REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 10 February 2015
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00028
Toward a neural basis for peer-interaction: what makes
peer-learning tick?
Ian Clark1
* and Guillaume Dumas2,3,4
1
Nagoya University of Commerce and Business, Nagoya, Japan
2
Institut Pasteur, Human Genetics and Cognitive Functions Unit, Paris, France
3
CNRS UMR3571 Genes, Synapses and Cognition, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
4
University Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Human Genetics and Cognitive Functions, Paris, France
Edited by:
Jesús de la Fuente, University of
Almería, Spain
Reviewed by:
E. Michael Nussbaum, University of
Nevada at Las Vegas, USA
Sung-il Kim, Korea University, South
Korea
*Correspondence:
Ian Clark, The Language Centre,
Faculty of Communication, Nagoya
University of Commerce and
Business, 4-4 Sagamine
Komenoki-cho, Nisshin-shi, Aichi
470-0193, Japan
e-mail: clarki@uw.edu
Many of the instructional practices that have been advanced as intrinsically motivating are
inherent in socio-constructivist learning environments. There is now emerging scientific
evidence to explain why interactive learning environments promote the intrinsic motivation
to learn. The “two-body” and “second person” approaches have begun to explore the
“dark matter” of social neuroscience: the intra- and inter-individual brain dynamics during
social interaction. Moreover, studies indicate that when young learners are given expanded
opportunities to actively and equitably participate in collaborative learning activities they
experienced feelings of well-being, contentment, or even excitement. Neuroscience
starts demonstrating how this naturally rewarding aspect is strongly associated with
the implication of the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway during social interaction. The
production of dopamine reinforces the desire to continue the interaction, and heightens
feelings of anticipation for future peer-learning activities. Here we review how cooperative
learning and problem-solving interactions can bring about the “intrinsic” motivation to
learn. Overall, the reported theoretical arguments and neuroscientific results have clear
implications for school and organization approaches and support social constructivist
perspectives.
Keywords: socio-constructivism, peer-learning, motivation, intersubjectivity, reciprocity, cooperation, reward
INTRODUCTION
Recent conceptual developments and empirical research undertaken
by interdisciplinary research groups (Redcay et al., 2010;
Krill and Platek, 2012; Sakaiya et al., 2013; Schilbach et al., 2013)
support the proposition that the reward-related networks in the
human brain are recruited during cooperative social interaction.
This is of particular salience to educators who seek classroom
instruction and assessment methods that motivate their students
to assist each other (Wood et al., 1976; Vygotsky, 1978),
and sustain that assistance until the learning activity has been
completed successfully. The relatively recent empirical work by
social neuroscientists has helped to elucidate this matter through
the use of a technique which records the brain activity of two
(or more) individuals simultaneously (Montague et al., 2002;
Babiloni et al., 2006). This technique, known as hyperscanning,
has proved that brain activity is fundamentally different
when we interact with others rather than merely observing them
(Dumas et al., 2012a; Guionnet et al., 2012; Schilbach et al.,
2006). This supports a common call for taking the role of socialand
peer-interaction more seriously as an important driving
force behind the construction of the individual motivation to
learn in collective settings. Therefore, the central question which
guides the construction of this paper is: what is the relationship
between “live” social interaction and the reward-related
networks of the human brain, which when activated reinforce
the motivation to participate in product oriented peer-learning
activities.
“Second-person” (Schilbach et al., 2013) and “two-body”
(Dumas, 2011; Nadel and Dumas, 2014) approaches argue that
the social world and the world of the individual are interdependent,
as seen in the foundational work of the influential developmental
psychologist Vygotsky (1978, 1987), and that of more
recent researchers (e.g., Rogoff, 2003). Neuroscience has also
shown how motivation can emerge from the social world (Krach,
2010), and how social and reward-processing neural structures
relate to each other (Ruff and Fehr, 2014). This article outlines the
theoretical conception of an interactive approach to other minds
and reviews evidence from neuroimaging, psycho-physiological,
and psychological literature to rigorously explore the hypothesis
that “intrinsic” motivation is a socially constructed phenomenon.
This article reviews the literature on the social construction of
motivation and the neuroscientific evidence that supports these
perspectives. It discusses the functioning of two human brain
networks commonly associated with social interaction, namely
the mirror neuron system (MNS) and the “mentalizing” (MENT)
system (see Figure 1). While the MNS is especially associated with
goal understanding, empathy, and imitation, the MENT system
is rather associated with higher-level cognitive processes such as
understanding of other’s intentions and self-reference (Sperduti
et al., 2014). Then, the article presents the concept of “agentic
www.frontiersin.org February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 1
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
FIGURE 1 | Key brain structures implicated in the MNS (cyan),
MENT (red), and mesolimbic reward system (yellow). pIFG,
posterior part of the inferior frontal gyrus; aIPS, rostral part of the
inferior parietal cortex; dPMC, dorsal premotor cortex; M1, primary
motor cortex; vMPFC, ventromedial part of the prefrontal cortex; PCC,
posterior cingulate cortex; PCun, precuneus; TPJ, temporoparietal
junction; VS, ventral striatum; VTA, ventral tegmental area; AM,
amygdala.
equity” and thematic discussions on the role of the mesolimbic
reward pathway in cooperative learning, the developmental
trajectory of the MENT and what this means for peer-learning.
The discussions are focused around Bandura’s (2001)“agentic
perspective”—a concept which explores the capacity to exercise
control over the nature and quality of one’s life “within a broad
framework of sociostructural influences.”
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE SOCIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF INTRINSIC MOTIVATION
Ryan and Deci (2000a) remark, “because intrinsic motivation
results in high-quality learning and creativity, it is especially
important to detail the factors and forces that engender versus
undermine it.” When learners are intrinsically motivated they
experience a sense of stimulation that compels them to persist
with a learning task until its successful completion. Sociocognitive
studies on intrinsic motivation take an individualistic
perspective, holding that “intrinsic motivation exists in the nexus
between a person and a task” (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). Yet, as
socio-constructivist theoreticans observe “they have also long
recognized that contextual or social factors have a significant
influence on these individual processes” (Walker, 2010). Accordingly,
the influential socio-cognitive scholar Bandura (1977,
p. 227) affirms that “cognitive development, of course is situated
in sociocultural practices,” declaring such proclamations to
be “no longer newsworthy.” Similarly, Ryan and Deci (2000b)
emphasize the importance of interaction: “social environments
can facilitate or forestall intrinsic motivation by supporting versus
thwarting people’s innate psychological needs.” It is clear
that socio-cognitive theorists no longer see the realization of
instructional and motivational goals as an intra-psychological
process unconnected to the social plane. Indeed, students’ react
strongly to the social environment in schools, reporting emotions
that range from apathy to anger (Gilman and Anderman,
2006). It can therefore be no surprise that students rarely
report that they find studying to be intrinsically rewarding
(Csikszentmihalyi and Larson, 1984).
Even though socio-cognitive theory recognizes the relevance
of the social environment, motivation remains an individual phenomenon.
More recently, theorists have suggested, after Vygotsky,
that motivation is also social in nature (Walker, 2010). Sivan
(1986) was the first educational theorist to elaborate on an
individualistic theory of motivation. Her ideas received major
impetus from Hickey’s (1997) article on contemporary socioconstructivist
instructional perspectives. Hickey (1997) pointed
out that “socio-constructivism is prominent in contemporary
educational reform efforts” and urged for the expanded study of
“new curricular approaches that follow from this perspective.”
This has been supported by the recent empirical findings of
social neuroscientists on the relationship between social interaction,
neural reward (i.e., dopamine production: a hormone and
neurotransmitter which plays a major role in reward-motivated
behavior) and the motivation to learn (e.g., Redcay et al., 2010;
Salamone and Correa, 2012; Sakaiya et al., 2013; Apps and
Ramnani, 2014).
Socio-constructivist theoreticians contend that the motivation
to learn is a socially constructed phenomenon (Hickey, 1997;
Järvelä et al., 2010; Walker, 2010). Unlike their socio-cognitive
counterparts, who try to understand the social through its residence
in the mind of the individual, socio-constructivist theories
give analytical and theoretical primacy to the social world over the
individual world (Walker, 2010). In parallel, social neuroscientists
argue for the “ontogenetic primacy of social interaction over
observation” (Schilbach, 2014). For social constructionists there is
a complex bi-directionality between individual learners and their
social environment that may be described as a dynamic interdeFrontiers
in Psychology | Educational Psychology February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 2
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
pendence between the social and individual worlds. These worlds
are distinguishable so that individual interactants maintain their
specific identity, and do not merge into an “undifferentiated
matrix” (Coelho and Figueiredo, 2003). Recent empirical findings
from social neuroscience indicate that individual motivation and
social inter-individual processes complement one another and
tend to come into play concurrently (Adolphs, 2009).
From a social constructivist perspective “motivation is a
socially negotiated process that results in an observable manifestation
of interest and cognitive and affective engagement”
(Sivan, 1986). In the specific context of the classroom many
foundational studies have explored how social strategies of teachers
(Brophy and Kher, 1984) and peers (Peterson et al., 1984)
affect the motivation to learn. Thus, the role of social interaction
would be emphasized in any discussion on motivation within
a social constructivist perspective. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal
development (ZPD), like Wood et al. (1976) concept of “scaffolding,”
is a kind of assisted learning and “assisted learning is
the method by which instructional and motivational goals are
integrated” (Sivan, 1986). If the integration of these goals is to
take place teachers, their students, and their peers need to develop
intersubjectivity (Walker, 2010)—an interpersonal process that
entails the making of subjective inferences in order to gain insights
about the intentions and perspectives of others. In this Vygotskian
perspective, one can never distinguish between an individual’s
cognitive ability, the individual’s affective state, and the social
environment (Rogoff, 1990).
There is compelling evidence that assisted learning holds
considerable potential to improve student performance (Mynard
and Almarzouqi, 2006; Kayi-Aydar, 2013), ensure outcome equity
(Hedin, 1987; Benard, 1989; Reyes and Elias, 2011), enhance
instructional efficacy (van Zundert et al., 2010) and, most significantly,
motivate students to learn and think together more deeply
(Sivan, 1986; Hickey, 1997; Mercer, 2000; Walker, 2010). There is
therefore a deepening consensus on the proposition that cooperative
“interactive styles” (Black and Wiliam, 2006) of classroom
instruction are generally more effective than teacher-fronted
didactic methods (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Assessment Reform
Group [ARG], 1999; Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development/Centre for Educational Research and Innovation
[OECD/CERI], 2005; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006;
Waxman et al., 2008; Cauley and McMillan, 2010; Clark, 2014).
NEW PERSPECTIVES FROM THE INTERACTIVE TURN OF
SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE
Schilbach et al. (2013) note, “modern cognitive psychology has
retained ‘methodological behaviorism’ from precisely the psychology
it claims to have undermined” (also, Costall, 2006). This
points at the enduring tradition of reductionism within social
neuroscience, which separates the minds of the interactants from
their observable behavior. Consequently, some recent neuroscientific
studies (e.g., Gallotti and Frith, 2013) continue to separate
neural activity (“social knowing”) from the social processes associated
with that activity. Such studies focus on the use of, what
Becchio et al. (2010) call, “isolation paradigms” in which participants
are required to merely observe others, or think about their
mental states as a detached observer. This approach highlights
the shortcomings of a reductionist approach contend “second
person” (Timmermans et al., 2013) and “two-body” (Dumas,
2011; Nadel and Dumas, 2014) neuroscientists. Recent empirical
evidence (e.g., Cleeremans, 2011; Timmermans et al., 2012) even
support that meta-cognitive skills, such as reflection, are acquired
during social interaction. Our brain’s biological functions are thus
constantly molded by internal reflection and external feedback
as we attempt to model (or simulate) other minds during an
interaction.
Passive/observational learning entails more limited neural
activity than social-interaction (Schilbach et al., 2013). In a socioconstructivist
“two-body” or “second-person” perspective interactive
learning requires an intricate negotiation between people
which recruits the neural processes underlying reciprocal social
interaction, and involves both affective and cognitive aspects
(Sakaiya et al., 2013). It is through this interaction that students
learn to be conscious of their own actions. The resultant metacognitive
reflection helps learners to exercise control over their
environment as they attempt to realize their personal and learning
goals (Bandura, 1997; Clark, 2012). The development of a metacognitive
system not only guides the establishment of new behavioral
routines, but also help monitoring their quality and progress
over time (Chein and Schneider, 2012).
Rewarding social interactions between an individual and the
social environment in which they are “embedded” is central to
the overall purpose of this review (and will be revisited in a
later section on dopaminergic reward). Early studies (Farroni
et al., 2002) found that a preference for social engagement
emerges as early as 2–5 days after birth. Even at this age, it
is emotionally rewarding for infants to look at faces with eyes
looking directly at them. Schilbach et al. (2013) note that when
individuals are not emotionally engaged they cannot be expected
to gain intersubjectivity—a necessary condition for rewarding
peer-learning to occur. Intersubjectivity is the extent to which
the “hidden” ideas, intentions and values of one participant are
accessible to, understood and reciprocated by the other. A stable
inter-subjective state is typically unavailable, so this is a continuous
process of observation and inference at the intrapersonal
level, and of social negotiation at the interpersonal (Fuchs and
de Jaegher, 2010). This continuous process creates the conditions
necessary for the integration of motivational and instructional
goals (Sivan, 1986), or the “collaborative ZPD [. . .] best understood
as involving mutual adjustment and appropriation of ideas”
(Goos et al., 2002; cf. Vygotsky, 1978, 1987).
Damon’s (1984) declaration that peer-learning is a “robust
phenomena” was made many years prior to the modern neuroimaging
procedures available today which have empirically
demonstrated why assisted learning motivates people to work
and learn together. Yet, even 30 years on, Baines et al. (2007)
suggest that peer-learning remains a neglected area by teachers
who typically plan for their interactions with students, but
not for interactions between and among students. Tiknaz and
Sutton (2006) found that peer discussions took place only once
or twice in the school year. This was due to time constraints
(often cited as a reason; see Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development/Centre for Educational Research and
Innovation [OECD/CERI], 2005), complex assessment language,
www.frontiersin.org February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 3
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
and mistrust of students as competent assessors. These teachers
are missing the opportunity to motivate their students through
expanded opportunities for participation. Social neuroscience
suggests a close functional interaction between the social and
emotional/motivational systems in the human brain (Lieberman,
2007; Sakaiya et al., 2013). This offers an opportunity for
educators to reflect on classroom strategies which capitalize on
learners’ self-reported preference for cooperative learning activities
(Assessment Action Group/AiFL Programme Management
Group [AAG/APMG], 2002–2008; Willis, 2010).
THE POSITIVE EMOTIONAL VALENCE OF COOPERATIVE
INTERACTION
The origin of the fundamental human need to belong has been
suggested to originate in the advantage of cooperative over
individualistic work performance (Baumeister and Leary, 1995;
Wagner et al., 2014). The preference for cooperation supports a
theory of “emotional-motor resonance” (Preston and de Waal,
2002) that neuroscientists propose as a “phylogenetically early
system for empathy” (Molnar-Szakacs and Uddin, 2013). The
term “resonance” implies a cognitive tension “between” learners
as they seek mutual insights, jointly monitor the interaction
and adapt to each other’s needs as learners. This shared, and
ideally equitable tension, is represented as brains activating in
the same areas as they interact (Jackson et al., 2006; Dumas
et al., 2012a). Indeed, the intrinsic motivation to cooperate is
so pronounced that “when [peers] share visual information in
an interpersonal situation, they immediately coordinate their
movements even when instructed to be intentionally uncoordinated”
(Issartel et al., 2007). Accordingly, Sakaiya et al. (2013)
found that: (a) the intensity of emotion associated with reciprocal
peer-interaction presents in the mesolimbic dopamine reward
system of the brain; and, (b) intersubjectivity is essential. Indeed,
without intersubjectivity cooperative human relationships appear
impossible (Sakaiya et al., 2013; Schilbach et al., 2013). The
quality of intersubjectivity is determined by the predictability and
stability of the interaction (Allen and Williams, 2011). Where
unpredictability exists the motivation required for effective peerlearning
diminishes, and the collaborative ZPD remains inaccessible
because learners cannot assist each other until they have
mutual insights into each others’ intentions and motives.
Learners experience positive feelings in anticipation of mutual
interaction (Salamone and Correa, 2012), and of course, during
an interaction as learners feel motivated to create and capitalize
on opportunities to collaborate together in order to solve a
particular problem (Redcay et al., 2010). Moreover, since the
reward system also reacts to the value of reward received by
others (Apps and Ramnani, 2014), learners can mutually detect
and experience others’ reward during social interactions thus
creating an additional mutual fulfillment during peer-learning.
These changes in brain-chemistry are particularly important in
motivating young learners to delve more deeply as they think and
learn together.
Socio-constructivist theories posit that motivated learners are
participants in interactive (Black and Wiliam, 2006; Schilbach,
2014) or cooperative relationships (Storch, 2002; Schilbach
et al., 2013). Storch (2002) asserts that a collaborative relationship
means much more than two or more learners working
together. From this perspective cooperation is measured along
two dimensions: equality and mutuality. Equality refers to the
level of authority or control over the interaction. If learners are
to assist each other then they need to demonstrate the ability to
take direction from each other equally by a process of interactive
turn-taking. Mutuality means the extent of engagement between
each other’s contributions so that peers who exhibit a high level of
mutuality assist each other by sharing ideas and giving feedback.
From the realm of social neuroscience, Schilbach et al. (2013)
present a similar theoretical model for rewarding and successful
peer-assistance. Schilbach employs “emotional engagement”
on the horizontal axis and “social interaction” on the vertical
axis in parallel to Storch’s (2002) preference for “equality” and
“mutuality.” Storch’s (2002) contention that effective thinking
and learning is not a matter of people simply working together
is consonant with that of Schilbach et al. (2013), who found
that “intricate reciprocal reactions” emerge. Reciprocity motivates
learners by recruiting the reward circuitry in the human brain,
which encourages, sustains, and deepens individual peer-learning.
This has been empirically demonstrated by Krill and Platek (2012)
during a task requiring the participants to interact cooperatively
in order to learn how to negotiate their way through a maze. In
support of the long-standing findings of social learning theorists
(e.g., Johnson and Johnson, 1996), they concluded that such
learning activities “may be more rewarding under conditions of
real time cooperation.”
The design and implementation of cooperative learning activities
is empirically supported by the interactive, constructive,
active, passive (ICAP) theoretical model that differentiates student
engagement in learning tasks by categorizing students’ learning
strategies as Interactive, Constructive, Active, or Passive (Chi,
2009; Menekse et al., 2013). It is founded on theoretical assumptions
about how those strategies relate to different cognitive
processes. The ICAP hypothesizes that Interactive activities will
produce better learning outcomes than Constructive activities,
and that all more effective than Passive learning strategies so
that I > C > A > P. Interactive (I) engagement entails learning
together and is, although not explicitly stated in Chi’s work,
entirely consonant with social constructivist theory. A Constructive
(C) strategy may be self-explaining, or creating a concept
map in order to generate new knowledge. Active (A) behaviors
include highlighting a textbook chapter and correspond to the
internalization of new knowledge. Observational strategies would
be considered Passive (P), corresponding to the process of storing
knowledge. There is empirical support for the ICAP hypothesis,
although the Interactive category carries a caveat (Menekse
et al., 2013). That is that engagement should only be considered
Interactive, and therefore rewarding, when both individuals in an
interaction are being cooperative.
NEURAL GROUNDING OF SOCIAL COGNITION
The next sections will explore two important neural systems
implicated during social- and peer-interaction (see Figure 1).
These are, (a) the “MNS”; and, (b) the “MENT system.” Research
on the latter began as early as 1978 with the seminal work
of Premack and Woodruff (1978). The understanding of the
Frontiers in Psychology | Educational Psychology February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 4
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
MNS/MENT relationship, the self, and internal/external stimuli
advanced recently (Qin and Northoff, 2011; Sperduti et al., 2014)
but require further methodological and theoretical developments
(Dumas et al., 2014; Schilbach, 2014). While these systems are
connected, they seem to operate at different levels of neural
complexity. The MNS regulates low-level simulation processes,
or externally focused processes related to one’s own or others’
visible expressions, actions and emotions. The MENT is involved
in higher-level inference-based “MENT” processes, or internally
oriented processes, which build a mental-model of others’ inner
affective and cognitive, states; more clearly understood as an evaluation
or reflection function (Uddin et al., 2007). Of course, this
separation between MNS and MENT is also linked to a disparity
of conceptual and methodological choices in social neuroscience
(Schilbach, 2014). Both MNS and MENT are bidirectionally
coupled and a full account of social cognition requires integrating
both systems in different social context and across development
(Dumas et al., 2014).
The MNS and MENT integrate internal and social information
to achieve self- and other-understanding (Molnar-Szakacs and
Uddin, 2013; Marchetti and Koster, 2014; Sperduti et al., 2014).
The coordinated activity of these systems, therefore, provides the
neural basis for more effective learning interactions that lead
to improvements in meta-cognitive functioning (i.e., reflection).
Such improvements are the consequence of the spontaneity inherent
to authentic learning interactions which motivate people by
activating the reward-related networks (Guionnet et al., 2012)
and modifies substrates through neuro-plasticity or molding
(Allen and Williams, 2011). Such inter-individual neural molding
may explain over time the reinforcing of both anatomical and
functional similarity between human brains and thus facilitating
our propensity to interact socially with others (Dumas et al.,
2012b).
Since MNS and MENT work together to provide a neural
basis for social cognition (Sperduti et al., 2014), they pattern our
capacity to interact with others and attain personal and learning
goals in often challenging social situations (e.g., schools). Recent
developments in social neuroscience confirm that mutual social
empathy and engagement is a key pre-requisite (e.g., Schilbach
et al., 2013) for the kinds of learning interactions that “waken a
whole series of functions that are in a stage of maturation lying
in the zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 212).
The MNS and MENT and how they motivate individuals to learn
in collective settings is the focus of the subsequent section of
this article, beginning with the lower-level simulation processes
executed by the MNS.
LOWER-ORDER SOCIAL PROCESSING: THE “MIRROR
NEURON SYSTEM”
The MNS (see Figure 1) is a neural network of “mirror neurons”
which responds when we perform an action, and when we see
that action being performed by others. The mirror neurons thus
tend to be more active during cooperative interactions (NewmanNorlund
et al., 2007). During social interaction, the MNS mechanisms
unify the sensory perception of an action or emotion and
the execution of a (re)action (Sandrone, 2013). More specifically,
the MNS detects and monitors the spontaneous and incongruent
“affordances” (momentary cues inviting immediate feedback)
required for effective peer-interaction to take place (Schilbach
et al., 2013).
While the MNS is fundamental for the study of the self in
relation to others, and therefore fundamental to social cognition,
it is considered a lower-order neural network due to its
superficial interpretive function (Sandrone, 2013). The MNS is
a conceptually behavioral system in that a literal interpretation
would mean that we simply mirror the actions of others (those
Newtonian relationships of which reductionists dream). This kind
of predictability is evident in machines and simple life forms,
but not among humans who live a complex social life (White,
1984; Clark, 2012). The MNS is important in comprehending the
intentions of others by processing the sensorimotor or observable
actions and emotions of others. It therefore helps people to recognize
others as intentional beings; in this case learning-partners
(Marchetti and Koster, 2014), and provides the basic platform
from which dialogic peer-learning interactions may emerge. Even
for young learners of limited social experience the “mirror-like
processes” are strongly influenced by complex self-perspectives
and experiences, and also by how they perceive the intentions
of others (Meltzoff, 2005; Gazzola et al., 2007; Molnar-Szakacs
and Uddin, 2013). These findings suggest that the MNS begins
construction of the social foundation required for peer-learning
(see Cook et al., 2014). It is becoming clear that this construction
is a joint process; a fundamentally social process, and a crucial one
that sustains cooperative verbal interaction.
The development of social “affordances” (Schilbach et al.,
2013) into genuine opportunities for learning is dependent on the
meta-cognitive awareness of students’ and the self-belief that their
efforts will result in success (self-efficacy). For each momentary
action or emotion we observe, the MNS models or simulates these
states internally before preparing and executing a reaction. The
MNS is by no means an exclusively visual system, as it responds
to other environmental stimulation, e.g., sounds from which
humans obtain information about other persons’ feelings and
intentions (Caetano et al., 2007). As such, when dialog associated
with someone else’s actions is listened to, the MNS is recruited
(Molnar-Szakacs and Uddin, 2013), creating a “neural resonance”
during an interaction (Dumas et al., 2010; Marchetti and Koster,
2014). Cooper et al. (2012), for instance, observed that when
others are observed receiving a reward the reward centers of the
observers’ brains are recruited as well (but to a lesser extent
of course). Similar phenomena can be observed with empathy:
when we observe that others are in physical or emotional pain
the observers’ brains react as it was experiencing pain as well,
running a sort of background simulation (Decety and Lamm,
2009).
The MNS is fundamental to the early development of intersubjectivity.
Heyes (2010) and Schilbach et al. (2013) found that
the neuro-plasticity of the MNS can be transformed through
frequent exposure to the sensorimotor inputs of others. This
means that, “the MNS, even in adulthood, can be reconfigured
through sensorimotor learning” (Schilbach et al., 2013). So, when
learners are mutually engaged on a frequent basis, the simulationroutines
of the MNS may improve so they become a more stable
basis for the preparation and execution of social and learning
www.frontiersin.org February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 5
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
interactions. The fluid developmental trajectory of the MNS
supports the widespread implementation of “relational skills
training” (Blatchford et al., 2006), or other socio-emotional
strategies (Collaborative for Academic, Social, Emotional Learning
[CASEL], 2006) in public schools because they have the
potential to support students’ identities as successful learners. The
“early empathy” made possible by MNS processes is fundamental
to the peer-learning relationships which provide the bedrock on
which higher-order thinking and learning takes place (Clark,
2012).
HIGHER-ORDER SOCIAL PROCESSING: THE “MENTALIZING”
NETWORK
The MENT of self and others are closely “related processes that
are crucial to navigating the social world” (Uddin et al., 2007).
The MENT (see Figure 1) integrates internally oriented MNS processes
with higher-level subjective inferences (insights) about others
in order to prepare and execute appropriate social interactions
(Sandrone, 2013). The MENT plays a key role in thinking and
learning across the span of learners’ lifetimes; from its emergence
in 2-day-old newborns (Gao et al., 2009) to its disappearance
in brain-dead patients (Boly et al., 2009). While recent studies
on the MNS emphasize behavioral responses to social stimulus,
the MENT is thought to integrate those lower-order signals
with more complex meta-processes (e.g., “reflection-in-action”),
which encourage the conscious use of learning strategies related to
planning, monitoring, and reflection. Reflective MENT-processes
seek to reveal insights into others so that inferences may be made
about the other’s inner cognitive and affective/motivational states
(Shea et al., 2014).
A social-interaction becomes a learning-interaction when
the interactants are cognitively and motivationally engaged in
peer-learning activities (see Pintrich and Zusho, 2002). During
a specifically learning-interaction learners formulate and consciously
adapt their social strategies so they maintain intersubjectivity
and sustain cooperation (Kirsh and Maglio, 1995; Black and
Wiliam, 1998, 2009). It may be seen as a social game, during which
the rules become known implicitly through observation and
inference, and explicitly through dialog. When learners employ
personal and social strategies that influence others they experience
rewarding “MENT sensations” related to making progress in
the social game (Schilbach et al., 2013). The causal link between
peer-learning and positive emotional/motivational states means
that interactive styles of learning (Black and Wiliam, 2006) are
something to look forward to for students. This is particularly
useful in compulsory settings where many students dislike learning
(Gilman and Anderman, 2006).
The integration of signals by the MNS and MENT working
together in concert is thought to be basis for the internalization
of external feedback (Sandrone, 2013). Feedback signals are combined
with information from memory in order to select an appropriate
and timely response (Molnar-Szakacs and Uddin, 2013).
This places beneficial cognitive demands on learners by requiring
them to synthesize moment-to-moment feedback with prior
knowledge. Synthesis requires employing the important metacognitive
process of reflection in order to create new “schematic
knowledge” (originated by Bartlett, 1932). Higher-level intersubjectivity
(cognitive empathy) requires reflection on the actions
and emotional states of others; including perspective taking and
Theory of Mind (ToM; de Waal, 2008). The ToM regions of
the human brain are synonymous with the MENT in studies
on the neural basis for social interaction. Both terms refer to
the substrates recruited when a learner is trying to model the
insights of others during an interaction. Advanced meta-cognitive
skills, such as reflection, require the recruitment of the higher
MENT functions, which, with regular exposure to high-quality
cooperative interactions, develop in their neuro-plasticity (Allen
and Williams, 2011).
This trajectory toward higher-order social cognition is
described by Decety and Jackson (2004) as a process of increasing
“cognitive flexibility.” The meta-process of reflection, which
develops flexibility and is itself elevated by that greater flexibility,
is emphasized as pivotal to student achievement (Schön, 1987;
Butler and Winne, 1995; Bose and Rengel, 2009; Clark, 2012) and
a “key ingredient in the commitment to lifelong learning” (Kuiper
and Pesut, 2004). Findings from the educational literature support
the proposition that when peer-interaction is emphasized as
an instructional strategy, the subsequent activation of the MENT
plays a key role in the enhancing student engagement and the
acquisition of adaptive thinking and learning strategies (Slavin,
1996; Topping, 1996; Ladyshewsky, 2001; van der Meer, 2011).
This indicates that developments in the actual capacity for effective
spontaneous thinking or “reflection-in-action” (Schön, 1987)
depend on the frequent use of instructional strategies, which
expand opportunities for student participation (Clark, 2012).
When participation is underpinned by spontaneous (Guionnet
et al., 2012) online peer-interaction the experience of learning
together stimulates “intrinsically” rewarding MENT activity
(Redcay et al., 2010; Sakaiya et al., 2013) which reinforces feelings
of anticipation for learning (Salamone and Correa, 2012) and
a desire to improve mastery over the rewarding meta-cognitive
skills (e.g., reflection) that support achievement.
SOCIAL INTERACTION AND THE REWARD-RELATED
NETWORKS OF THE BRAIN
Reward related signals play a key role in the establishment and
maintenance of social relations (Schilbach et al., 2013). Central
to social relations is the notion of reciprocity (Melis and Semmann,
2010), which is also intimately connected with high social
cognition (Brosnan et al., 2010). Evidence from neuroimaging
and psycho-physiological studies has demonstrated “profound
differences in neural processing related to the reciprocity of social
interaction” (Schilbach et al., 2013). Put another way, cooperative
peer-interactions stimulate directly the significant changes in
brain chemistry, which influence the quality and duration of the
peer-learning activity (Yamasue et al., 2009). This is proposed as
a bi-directional relationship so that the positive feelings experienced
by learners as they begin an interaction deepens their
involvement in social- and peer-interaction which they experience
as a rewarding sense of self- and social-awareness with lifelong
effects.
Recent research on the production of dopamine by the
mesolimbic reward system has exploded the myth that dopamine
regulates positive-feelings only when we obtain something that
Frontiers in Psychology | Educational Psychology February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 6
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
satisfies us. Salamone and Correa (2012) found that dopamine
neurotransmitters “fire” before we perform an action. The simple
expectation of a cooperative interaction, based on past experience,
recruits the social reward-networks in the brain. This response
makes it much more likely that learners will employ social strategies
which sustain the next interaction to a mutually agreeable
conclusion. In a carefully structured peer-learning ecology (Clark,
2014), the automatic release of dopamine has a clear potential to
reinforce peer-engagement and diminish negative psychological
states, caused, for example, by negative public comparison in
the classroom. However, Salamone and Correa (2012) emphasize
that beneficial outcomes are not inevitable or equally distributed
among the participants. The attainment of reciprocal intersubjectivity
is facilitated or frustrated by the cultural practices, personal
experiences, and current knowledge available to the participants.
Public schools should and can organize in ways that reduce
these social, cultural (e.g., linguistic) or economic inequities and
support marginalized students so they remain persistent (Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development/Centre
for Educational Research and Innovation [OECD/CERI], 2011;
Putney and Broughton, 2011). When learners (of any age) experience
social inequity or psychological threats to their self-esteem
(or observe this happening to others), they divert resources away
from active participation in the learning process and expend
resources on efforts to avoid interaction and withdraw from the
situation (Boekaerts and Corno, 2005; Black and Wiliam, 2009).
If students are to actively participate in their own learning progression
it is important to help students to acquire positive volitional
strategies and reinforce them by providing positive learning
experiences (Black and Wiliam, 2009). Classrooms emphasize
“respect, responsibility, cooperation, and caring” (Putney and
Broughton, 2011) as the guidelines for community conduct; such
reciprocal relationships play a key part in any community where
the members expect to meet each other regularly (Henrich et al.,
2003). In such communities, humans are “conditional cooperators”
who discriminately prefer to learn with other cooperators
but not with non-cooperators (Sakaiya et al., 2013). It is this
preference, described in the next section of this article, which
resides at the heart of Bandura’s (2001) “agentic” relationship. For
peer-learning to flourish, the wider learning environment must be
organized in ways which bring about the emotional engagement
and interpersonal reciprocity required for social relationships to
become learning relationships (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Putney
and Broughton, 2011; Clark, 2014).
AGENCY, RECIPROCITY, AND REWARD
“To be an agent is to intentionally make things happen by
one’s actions [. . .]. The core feature of agency enables people
to play a part in their self development, adaptation, and selfrenewal
with changing times” (Bandura, 2001). Therefore, in a
classroom setting agency refers to individual leadership during
peer-interaction. When learners are engaged as active participants
in cooperative peer-learning tasks they are engaged in a series of
neurally rewarding “agentic” interactions. The precise terms of
an agentic relationship are negotiated between the participants.
This negotiation (or reciprocation) continues for the duration
of an interaction, and regulates equality and mutuality (Storch,
2002) among student-peers. When discursive control is equitably
circulated every member of the learning community or group has
contributed equally and mutually their ideas and opinions are
perceived as equally valuable and they should, at least in theory,
have experienced equal reward.
However, the search for equity is not the concern of young
learners during an interaction. Social neuroscience has discovered
that people are very sensitive to the reward they experience when
they have influence over an interaction (Fiske and Dépret, 1996;
Schilbach et al., 2013). In practice this means that each learner,
to some extent, prefers to play the role of influencer or controller
because dopamine is released when they are afforded the
opportunity to lead the interaction. This requires the cooperation
of the other “players” in the social game which is why many
social interactions are unrewarding and unpleasant experiences
when cooperation is withheld. In social situations where they feel
that they are guiding the other they feel valued and the rewardsystems
of the brain induce a sense of well-being and self-esteem.
Accordingly, in classroom studies conducted by Hedin (1987) it
was observed that “the experience of being needed, valued, and
respected by another person produced a new view of self as a
worthwhile human being.” This is agentic equity; a term, which
refers to, equally distributed leadership among the interactants.
The actual extent of equity between the interactants depends
upon interactive turn-taking and the circulation of reciprocal
feedback among children. Ideally, everybody will have experienced
a sense of self-worth associated with being valued at some
point during the interaction.
Learning relationships of this quality do not occur spontaneously.
They cannot be attained without: (a) persistent modeling
by teachers; (b) frequent opportunities to participate in
structured or “scaffolded” peer-learning; or, (c) if required, more
prescriptive interventions and training programs which support
the socio-emotional needs of learners (Blatchford et al., 2006;
Collaborative for Academic, Social, Emotional Learning [CASEL],
2006). They take turns in a way known as the “interactive turn” by
directing each other in accordance with Storch’s (2002) notion of
equality as a necessary aspect of the privileged learning “contract”
between them. The ventral striatum (VS; see Figure 1) in the midbrain
(MENT regions) and other reward processing structures are
furthermore recruited during cooperative (Schilbach et al., 2013)
and spontaneous (Guionnet et al., 2012) interaction.
THE DOPAMINERGIC PATHWAY IN SOCIAL REWARD
Recent evidences have emerged that cooperative peer-interaction
recruits the mesolimbic dopamine reward system in the human
brain, providing a feeling of fulfillment to the learners engaged
in the interaction (Redcay et al., 2010; Krill and Platek, 2012;
Sakaiya et al., 2013; Pfeiffer et al., 2014). The VS is particularly
important in the dopaminergic pathway (see Figure 1). It
receives rich dopaminergic input from the midbrain (Tabibnia
and Lieberman, 2007) and integrates actions with reward, thus
capable of translating social information into coding of new
behavior, including learning (Báez-Mendoza and Schultz, 2013).
Cooperative and shared social context seems to particularly activate
the VS (Tabibnia and Lieberman, 2007; Fareri et al., 2012;
Guionnet et al., 2012); Schilbach et al. (2010) even mention
www.frontiersin.org February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 7
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
a “VS effect” that was triangulated by questionnaire responses
and which confirmed that cooperative social interaction “was
experienced as more pleasant and less effortful” than doing the
opposite of their partner. The amygdala also plays a key role in
reward-processing activity (Baxter and Murray, 2002) and use of
reward to motivate the use of social learning strategies (Murray,
2007).
Developments in functional magnetic resonance imagining
(fMRI) elucidate on the connection between reciprocal peerinteraction
and the amygdala, which coordinates with other
reward related structures; including the ventral tegmental area
(VTA). For example, Sakaiya et al. (2013) found a link between
amygdala activity and the cooperative learning interactions,
which regulate agentic equity. Amygdala activation was greater
for cooperative social strategies than for interactions, which the
interactants perceived as unpredictable. When the participants in
Sakaiya et al. (2013) study were exposed to unstable interaction
strategies, when reciprocation and non-reciprocation could not
be predicted, they reported a corresponding loss of insight into
their partner’s intentions. The consequence of this lack of mutual
empathy was a diminished desire to continue the learning interaction.
Consequently, learning ceases along with the motivation to
do so. This was confirmed by interviews in which the participants
in Sakaiya et al.’s (2013) study expressed a preference for changing
partners or discontinuing the interaction entirely.
Reciprocity, mutuality, and shared intention are key components
for an efficient co-regulation of spontaneous social interaction
(Nadel and Dumas, 2014). Cooperative interactions are
especially of this kind and rewarding experiences usually emerge
between two or more intentionally supportive peers (cf. Vygotsky,
1978, 1987). When interactants use cooperative social strategies,
brain structures associated with the dopaminergic reward system
are indeed more active (Redcay et al., 2010; Krill and Platek, 2012;
Sakaiya et al., 2013; Schilbach et al., 2013); The same effect is
observed for the anticipation of an interaction (Salamone and
Correa, 2012), when interactants develop a common understanding
in regard to motive and the goals and the pay off so that all
participants achieve the same goal successfully (Rilling et al., 2002;
Decety et al., 2004). In all those cases, dopamine thus creates and
sustains the positive emotional states during social interaction
and, in the case of learning, contributes to the intrinsic motivation
of learners.
THE DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORY OF THE MENT AND
PEER-LEARNING
Interactive peer-dialog, characteristic of learners who are able to
employ “reflection-in-action,” is founded upon the level of “spontaneous
activity” (Fair et al., 2008) taking place across the MENT
regions of the human brain. Fair et al. (2008) posit that more
mature MENT substrates exhibit a higher level of spontaneity
in response to social affordances. Some studies suggest that the
MENT’s maturity is connected to the chronological age of the
learner. For example, Bahrami et al. (2010) emphasize the finding
that enhancements in the reflective and introspective aspects of
social cognition accrue throughout learners’ lives.
When investigating the earliest years of cognitive development,
Fransson et al. (2008) could not detect a complete MENT system
in the infants in their study. This finding was elaborated on by
the pioneering work of Fair et al. (2008) who found the MENT
to be only “sparsely functionally connected” at 7–9 years of age.
The same study emphasized a growth-trajectory of the MENT,
suggesting, “over development, these regions integrate into a
cohesive, interconnected network.” In a later study, Washington
et al. (2014) also investigated the structural connectivity between
the MENT sub-structures. Like Fair et al. (2008), they found weak
structural connectivity in 7–9 year olds, so that these regions of
the brain still did coordinate efficiently. Further, Washington et al.
(2014) discovered that the MENT regions of the brain do not
begin to work together in concert (as they do in adults) until
ages 11–13. Despite these structural weaknesses across the MENT
regions in pre-teens and children of elementary school age, learners
as young as 8 years can routinely recall and restructure (i.e.,
reflection) the content of past and present thinking and learning
(Fair et al., 2008).
The foundational work of Fair et al. (2008) supports the
conclusion that the MENT is a relatively functional structure
at the age when meta-cognitive skills (i.e., reflection) become
developed. Supekar et al. (2010) conducted a similar study to
confirm the earlier study conducted by Fair et al. (2008). Supekar
et al. (2010) found that by the age of 8, some connections between
MENT substrates were mature and others were in an earlier
state of maturation (cf. Vygotsky, 1978, 1987). In accordance
with the earlier study by Fair et al. (2008), Supekar et al. (2010)
found that despite sparse functional connectivity, 8-year-old children
can reach “adult-like levels” in sub-structures implicated
in social cognition. Those results follow a more general trend
of brain networks that mature from a “local” organization to
a “distributed” organization (Fair et al., 2009). Overall, these
emerging findings indicate that children should be meaningfully
assessed for their ability to establish agentic equity at around the
age of 8 years old; an age at which peer-learning may begin to
become an effective instructional strategy. On this latter point,
the early activation of the dopaminergic reward linked with social
interaction encourages peer-learning partnerships, which Reyes
and Elias (2011) found to establish “the most powerful integration
of protective processes”; processes, which protect young learners
from academic disaffection and failure later in life.
CONCLUSION
Johnson and Johnson (1983) emphasize that,
“[. . .] there is no type of task on which cooperative efforts are
less effective than are competitive or individualistic efforts, on
most tasks[. . .]concept attainment, verbal problem-solving, categorization,
spatial problem-solving, retention and memory, motor,
guessing-judging-predicting, cooperative efforts are more effective in
promoting achievement.”
Scientific evidence indicates that effective peer interactions
are characterized as stable, equitable, mutually engaging and
reciprocal interactions. Cooperative social interaction depends
upon the establishment and maintenance of intersubjectivity; a
persistent process that sustains any learning-interaction for its
entire duration. When learners work together cooperatively they
rely on the moment-to-moment integration of lower-order motor
Frontiers in Psychology | Educational Psychology February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 8
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
cues in the MNS and higher-order reflection and projection
processes in the MENT regions of the human brain. Redcay
et al. (2010) found that those key neural structures recruited
for everyday social interaction (right temporo-parietal junction,
anterior cingulate cortex, and right superior temporal sulcus) are
“consistently linked” to the activation of the dopaminergic reward
system (amygdala and VS; see Figure 1). The same study emphasized
“the powerful and pervasive drive” for humans to seek out
social interactions, and reiterated that contingent interactions
with another person recruits the reward systems (Guionnet et al.,
2012; Krill and Platek, 2012; Sakaiya et al., 2013; Schilbach et al.,
2013).
Cooperative peer-learning can be described as the instructional
use of pairs or small groups so that students work together
to maximize their own and each other’s learning. It may be
contrasted with competitive contexts and individualistic contexts
(Johnson, 2009). Significantly, socio-constructivist contexts
which promote an interactive style of knowledge construction
sustain and deepen participation (cf. Lave and Wenger, 1991)
between learners, and provide dopaminergic reward in anticipation
of (Salamone and Correa, 2012) and during the learninginteraction
(Redcay et al., 2010; Guionnet et al., 2012; Krill and
Platek, 2012; Sakaiya et al., 2013; Schilbach et al., 2013), which
cease after the interaction has ended. These emerging findings
from within social neuroscience inform our understanding of the
value of peer-learning in classrooms across multiple contexts. The
opportunities for future research into the “dark matter” of social
neuroscience are potentially vast in their scope and implication.
A current finding of general relevance is that the brain responds
differently depending on whether learning entails passive observation
or active participation (Schilbach, 2014). Both learning
“stances” involve intricate processes of internalization, reflection,
and social knowledge construction, which together promote the
intrinsic motivation required for successful outcomes in public
schools.
REFERENCES
Adolphs, R. (2009). The social brain: neural basis of social knowledge. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 60, 693–716. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163514
Allen, M., and Williams, G. (2011). Consciousness, plasticity, and connectomics:
the role of intersubjectivity in human cognition. Front. Psychol. 2:20. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00020
Apps, M. A., and Ramnani, N. (2014). The anterior cingulate gyrus signals
the net value of others’ rewards. J. Neurosci. 34, 6190–6200. doi: 10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.2701-13.2014
Assessment Action Group/AiFL Programme Management Group (AAG/APMG).
(2002–2008). AifL—Assessment is for Learning. Available at: http://www.
ltscotland.org.uk/assess [accessed March 14, 2008].
Assessment Reform Group (ARG). (1999). Assessment for Learning: Beyond the
Black Box. Cambridge: Cambridge University, School of Education.
Babiloni, F., Cincotti, F., Mattia, D., Mattiocco, M., De Vico Fallani, F., Tocci, A.,
et al. (2006). Hypermethods for EEG Hyperscanning. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med.
Biol. Soc. 1, 3666–3669. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2006.260754
Báez-Mendoza, R., and Schultz, W. (2013). The role of the striatum in social
behavior. Front. Neurosci. 7:233. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00233
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., and Frith, C. D.
(2010). Optimally interacting minds. Science 329, 1081–1085. doi: 10.1126/sci-
ence.1185718
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., and Chowne, A. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of
collaborative group work in primary schools: effects on science attainment. Br.
Educ. Res. J. 33, 663–680. doi: 10.1080/01411920701582231
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 2, 1–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baumeister, R., and Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117, 497–529.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Baxter, M., and Murray, E. (2002). The amygdala and reward. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3,
563–573. doi: 10.1038/nrn875
Becchio, C., Sartori, L., and Castiello, U. (2010). Toward you: the social side of
actions. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 19, 183–88. doi: 10.1177/0963721410370131
Benard, B. (1989). Towards family. Prev. Forum 9, 7–14.
Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappa. 80, 139–148.
Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (2006). “Assessment for learning in the classroom,” in
Assessment and Learning, ed. J. Gardner (London: Sage), 9–25.
Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment.
Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. 21, 5–31. doi: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett, P., and Chowne, A. (2006).
The effect of a new approach to group-work on pupil–pupil and teacher–
pupil interactions. J. Educ. Psychol. 98, 750–765. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.
4.750
Boekaerts, M., and Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective
on assessment and intervention. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 54, 199–231. doi:
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
Boly, M., Tshibanda, L., Vanhaudenhuyse, A., Noirhomme, Q., Schnakers, C.,
and Ledoux, D. (2009). Functional connectivity in the default network during
resting state is preserved in a vegetative but not in a brain dead patient. Hum.
Brain Mapp. 30, 2393–2400. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20672
Bose, J., and Rengel, Z. (2009). A model formative assessment strategy to promote
student- centered self-regulated learning in higher education. US-China Educ.
Rev. 6, 29–35.
Brophy, J., and Kher, N. (1984). Teacher Socialization as a Mechanism for Developing
Student Motivation to Learn. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University,
Institute for Research on Teaching.
Brosnan, S. F., Salwiczek, L., and Bshary, R. (2010). The interplay of cognition
and cooperation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2699–2710. doi:
10.1098/rstb.2010.0154
Butler, D. L., and Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical
synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 65, 245–281. doi: 10.3102/00346543065003245
Caetano, G., Jousmäki, V., and Hari, R. (2007). Actors and observers primary motor
cortices stabilize similarly after seen or heard motor actions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 104, 9058–9062. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702453104
Cauley, M. C., and McMillan, J. H. (2010). FA techniques to support student motivation
and achievement. Clear. House 83, 1–6. doi: 10.1080/00098650903267784
Chein, J. M., and Schneider, W. (2012). The brain’s learning and control architecture.
Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21, 78–84. doi: 10.1177/0963721411434977
Chi, M. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework of differentiating
learning activities. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1, 73–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-
8765.2008.01005.x
Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: assessment is for self-regulated learning.
Educ. Psychol. Rev. 24, 205–249. doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6
Clark, I. (2014). Equitable learning outcomes: supporting economically and culturally
disadvantaged students in ‘Formative Learning Environments’. Improv. Sch.
17, 1–27. doi: 10.1177/1365480213519182
Cleeremans, A. (2011). The radical plasticity thesis: how the brain learns to be
conscious. Front. Psychol. 2:86. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00086
Coelho, N., and Figueiredo, L. (2003). Patterns of intersubjectivity in the constitution
of subjectivity: dimensions of otherness. Cult. Psychol. 9, 193–208. doi:
10.1177/1354067x030093002
Collaborative for Academic, Social, Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2006). What
is SEL? The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning
(CASEL). Available at: http://www.casel.org/aboutsel/WhatisSEL.php [accessed
November 23, 2011].
Cook, R., Bird, G., Catmur, C., Press, C., and Heyes, C. (2014). Mirror neurons:
from origin to function. Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 177–192. doi: 10.1017/
S0140525X13000903
www.frontiersin.org February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 9
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
Cooper, J. C., Dunne, S., Furey, T., and O’Doherty, J. P. (2012). Human dorsal striatum
encodes prediction errors during observational learning of instrumental
actions. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 24, 106–118. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00114
Costall, A. (2006). Introspectionism and the mythical origins of modern scientific
psychology. Conscious. Cogn. 15, 634–654. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2006.
09.008
Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Larson, R. (1984). Being Adolescent: Conflict and Growth
in the Teenage Years. New York: Basic Books.
de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution
of empathy. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 279–300. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.
59.103006.093625
Damon, W. (1984). Peer education the untapped potential. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 5,
331–343. doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(84)90006-6
Decety, J., and Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy.
Behav. Cogn. Neurosci. Rev. 3, 71–100. doi: 10.1177/1534582304267187
Decety, J., Jackson, P. L., Sommerville, J. A., Chaminade, T., and Meltzoff, A. N.
(2004). The neural bases of cooperation and competition: an fMRI investigation.
Neuroimage 23, 744–751. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.05.025
Decety, J., and Lamm, C. (2009). “The biological basis of empathy” in Handbook
of Neuroscience for the Behavioral Sciences, eds J. T. Cacoppo and G. G. Berntson
(New York: John Wiley and Sons), 940–957.
Dumas, G. (2011). Towards a two-body neuroscience. Commun. Integr. Biol. 4, 349–
352. doi: 10.4161/cib.4.3.15110
Dumas, G., Kelso, J., and Nadel, J. (2014). Tackling the social cognition paradox
through multi-scale approaches. Front. Psychol. 5:882. doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2014.00882
Dumas, G., Martinerie, J., Soussignan, R., and Nadel, J. (2012a). Does the brain
know who is at the origin of what in an imitative interaction? Front. Hum.
Neurosci. 6:128. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00128
Dumas, G., Chavez, M., Nadel, J., and Martinerie, J. (2012b). Anatomical connectivity
influences both intra- and inter-brain synchronization. PLoS ONE
7:e36414. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036414
Dumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignon, R., Martinerie, J., and Garnero, L. (2010).
Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. PLoS ONE 5:e12166. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0012166
Fair, D. A., Cohen, A. L., Dosenbach, N., Church, J., Miezin, F., Deanna, M., et al.
(2008). The maturing architecture of the brain’s default network. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 4028–4032. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800376105
Fair, D. A., Cohen, A. L., Power, J. D., Dosenbach, N. U., Church, J. A., Miezin,
F. M., et al. (2009). Functional brain networks develop from a “local to
distributed” organization. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5:e1000381. doi: 10.1371/jour-
nal.pcbi.1000381
Fareri, D. S., Niznikiewicz, M. A., Lee, V. K., and Delgado, M. R. (2012). Social
network modulation of reward-related signals. J. Neurosci. 32, 9045–9052. doi:
10.1523/jneurosci.0610-12.2012
Farroni, T., Csibra, G., Johnson, M., and Simion, F. (2002). Eye contact detection
at birth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 9602–9605. doi: 10.1073/pnas.
152159999
Fiske, S. T., and Dépret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence, and power: understanding
social cognition in its social context. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 7, 31–61.
doi: 10.1080/14792779443000094
Fransson, P., Skiöld, B., Horsch, S., Nordell, A., Blennow, M., Lagercrantz, H., et al.
(2008). Resting state networks in the infant brain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
104, 15531–15536. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704380104
Fuchs, T., and de Jaegher, H. (2010). Enactive intersubjectivity: participatory sensemaking
and mutual incorporation. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 8, 465–486. doi:
10.1007/s11097-009-9136-4
Gallotti, M., and Frith, C. D. (2013). Social cognition in the we-mode. Trends Cogn.
Sci. 17, 160–165. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.002
Gao, W., Zhu, H., Giovanello, K. S., Smith, J. K., Shen, D., and Gilmore, J. H. (2009).
Evidence on the emergence of the brain’s default network from 2-week-old to 2year-old
healthy pediatric subjects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 6790–6795.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811221106
Gazzola, V., van der Worp, H., Mulder, T., Wicker, B., Rizzolatti, G., and Keysers, C.
(2007). Aplasics born without hands mirror the goal of hand actions with their
feet. Curr. Biol. 17, 1235–1240. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.045
Gilman, R., and Anderman, E. (2006). Motivation and its relevance to school
psychology: an introduction to the special issue. J. Sch. Psychol. 44, 325–329.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.006
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., and Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated meta-cognition:
creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem
solving. Educ. Stud. Math. 49, 192–223. doi: 10.1023/A:1016209010120
Guionnet, S., Nadel, J., Bertasi, E., Sperduti, M., Delaveau, P., and Fossati, P. (2012).
Reciprocal imitation: toward a neural basis of social interaction. Cereb. Cortex
22, 971–978. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr177
Hedin, D. (1987). Students as teachers: a tool for improving school climate and
productivity. Soc. Policy 17, 42–47.
Henrich, J., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., Hopfensitz, A., Richardson, P., and Sigmund, K.
(2003). “The cultural and genetic evolution of human cooperation” in Generic
and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, ed. P. Hammerstein (Cambridge: MIT
Press), 445–468.
Heyes, C. (2010). Where do mirror neurons come from? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.
34, 575–583. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.11.007
Hickey, D. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional
perspectives. Educ. Psychol. 32, 175–193. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3203_3
Issartel, J., Marin, L., and Cadopi, M. (2007). Unintended interpersonal coordination:
“Can we march to the beat of our own drum?” Neurosci. Lett. 411,
174–179. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.09.086
Jackson, P., Brunet, E., Meltzoff, A., and Decety, J. (2006). Empathy examined
through the neural mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus how
you feel pain. Neuropsychologia 44, 752–761. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.
2005.07.015
Järvelä, S., Volet, S., and Järvenoja, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collaborative
learning: moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide and combining
individual and social processes. Educ. Psychol. 45, 15–27. doi: 10.1080/
00461520903433539
Johnson, D. W. (2009). Reaching Out: Effectiveness and Self-Actualization. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1983). “The socialization and achievement
crises: are cooperative learning experiences the solution?” in Applied Social
Psychology Annual 4, ed. L. Bickman (New York: Sage Publications), 119–164.
Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1996). “The role of the cooperative learning
in assessing and communicating student learning” in 1996 ASCD Yearbook:
Communicating Student Learning, ed. T. R. Gusky (Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development), 25–46.
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2013). Scaffolding language learning in an academic ESL classroom.
ELT J. 67, 324–335. doi: 10.1093/elt/cct016
Kirsh, D., and Maglio, P. (1995). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic
action. Cogn. Sci. 18, 513–549. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1804_1
Krach, S. (2010). The rewarding nature of social interactions. Front. Behav. Neurosci.
4:22. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2010.00022
Krill, A. L., and Platek, S. M. (2012). Working together may be better: activation
of reward centers during a cooperative maze task. PLoS ONE 2:e30613. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0030613.t002
Kuiper, R. A., and Pesut, D. J. (2004). Promoting cognitive and meta-cognitive
reflection reasoning skills in nursing practice: self-regulated learning theory.
J. Adv. Nurs. 45, 381–391. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02921.x
Ladyshewsky, R. (2001). Reciprocal Peer Coaching: a Strategy for Training and Development
in Professional Disciplines. Jamison, ACT: Higher Education Research
and Development Society of Australasia.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 259–289. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.
085654
Marchetti, I., and Koster, E. (2014). Brain and intersubjectivity: a Hegelian
hypothesis on the self-other neurodynamics. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:11. doi:
10.3389/fnhum.2014.00011
Melis, A., and Semmann, D. (2010). How is human cooperation different. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2663–2674. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0157
Meltzoff, A. (2005). “Imitation and other minds: the "Like Me" hypothesis” in
Perspectives on Imitation: From Neuroscience to Social Science, eds S. Hurley and
N. Chater (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 55–77.
Menekse, M., and Stump, G. S., Krause, S., and Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Differentiated
overt learning activities for effective instruction in an engineering classroom.
J. Eng. Educ. 102, 346–374. doi: 10.1002/jee.20021
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together.
London: Routledge.
Frontiers in Psychology | Educational Psychology February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 10
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
Molnar-Szakacs, I., and Uddin, L. (2013). Self processing and the Default Mode
Network: interactions with the mirror neuron system. Front. Hum. Neurosci.
7:571. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00571
Montague, P. R., Berns, G. S., Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M., Pagnoni, G., Dhamala,
M., et al. (2002). Hyperscanning: simultaneous fMRI during linked social
interactions. Neuroimage 16, 1159–1164. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1150
Murray, E. (2007). The amygdala, reward and emotion. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 489–
497. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.013
Mynard, J., and Almarzouqi, I. (2006). Investigating peer-tutoring. ELT J. 60, 13–22.
doi: 10.1093/elt/cci077
Nadel, J., and Dumas, G. (2014). The interacting body: intra- and interindividual
processes during imitation. J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 13, 163–175. doi: 10.1891/
1945-8959.13.2.163
Newman-Norlund, R. D., van Schie, H. T., van Zuijlen, A. M. J., and Bekkering, H.
(2007). The mirror neuron system is more active during complementary compared
with imitative action. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 817–818. doi: 10.1038/nn1911
Nicol, D. J., and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and selfregulated
learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud.
High. Educ. 31, 199–218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Centre for Educational
Research and Innovation (OECD/CERI). (2005). Formative Assessment: Improving
Learning in Secondary Classrooms. Paris: CERI/OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Centre for Educational
Research and Innovation (OECD/CERI). (2011). Against the Odds: Disadvantage
Students Who Succeed at School. Paris: CERI/OECD.
Peterson, P., Wilkenson, L., Spinelli, F., and Swing, S. R. (1984). “Merging the
process-product and the sociolinguistic paradigms: research on small group
processes” in The Social Context of Instruction: Group Organization and Group
Processes, eds L. Peterson, L. Wilkenson, and M. Hallinan (New York: Academic),
535–547.
Pfeiffer, U. J., Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Kuzmanovic, B., Georgescu, A. L.,
Bente, G., et al. (2014). Why we interact: on the functional role of the striatum
in the subjective experience of social interaction. Neuroimage 101, 124–137. doi:
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.061
Pintrich, P. R., and Zusho, A. (2002). “The development of academic selfregulation:
the role of cognitive and motivational factors” in Development of
Achievement Motivation, eds A. Wigfield and J. S. Eccles (San Diego: Academic
Press), 250–284.
Premack, D., and Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of
mind? Behav. Brain Sci. 4, 515–526. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00076512
Preston, S. D., and de Waal, F. B. (2002). Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases.
Behav. Brain Sci. 25, 1–20. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X02000018
Putney, L. G., and Broughton, S. H. (2011). Developing collective classroom
efficacy: the teacher’s role as community organizer. J. Teach. Educ. 62, 93–105.
doi: 10.1177/0022487110381760
Qin, P., and Northoff, G. (2011). How is our self related to midline regions
and the default-mode network? Neuroimage 57, 1221–1233. doi: 10.1016/
j.neuroimage.2011.05.028
Redcay, E., Dodell-Feder, D., Pearrow, M., Mavros, P., Kleiner, M., Gabrieli,
J., et al. (2010). Live face-to-face interaction during fMRI: a new took
for social cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage 50, 1639–1647. doi: 10.1016/
j.neuroimage.2010.01.052
Reyes, J., and Elias, M. J. (2011). Fostering social-emotional resilience among Latino
youth. Psychol. Sch. 47, 723–737. doi: 10.1002/pits.20580
Rilling, J. K., Gutman, D. A., Zeh, T. R., Pagnoni, G., Berns, G. S., and Kilts,
C. D. (2002). A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron 35, 395–405. doi:
10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00755-9
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking. Cognitive Development in Social
Context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ruff, C. C., and Fehr, E. (2014). The neurobiology of rewards and values in social
decision making. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15, 549–562. doi: 10.1038/nrn3776
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: classic
definition and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 54–67. doi:
10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation
of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55,
68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sakaiya, S., Shiraito, Y., Kato, J., Ide, H., Okada, K., Takano, K., and Kansaku,
K. (2013). Neural correlate of human reciprocity in social interactions. Front.
Neurosci. 7:239. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00239
Salamone, J., and Correa, M. (2012). The mysterious motivational functions
of mesolimbic dopamine. Neuron 76, 470–485. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.
10.021
Sandrone, S. (2013). Self through the mirror (neurons) and default mode network:
what neuroscientists found and what can still be found there. Front. Hum.
Neurosci. 7:383. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00383
Schilbach, L. (2014). On the relationship of online and offline social cognition.
Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:278. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00278
Schilbach, L., Wilms, M., Eickhoff, S. B., Romanzetti, S., Tepest, R., Bente,
G., et al. (2010). Minds made for sharing: initiating joint attention recruits
reward-related neurocircuitry. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 2702–2715. doi: 10.1162/
jocn.2009.21401
Schilbach, L., Wohlschlaeger, A., Kraemer, N., Newen, A., Shah, N., Fink, G.,
et al. (2006). Being with virtual others: neural correlates of social interaction.
Neuropsychologia 44, 718–730. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.07.017
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlict, T., et al.
(2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 393–462.
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000660
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shea, N., Boldt, A., Bang, D., Yeung, N., Heyes, C., and Frith, C. D. (2014). Suprapersonal
cognitive control and metacognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 186–193.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.006
Sivan, E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory. Educ. Psychol. 21, 209–
233. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2103_4
Slavin, R. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what
we know, what we need to know. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 21, 43–69. doi:
10.1006/ceps.1996.0004
Sperduti, M., Guionnet, S., Fossati, P., and Nadel, J. (2014). Mirror Neuron System
and Mentalizing system connect during online social interaction. Cogn. Process.
15, 307–316. doi: 10.1007/s10339-014-0600-x
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL Pair Work. Lang. Learn. 51, 119–
158. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00179
Supekar, K., Uddin, L., Prater, K., Amin, H., Greicus, M., and Memon, V. (2010).
Development of functional and structural connectivity within the default
mode network. Neuroimage 52, 290–301. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.
04.009
Tabibnia, G., and Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Fairness and cooperation are rewarding.
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1118, 90–101. doi: 10.1196/annals.1412.001
Tiknaz, Y., and Sutton, A. (2006). Exploring the role of assessment tasks to promote
formative assessment at Key Stage 3 geography: evidence from twelve teachers.
Assess. Educ. 13, 327–343. doi: 10.1080/09695940601035502
Timmermans, B., Schilbach, L., Pasquali, A., and Cleeremans, A. (2012). Higher
order thoughts in action: consciousness as an unconscious re-description
process. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 19, 1412–1423. doi: 10.1098/
rstb.2011.0421
Timmermans, B., Schlicht, T., and Schilbach, L. (2013). Social interaction builds
the ‘we-mode’: commenting on Gallotti and Frith. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17,
160–165.
Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher
education: a typology and review of the literature. High. Educ. 32, 321–345. doi:
10.1007/BF00138870
Uddin, L., Iacobani, M., Lange, C., and Keenan, J. (2007). The self and social
cognition: the role of cortical midline structures and mirror neurons. Trends
Cogn. Sci. 11, 153–157. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.01.001
van der Meer, J. (2011). “M¯aori and Pasifika students’ academic engagement:
what can institutions learn from the AUSSE data” in Student Engagement in
New Zealand Universities, ed. A. Radloff (Melbourne: Australian Council of
Educational Research), 1–85.
van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., and van Merriënboe, J. (2010). Effective peer
assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learn. Instr. 20,
270–279. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). “Thinking and speech” in The Collected Works of L. S.
Vygotsky, Vol. 1, Problems of General Psychology, eds R. W. Rieber and A. S.
Carton (New York and London: Plenum), 39–285.
www.frontiersin.org February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 11
Clark and Dumas Neural basis for peer interaction
Wagner, U., Galli, L., Schott, B., Wold, A., and van der Schalk, J. (2014). Beautiful
friendship: social sharing of emotions improves subjective feelings and activates
the neural reward circuitry. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu121
[Epub ahead of print].
Walker, R. (2010). “Sociocultural issues in motivation” in International Encyclopedia
of Education, eds P. Peterson, E. Baker, and B. McGaw (Oxford: Elsevier),
712–717.
Washington, S. D., Gordon, E. M., Brar, J., Warburton, S., Sawyer, A. T., Wolfe, A.,
et al. (2014). Dysmaturation of the default mode network in autism. Hum. Brain
Mapp. 35, 1284–1296. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22252
Waxman, H. C., Padrón, Y. N., Shin, J. Y., and Rivera, H. H. (2008). Closing
the achievement gap within reading and mathematics classrooms by fostering
Hispanic students’ educational resilience. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 3, 24–34.
White, E. M. (1984). Holisticism. Coll. Compos. Commun. 35, 385–502. doi:
10.2307/357792
Willis, J. (2010). Assessment for learning as a participative pedagogy. Assess. Matters
2, 65–84.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. J. Child Psychiatry Psychol. 17, 89–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.
tb00381.x
Yamasue, H., Kuwabara, H., Kawakubo, Y., and Kasai, K. (2009). Oxytocin, sexually
dimorphic features of the social brain, and autism. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 63,
129–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2009.01944.x
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted
in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Received: 02 October 2014; paper pending published: 19 November 2014; accepted: 07
January 2015; published online: 10 February 2015.
Citation: Clark I and Dumas G (2015) Toward a neural basis for peer-interaction:
what makes peer-learning tick? Front. Psychol. 6:28. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00028
This article was submitted to Educational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers
in Psychology.
Copyright © 2015 Clark and Dumas. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution
or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or
licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is
permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | Educational Psychology February 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 28 | 12