Session-level physiological synchrony occurred in the two groups that struggled with the collaborative exam, while the two groups that found the task easy showed no synchrony.¶

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¶

q2 i? Two of four groups showed significant session-level physiological synchrony ( assessed via Monte Carlo shuffling of PC-index correlations ), and both struggled with the exam; the two non-synchronised groups expressed that the task was easy. → Jonna Malmberg 2019

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? · associational · r1

Case-based qualitative analysis of four groups' exam sessions; groups 2 and 4 showed significant synchrony in between-pair PC-index comparisons ( e.g. group 2 left–middle SSI = 0.311, p < 0.0001) and "both of these groups struggled" with the task.

"What characterizes the two groups that had significant physiological synchrony for the whole session is that both of these groups struggled in terms of how to determine the refractive index of light for water and how to report the results."

Jonna Malmberg 2019 (2)¶

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? · associational · r1

The complementary case analysis found groups 1 and 3 showed no session-level synchrony and "both of thesegroups expressed that the task was easy"; per-pair SSIs for these groups were non-significant ( e.g. group 1 left–middle SSI = −0.034, p = 0.6635).

"What characterizes the two groups that had no significant physiological synchrony for the whole session is that both of thesegroups expressed that the task was easy."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Increased physiological arousal and higher physiological synchrony relate to more monitoring with negative valence — related
• Neither physiological arousal nor physiological synchrony predicts equality of participation in monitoring interactions — related
• Real collaborative groups show higher physiological synchrony than randomly matched false groups on %REC, %DET, and ADL — related
• Higher task difficulty ratings before and after collaborative tasks predict higher physiological arousal, while task understanding does not
• Physiological synchrony among collaborating students related only to cognitive regulation, while motivational regulation changes related to achievement — related
• During an exam, students' expectancy for success decreased and the change in expectancy was negatively associated with change in salivary cortisol — 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 — related