As shown in Table 4, task‐specific perceptions were not significantly associated with the type of help sought from the teacher. At the between level, EAL pupils were more likely than non‐EAL pupils to ask the teacher for confirmations (β = 0.98, p < .05).

TABLE 4.

Type of help sought (teacher and peer) and given regressed on pupils' task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and individual characteristics

Fixed effects Teacher help seeking Peer help seeking Help giving
e β e β e β
β SE OR p β SE OR p β SE OR p
Within level
Confirmation vs. Explanation
Understanding 0.15 0.17 1.16 0.42 0.15 1.53 ** 0.11 0.31 1.12
Need for help −0.30 0.13 0.74 0.03 0.13 1.03 −0.15 0.35 0.86
Answer vs. Explanation
Understanding −0.28 0.22 0.75 0.01 0.15 1.01 0.23 0.21 1.26
Need for help −0.34 0.15 0.71 0.07 0.22 1.07 −0.12 0.22 0.89
Ignored vs. Explanation
Understanding −1.15 0.24 0.32 ***
Need for help −0.09 0.34 0.91
Between level
Confirmation vs. Explanation
Gender −0.13 0.24 −0.10 0.32 −0.37 0.29
Age −0.06 0.03 0.39 0.03 *** 0.02 0.14
SEND 0.31 0.34 0.30 0.48 −0.04 0.21
EAL 0.98 0.36 * 0.02 0.66 0.25 0.71
Performance 0.01 0.30 0.64 0.26 0.26 0.20
Answer vs. Explanation
Gender −0.61 0.49 0.06 0.23 −0.04 0.40
Age −0.03 0.13 −0.38 0.03 *** −0.17 0.03 ***
SEND 0.21 0.40 −0.20 0.36 −0.27 0.52
EAL 0.02 0.36 1.53 0.44 ** 1.00 0.93
Performance −0.07 0.37 −0.12 0.20 −0.14 0.37
Ignored vs. Explanation
Gender 0.61 0.60
Age −0.11 0.25
SEND 0.50 1.30
EAL 2.18 1.28
Performance 0.01 0.50
Open in a new tab

Note: N t varied from 1,308 to 1,034. N i varied from 245 to 208. All dependent variables are nominal (explanation = reference category). *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001.

The steps were repeated for peer help seeking. Task‐specific understanding was positively associated with asking for confirmations (β = 0.42, e1.53, p < .01). OR indicated that when understanding was higher, the odds of asking for a confirmation increased by a factor of 1.53, which equates to 53% higher odds per unit increase in understanding. Perceived need for help was not associated with the type of help sought from peers. At the between level, older (β = 0.39, p < .001) pupils were more likely than relatively younger pupils to ask peers for confirmations. Younger (β = −0.38, p < .001) and EAL pupils (β = 1.53, p < .01) were more likely than relatively older or non‐EAL pupils to ask peers for answers.

Lastly, the steps were repeated for help giving. Task‐specific understanding was negatively associated with ignoring help requests (β = −1.15, e.32, p < .001). OR indicated that when understanding was higher, the odds of ignoring classmates increased by a factor of .32, which equates to 68% lower odds per unit increase in understanding. Perceived need for help was not associated with the type of help given to classmates. At the between level, younger pupils were more likely than relatively older pupils to give answers to classmates (β = −0.17, p < .001).

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to gain an ecologically valid understanding of the help‐seeking process. As the majority of previous studies interested in the help‐seeking process have tended to focus on help‐seeking intentions or question‐asking behaviours outside of the classroom context, the present study was one of the first to investigate the extent to which metacognitive aspects of the help‐seeking process (comprehension monitoring and awareness of the need for help) are associated with actual help‐seeking and help‐giving behaviours during classroom‐based learning.

To answer RQ 1a, we investigated the associations between pupils' metacognitive awareness of their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and their help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving. Our results showed that task‐specific understanding was associated with peer help seeking and help giving but not teacher help seeking. Perceived need for help was positively associated with both help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving. The results provide ecologically valid evidence of the role of metacognitive awareness in the help‐seeking process (e.g., self‐monitoring), indicating that, overall, pupils sought help from teachers and peers only when they perceived it to be necessary. Our random‐slopes model indicated that the magnitude of the association between perceived need for help and help‐related behaviours varied significantly from one pupil to another. These novel insights highlight the importance of examining the help‐seeking process at the intraindividual (task‐specific) level.

To address RQ 1b, we examined individual differences in the associations between pupils' task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and their help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving. Examination of our diverse sample showed that girls were generally more likely than boys to seek help (teacher and peer) and give help during lessons. This finding contradicts the mixed and inconclusive nature of findings from previous studies (Nelson‐Le Gall & Glor‐Scheib, 1986; Nelson‐Le Gall & Jones, 1990; Newman, 1990; Van der Meij, 1988, 1990) and suggests that differences in help‐related behaviour emerge between boys and girls earlier than previously reported. Characteristics of the learner were found to interact with the help‐seeking process. A cross‐level mediation effect of EAL on the association between perceived need for help and help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving indicated that EAL pupils were less likely than non‐EAL pupils to ask for help or give help when they needed help. This finding is in line with previous studies that found learners whose home language is different to the language of instruction incorporate less verbal helping behaviour in their communication and are less actively involved during collaborative learning activities (Oortwijn et al., 2008). These findings are particularly concerning as boys and EAL pupils may be missing out on the academic benefits associated with peer help‐seeking interactions (Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003), placing them at a disadvantage for future achievement (Ryan & Shin, 2011). Lastly, we found a strong negative correlation between SEND and academic performance. This finding may explain the large but non‐significant relationship between SEND and help‐related behaviour in our main analyses and warrants further investigation.

To answer RQ 2a, we examined the extent to which task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help were associated with the content of pupils' help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving. High task‐specific understanding was associated with pupils asking peers for confirmations. Conversely, low task‐specific understanding was associated with pupils ignoring requests for help. Going beyond the literature, our finding suggests that self‐assessments of task understanding may interact with the decision to give help to peers. Revealing a lack of understanding may be a perceived psychological threat for some pupils that prevents them from giving help to peers (Nadler, 1998). Our results suggest that the degree to which pupils needed help was not associated with the type of help they sought or gave during lessons.

To address RQ 2b, we investigated the individual differences associated with the content of pupils' help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving. We found that younger pupils were more likely than relatively older pupils to seek and give the answer during peer help‐seeking interactions. Our finding is in line with those of experiments, which have shown that requests for help from younger learners are less likely than those of relatively older learners to be aimed at understanding the task (Nelson‐Le Gall, 1987; Nelson‐Le Gall et al., 1990). Lastly, EAL pupils were also more likely than non‐EAL pupils to ask peers for the answer. A potential difference in linguistic proficiency of this group may, in part, explain why EAL pupils were more likely than pupils whose home language was English to seek expedient help from peers (Oortwijn et al., 2008; Strand & Hessel, 2018; Tesser & Iedema, 2001; Vedder & Horenczyk, 2006). This explanation may be supported by the small but significant negative correlation between EAL and academic performance.

By framing the help‐seeking process not solely as an individual act but as an interaction between a help‐seeker and help‐giver, we were able to identify an apparent reciprocity in help‐related behaviours among pupils. The positive correlation between peer help seeking and help giving suggests that pupils who sought help from classmates across lessons were likely also to give help. This finding is in line with literature, which suggests that academic help is more readily sought if the individual in need expects to be able to reciprocate (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1983). Requesting help that cannot be reciprocated is more likely to be perceived as dependent help seeking and is avoided, especially by high self‐esteem learners to whom dependency is particularly self‐threatening (Nadler, 1986). Indeed, this apparent reciprocity in helping behaviours occurred predominantly among certain groups, namely higher performing pupils and girls, with relatively lower performing pupils being more likely to seek help from the teacher. Our finding is in line with self‐regulation literature, which suggests that higher performing learners are more likely to view their peers as potential sources of academic support (Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009) and less likely than relatively lower performers to be influenced by social factors associated with peer help seeking when deciding whether to seek help (Newman, 1990). For lower performers, turning instead to the teacher for academic assistance may mitigate psychological threats specific to peer help seeking, such as feelings of indebtedness or the need to reciprocate, as the teacher's help giving is role‐related (Karabenick, 2011). This finding contradicts the view that low academic performers (i.e., those objectively most in need of academic assistance) avoid seeking help when they need it (Karabenick & Berger, 2013) and highlights the importance of studying the necessity of help‐seeking behaviour in conjunction with the target of the help request (Newman, 2002).

Whether pupils assumed the role of the help‐seeker or help‐giver during peer help‐seeking interactions appeared to be influenced by their task‐specific understanding. The results indicated that low task‐specific understanding was associated with peer help seeking, and high task‐specific understanding was associated with help giving (i.e., receiving requests for help). This novel insight into the dynamics of peer help‐seeking interactions appears to support the view that learners use metacognitive knowledge of how both the self and others process and perform on tasks (Efklides, 2008) and suggests that learners may adapt their strategies (e.g., who they seek help from) to their evolving perceptions of the task, including judgements of their own and others' task‐specific understanding. From a co‐regulation perspective, this finding suggests that these emergent help‐seeking interactions between pupils and their situationally more capable peers occurred in an area approaching a zone of proximal development (Hadwin et al., 2011). Lastly, we propose that seeking confirmations from peers may serve as a social form of self‐monitoring whereby older and more experienced pupils calibrate self‐perceptions of the task (e.g., understanding or performance) in response to solicited feedback from others. More broadly, we suggest that it is through interpersonal situations that help‐seekers and help‐givers may calibrate their metacognitive knowledge and create a socially shared representation of themselves as learners. Our findings advance understanding of the dynamics of everyday help‐seeking interactions among learners and provide evidence for the need to consider the regulation of learning as a collaborative or socially shared process.

Limitations

There are several limitations that should be considered when generalizing the findings of the present study. First, to reduce the burden on respondents and minimize disruption to teaching and learning, content items were limited to four distinct categories. Restricting informational requests to a single category (explanation) may have reduced its interpretability. The explanation category does not, for example, discern between other types of information‐seeking, such as requests for factual information or clarification of information (Good et al., 1987) nor does the category measure the detail of the explanation sought or received (Webb et al., 2014). Second, due to the small number of observations for the help‐giving category ignored (n ti = 23), caution is warranted when interpreting these findings. Third, pupils with SEND were grouped into one category. It is possible that specific learning difficulties and disabilities interact with the help‐seeking process in different ways. The field could be enhanced by exploring these potential differences in future studies. A similar consideration might be given to EAL pupils regarding individual differences in linguistic proficiency. Fourth, in asking learners to reflect on perceptions associated with their self‐monitoring processes (task‐specific understanding and need for help) at the end of each lesson, we perhaps invited post‐hoc rationalizations of potentially implicit (nonconscious) help‐related behaviours. Fifth, the present study was carried out in a single educational context, that of English primary schools, and cultural and educational features need to be considered when extrapolating findings to other contexts.

CONCLUSION

The present microlongitudinal study provides an ecologically valid understanding of the help‐seeking process. We examined (1) pupils' help‐seeking interactions with teachers and peers in English primary school classrooms, (2) the association between pupils' metacognitive awareness of their task‐specific understanding and perceived need for help and help‐seeking (teacher and peer) and help‐giving behaviours and (3) whether pupil characteristics explained differences in these associations. To our knowledge, the present study was one of the first to investigate the extent to which metacognitive aspects of the help‐seeking process are associated with actual help‐seeking and help‐giving behaviours during classroom‐based learning. Our results highlight nuances in established associations between the need for help and help seeking that emerge in ecologically valid settings and provide a first insight into the association between task‐specific perceptions and help giving. Advancing the literature, our results identified gender differences in help seeking (teacher and peer) and help giving, and an interaction effect of EAL on the association between perceived need for help and help‐seeking (teacher and peer) and help‐giving behaviour. We also provide evidence of an apparent reciprocity in helping behaviour among peers, enhancing our understanding of the dynamics of everyday help‐seeking interactions. Our help‐seeking interaction model provides a framework for researchers interested in exploring spontaneous prosocial behaviours between learners and, more broadly, the contribution of reciprocal processes of social interaction in self‐regulated learning. Lastly, our findings highlight groups who might benefit from intervention and should challenge practitioners to consider how they might promote adaptive help‐related behaviours among all pupils.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Kyle Timothy Davison: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; validation; visualization; writing – original draft. Lars‐Erik Malmberg: Data curation; methodology; supervision; validation; writing – review and editing. Kathy Sylva: Supervision; writing – review and editing.

CONFLICT OF INETERST

There are no conflicts of interest pertaining to this article.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the schools, teachers and pupils who participated in our study, and to the reviewer, editor and editorial team for their invaluable input and support.

Davison, K. , Malmberg, L‐E , & Sylva, K. (2023). Academic help‐seeking interactions in the classroom: A microlongitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 33–55. 10.1111/bjep.12538

Footnotes

1

Centring rescaled the covariate such that zero represented the mean for each pupil. After transformation, covariate coefficient values above or below zero were interpreted as variations above or below the pupil's own mean.

2

After transformation, values above or below zero were interpreted as variations above or below the mean age of the sample.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Research data are not shared due to ethical restrictions.

REFERENCES

  1. Arbreton, A. (1998). Student goal orientation and help‐seeking strategy use. In Karabenick S. A. (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 95–116). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, L. , & Brown, A. (1980). Metacognitive skills of reading. In Pearson D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (1984). Longmans. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, R. , Roll, I. , Corbett, A. , & Koedinger, K. (2005). Do performance goals lead students to game the system? In Looi C., McCalla G., Bredeweg B., & Breuker J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 conference on artificial intelligence in education: supporting learning through intelligent and socially informed technology (pp. 57–64). IOS Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnett, K. , Darcie, G. , Holland, C. J. , & Kobasigawa, A. (1982). Children's cognitions about effective helping. Developmental Psychology, 18, 267–277. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumeister, R. F. , Vohs, K. D. , & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self‐reports and finger movements: whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, D. , Barry, J. A. , & Todd, B. K. (2021). Barriers to academic help‐seeking: the relationship with gender‐typed attitudes. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(3), 401–416. 10.1080/0309877X.2020.1774049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Butler, R. (1998). Determinants of help‐seeking: relations between perceived reasons for the classroom help‐avoidance and help‐seeking behaviours in an experimental context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 630–644. [Google Scholar]
  8. Butler, R. , & Neuman, O. (1995). Effects of task and ego achievement goals on help‐seeking behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 261–271. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheng, C. K. , Paré, D. E. , Collimore, L.‐M. , & Joordens, S. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of a voluntary online discussion forum on improving students' course performance. Computers & Education, 56(1), 253–261. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Çini, A. , Malmberg, J. , & Järvelä, S. (2020). How individual metacognitive awareness relates to situation‐specific metacognitive interpretations of collaborative learning tasks. Educational Studies, 46(3), 1–22. 10.1080/03055698.2020.1834359 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Department for Education . (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years Statutory guidance for organisations which work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or disabilities. [Online]. Available at: https://www.assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ [Accessed 02.3.2021]
  12. Department for Education . (2019). Find and compare schools in England. [Online]. Available at: https://www.compare‐school‐performance.service.gov.uk [Accessed 02.3.2021].
  13. Eccles, J. S. , & Blumenfeld, P. (1985). Classroom experiences and student gender: are there differences and do they matter? In Wilkinson L. C. & Marrett C. B. (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 79–114). Academic Press Inc. 10.1016/B978-0-12-752075-9.50010-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self‐regulation and co‐regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–287. 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fuchs, L. S. , Fuchs, D. , Kazdan, S. , & Allen, S. (1999). Effects of peer‐assisted learning strategies in reading with and without training in elaborated help giving. Elementary School Journal, 99, 201–219. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gaborit, M. , Archambault, D. , Puustinen, M. , & Lewi‐Dumont, N. (2018). The question of students' autonomy in academic learning when using ICT: Case study in analysing help interactions involving two 9th graders with a visual impairment. Modelling Measurement & Control C, 79(4), 195–200. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gaborit, M. , Lewis‐Dumont, N. , Berrada, K. , & Puustinen, M. (2017). Analyzing social interactions in a regular class: A pilot study with secondary students with a visual impairment [Conference presentation]. ICEVI Brugge.
  18. Gogol, K. , Brunner, M. , Goetz, T. , Martin, R. , Ugen, S. , Keller, U. , Fischbach, A. , & Preckel, F. (2014). “My questionnaire is too long!” The assessments of motivational‐affective constructs with three‐item and single‐item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 188–205. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.04.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Good, T. L. , Slavings, R. L. , Harel, K. H. , & Emerson, H. (1987). Student passivity: A study of question asking in K‐12 classrooms. Sociology of Education, 60, 181–199. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hadwin, A. F. , Järvelä, S. , & Miller, M. (2011). Self‐regulated, co‐regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In Zimmerman B. J. & Schunk D. H. (Eds.), Handbook of self‐regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hatfield, E. , & Sprecher, S. (1983). Equity theory and recipient reactions to aid. In Fisher J. D., Nadler A., & Depaulo B. M. (Eds.), New directions in helping: recipient reactions to aid (Vol. 1, pp. 113–143). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hooper, D. , Coughlan, J. , & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  23. Huet, N. , Dupeyrat, C. , & Escribe, C. (2013). Help‐Seeking intentions and actual use of help in an interactive learning environment. In Karabenick S. A. & Puustinen M. (Eds.), Advances in help seeking research and applications: the role of emerging technologies (pp. 121–146). Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  24. Karabenick, S. A. (1987, August 28–September 1). Cognitive learning strategies: their relation to perceived need and help‐seeking behavior [Conference presentation]. Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY, United States.
  25. Karabenick, S. A. (1996). Social influences on metacognition: Effects of Colearner questioning on comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 689–703. [Google Scholar]
  26. Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Methodological and assessment issues in research on help seeking. In Zimmerman B. J. & Schunk D. H. (Eds.), Handbook of self‐regulation of learning and performance (pp. 267–281). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karabenick, S. A. , & Berger, J.‐L. (2013). Help seeking as a self‐regulated learning strategy. In Bembenutty H., Cleary T. J., & Kitsantas A. (Eds.), Applications of self‐regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 237–261). IAP Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  28. Karabenick, S. A. , & Knapp, J. R. (1991). Relationship of academic help seeking to the use of learning strategies and other instrumental achievement behavior in college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 221–230. 10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.221 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Karabenick, S. A. , & Newman, R. (2010). Seeking help as an adaptive response to difficulties: person, situation and developmental influences. Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  30. Karabenick, S. A. , & Newman, R. S. (Eds.). (2006). Help seeking in academic settings: Goals, groups, and contexts. Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  31. Karabenick, S. A. , & Newman, R. S. (2009). Seeking help: Generalizable self‐regulatory process and social‐cultural barometer. In Wosnitza M., Karabenick S. A., Efklides A., & Nenniger P. (Eds.), Contemporary motivation research: From global to local perspectives (pp. 25–48). Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kessels, U. , & Steinmayr, R. (2013). Macho‐man in school: toward the role of gender role self‐concepts and help seeking in school performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 234–240. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Multicultural task groups: An account of the low contribution level of minorities. Small Group Research, 24(1), 127–148. 10.1177/1046496493241009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lancaster, S. , Mellard, D. , & Hoffman, L. (2001). Current status on accommodating students with disabilities in selected community and technical colleges. The individual accommodations model: Accommodating students with disabilities in post‐secondary settings. University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lewi‐Dumont, N. , Arneton, M. , & Puustinen, M. (2016). Comment des professeurs de mathématiques s'adaptent‐ils aux besoins des élèves déficients visuels? Carrefours de l'éducation, 42, 119–132. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lüdtke, O. , Trautwein, U. , & Husemann, N. (2009). Goal and personality trait development in a transitional period: Assessing change and stability in personality development. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 428–441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mäkitalo, S. , & Fischer, F. (2011). Stretching the limits in help‐seeking research: Theoretical, methodological, and technological advances. Learning and Instruction, 21, 243–246. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mäkitalo‐Siegl, K. , Kohnle, C. , & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer‐supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: effects on help‐seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 257–266. [Google Scholar]
  39. Malmberg, L.‐E. , Woolgar, C. , & Martin, A. J. (2013). Quality of measurement of the learning experience questionnaire for personal digital assistants. International Journal of Quantitative Research in Education, 1, 275–296. [Google Scholar]
  40. Marchand, G. , & Skinner, E. A. (2007). Motivational dynamics of children's academic help‐seeking and concealment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 65–82. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mazzolini, M. , & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: the role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49(2), 193–213. [Google Scholar]
  42. McCaslin, M. (2009). Co‐regulation of student motivation and emergent identity. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 137–146. 10.1080/00461520902832384 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. McNeish, D. , & Hamaker, E. L. (2019). A primer on two‐Level dynamic structural equation models for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus . 10.1037/met0000250 [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. Muthén, B. , & Muthén, L. (2017). Mplus user's guide .
  45. Myers, M. , & Paris, S. G. (1978). Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(5), 680–690. 10.1037/0022-0663.70.5.680 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Nadler, A. (1986). Self‐esteem and the seeking and receiving of help: theoretical and empirical perspectives. In Maher B. & Maher W. (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research (pp. 115–163). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  47. Nadler, A. (1998). Relationship, esteem, and achievement perspectives on autonomous and dependent help seeking. In Karabenick S. A. (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: implications for learning and teaching (pp. 61–93). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nelson‐Le Gall, S. (1981). Help‐seeking: an understudied problem‐solving skill in children. Developmental Review, 1(3), 224–246. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nelson‐Le Gall, S. (1987). Necessary and unnecessary help seeking in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 148, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  50. Nelson‐Le Gall, S. , & Glor‐Scheib, S. (1986). Academic help seeking and peer relations in school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 187–193. [Google Scholar]
  51. Nelson‐Le Gall, S. , & Jones, E. (1990). Cognitive‐motivational influences on the task‐related help‐seeking behavior of Black children. Child Development, 61(2), 581–589. 10.2307/1131117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Nelson‐Le Gall, S. , Kratzer, L. , Jones, E. , & DeCooke, P. (1990). Children's self‐assessment of performance and task related help seeking. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 245–263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Newman, R. S. (1990). Children's help‐seeking in the classroom: The role of motivational factors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 71–80. [Google Scholar]
  54. Newman, R. S. (1994). Adaptive help seeking: a strategy of self‐regulated learning. In Schunk D. H. & Zimmerman B. J. (Eds.), Self‐regulation of learning and performance: issues and educational applications (pp. 283–301). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  55. Newman, R. S. (2002). How self‐regulated learners cope with academic difficulty: the role of adaptive help seeking. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 132–138. [Google Scholar]
  56. Newman, R. S. (2011). Students adaptive and nonadaptive help seeking in the classroom: Implications for the context of peer harassment. In Karabenick S. A. & Newman R. S. (Eds.), Help seeking in academic settings: Goals, groups, and contexts. Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  57. Newman, R. S. , & Goldin, L. (1990). Children's reluctance to seek help with schoolwork. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 92–100. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.92 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Newman, R. S. , & Schwager, M. T. (1995). Students' help seeking during problem solving: effects of grade, goal, and prior achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 352–376. [Google Scholar]
  59. Oortwijn, M. B. , Boekaerts, M. , Vedder, P. , & Strijbos, J. W. (2008). Helping behaviour during cooperative learning and learning gains: the role of the teacher and of pupils' prior knowledge and ethnic background. Learning and Instruction, 18, 146–159. [Google Scholar]
  60. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self‐regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Panadero, E. , & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. Hogrefe Publishing. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203. [Google Scholar]
  62. Perry, N. (2022). Theory and research on self‐regulated learning meet real life in classrooms. David Whitebread memorial lecture. PEDAL Centre, University of Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  63. Pintrich, P. R. , & Zusho, A (2002). The development of academic self‐regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In Wigfield A. & Eccles J. S. (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 249–284). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50012-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Pöysä, S. , Vasalampi, K. , Muotka, J. , Lerkkanen, M.‐K. , Poikkeus, A.‐M. , & Nurmi, J.‐E. (2018). Teacher‐student interaction and lower secondary school students' situational engagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 374–392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Puustinen, M. (1998). Help‐seeking behaviour in a problem‐solving situation: Development of self‐regulation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13(2), 271–282. [Google Scholar]
  66. Puustinen, M. , Arneton, M. , Lewi‐Dumont, N. , & Gaborit, M . (2015). Help seeking in students with a visual impairment: Students’ and teachers’ perspective . Paper presented at EARLI 2015, Limassol, Cyprus.
  67. Puustinen, M. , Bernicot, J. , & Bert‐Erboul, A. (2011). Written computer‐mediated requests for help by French‐speaking students: An analysis of their forms and functions. Learning and Instruction, 21, 281–289. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Puustinen, M. , Bernicot, J. , Volckaert‐Legrier, O. , & Baker, M. (2015). Naturally occurring help‐seeking exchanges on a homework help forum. Computers & Education, 81(C), 89–101. [Google Scholar]
  69. Puustinen, M. , & Karabenick, S. A. (2013). Conclusions and future directions. In Karabenick S. A. & Puustinen M. (Eds.), Advances in help‐seeking research and applications: The role of emerging technologies (pp. 265–280). IAP Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  70. Puustinen, M. , Kokkonen, M. , Tolvanen, A. , & Pulkkinen, L. (2004). Children's help seeking and impulsivity. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 231–246. [Google Scholar]
  71. Puustinen, M. , Volckaert‐Legrier, O. , Coquin, D. , & Bernicot, J. (2009). An analysis of students' spontaneous computer‐mediated help seeking: A step toward the design of ecologically valid supporting tools. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1040–1047. [Google Scholar]
  72. Robinson, E. (1983). Metacognitive development. In Meadows S. (Ed.), Developing thinking: Approaches to children's cognitive development (pp. 106–141). Methuen. [Google Scholar]
  73. Roll, I. , Aleven, V. , McLaren, B. M. , & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Improving students' help‐seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 267–280. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Ryan, A. M. , Patrick, H. , & Shim, S.‐O. (2005). Differential profiles of students identified by their teacher as having avoidant, appropriate, or dependent help‐seeking tendencies in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 275–285. [Google Scholar]
  75. Ryan, A. M. , Pintrich, P. R. , & Midgley, C. (2001). Avoiding seeking help in the classroom: Who and why? Educational Psychology Review, 13, 93–114. 10.1023/A:1009013420053 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Ryan, A. M. , & Shin, H. (2011). Help‐seeking tendencies during early adolescence: An examination of motivational correlates and consequences for achievement. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 247–256. [Google Scholar]
  77. Schraw, G. , & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. 10.1007/BF02212307 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Schunk, D. H. , & Greene, J. A. (2018). Historical, contemporary, and future perspectives on self‐regulated learning and performance. In Schunk D. H. & Greene J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of self‐regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1–15). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [Google Scholar]
  79. Strand, S. , & Hessel, A. (2018). English as an additional language, proficiency in English and pupils' educational achievement: An analysis of local authority data. University of Oxford. [Google Scholar]
  80. Strand, S. , Malmberg, L.‐E. , & Hall, J. (2015). English as an Additional Language (EAL) and educational achievement in England: An analysis of the National Pupil Database. Report. University of Oxford, Department of Education.
  81. Tesser, P. T. M. , & Iedema, J. (2001). Rapportage minderheden 2001 [Minorities report 2001]. SCP. [Google Scholar]
  82. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645. 10.1080/01443410500345172 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Trammell, J. , & Hathaway, M. (2007). Help‐seeking patterns in college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 20(1), 5–15. [Google Scholar]
  84. Van der Meij, H. (1988). Constraints on question asking in classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 401–405. 10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.401 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Van der Meij, H. (1990). Question asking: To know that you do not know is not enough. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 505–512. [Google Scholar]
  86. Vedder, P. H. , & Horenczyk, G. (2006). Acculturation and the school. In Sam D. L. & Berry J. W. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 419–438). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489891.031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Volckaert‐Legrier, O. , Bernicot, J. , & Bert‐Erboul, A (2009). Electronic mail, a new written‐language register: a study with French‐speaking adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 163–181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Webb, N. M. , & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369–395. [Google Scholar]
  89. Webb, N. M. , Franke, M. L. , Ing, M. , Wong, J. , Fernandez, C. H. , Shin, N. , & Turrou, A. C. (2014). Engaging with others' mathematical ideas: interrelationships among student participation, teachers' instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93. [Google Scholar]
  90. Webb, N. M. , & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer‐directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 73–97. [Google Scholar]
  91. Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)‐emotion‐action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help‐giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 186–200. [Google Scholar]
  92. Winnykamen, F. (1992). Les interactions de guidage: La mediation par le tutoral. Bulletin de I'A.F.P.S. (Association Francaise des Psychologues Scolaires), mai‐juin, Mediation au mediations psychologiques. Actes du congres de Lille de I'A.F.P.S. (18 octobre 1991).
  93. Winnykamen, F. (1993). Gestion socio‐cognitive du recours it l'aide d'autrui chez l'enfant. Journal International de Psychologie, 28, 645–659. [Google Scholar]
  94. Wolters, C. A. , Pintrich, P. R. , & Karabenick, S. A. (2003. 12–13, March, revised April). Assessing academic self‐regulated learning [Conference presentation]. Conference on Indicators of Positive Development: Definitions, Measures, and Prospective Validity. Washington, DC, United States. https://childtrends.org/wp‐content/uploads/2013/05/Child_Trends‐2003_03_12_PD_PDConfWPK.pdf
  95. Wood, D. (2009). Comments on “Learning with ICT: New perspectives on help seeking and information searching”. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1048–1051. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Zeidner, M. (2007). Test anxiety: Conceptions, findings, conclusions. In Schutz P. & Pekrun R. (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 165–184). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  97. Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self‐efficacy and educational development. In Bandura A. (Ed.), Self‐efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202–231). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511527692.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Zimmerman, B. J. , & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self‐regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In Hacker D. J., Dunlosky J., & Graesser A. C. (Eds.), The educational psychology series. Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299–315). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [Google Scholar]
  99. Zorn, S. , & Puustinen, M. (2022). Seeking academic help: the case of lower secondary students with autism spectrum disorder and their teachers. Learning and Instruction, 80, 101624. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Research data are not shared due to ethical restrictions.

Articles from The British Journal of Educational Psychology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES