During a collaborative exam, every group member contributed to joint monitoring, and students monitored cognition far more often than behaviour or motivation and emotions.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Across four three-member groups, students produced 243 monitoring events, most frequently monitoring cognition, followed by behaviour, with motivation and emotions rarely monitored. → Jonna Malmberg 2019 q2 i? Within each group every member contributed to monitoring the group's progress, though participation was uneven. → Jonna Malmberg 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Jonna Malmberg 2019¶

Jonna Malmberg, Eetu Haataja, Tapio Seppänen, Sanna Järvelä. (2019). Are we together or not? The temporal interplay of monitoring, physiological arousal and physiological synchrony during a collaborative exam. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 14:467–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09311-4

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Qualitative content analysis of 1 h 51 min of video from four groups' collaborative exams identified individual monitoring utterances, coded by an independent coder with 84.95% agreement and κ = .74. The article reports "cognition most frequently (f = 138)".

"Altogether, the four groups monitored their progress 243 times. The students monitored cognition most frequently (f = 138), followed by behaviour ( f = 99). They monitored motivation and emotions six times collectively."

Jonna Malmberg 2019 (2)¶

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Group-level case analysis showed per-member monitoring frequencies varied widely, e.g. in group 1 the left student contributed 25 events (44.64%) and the right student 11 (19.64%), yet "each group member contributed to monitoring the group's progress".

"Thus, each group member contributed to monitoring the group'sp r o g r e s s."

Discussion¶

Increased physiological arousal and higher physiological synchrony relate to more monitoring with negative valence — related
During collaborative exam work, monitoring of cognition is the most common monitoring target, followed by monitoring of behavior, with monitoring of motivation or emotion scarce — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
Groups reacted to the large majority of monitoring events, but negative-valence monitoring of motivation or emotion received the lowest reaction rate — related
The editorial reports that a mixed methods study of 42 participant pairs found partly contradictory and partly complementary results on physiological synchrony and collaborative learning — a broader claim this one bears on

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`all-members-contribute-monitoring-cognition-dominates-collaborative-exam`
`title`	`During a collaborative exam, every group member contributed to joint monitoring, and students monitored cognition far more often than behaviour or motivation and emotions.`
`description`	`During a collaborative exam, every group member contributed to joint monitoring, and students monitored cognition far more often than behaviour or motivation and emotions.`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2019`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-18`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `jonna-malmberg-2019`, `jonna-malmberg-2019-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.