Unpacking the relationship between existing and new measures of physiological synchrony and collaborative learning: a mixed methods study

Over the last decade, there has been a renewed interest in capturing twenty-first century skills using new data collection tools. In this article, we leverage an existing dataset where electrodermal activity (EDA) was used to identify markers of productive collaboration. The data came from 42 pairs of participants ( N  = 84) who had no coding experience and were asked to program a robot to solve a variety of mazes. Because little is known on how physiological synchrony relates to collaborative learning, we explored four different measures of synchrony: Signal Matching (SM), Instantaneous Derivative Matching (IDM), Directional Agreement (DA) and Pearson’s Correlation (PC). Overall, we found PC to be positively associated with learning gains (r = 0.35) and DA with collaboration quality (r = 0.3). To gain further insights into these results, we also qualitatively analyzed two groups and identified situations with high or low physiological synchrony. We observed higher synchrony values when members of a productive group reacted to an external event (e.g., following instructions, receiving a hint), oscillations when they were watching a video or interacting with each other, and lower values when they were programming and / or seem to be confused. Based on these results, we developed a new measure of collaboration using electrodermal data: we computed the number of cycles between low and high synchronization. We found this measure to be significantly correlated with collaboration quality (r = 0.57) and learning gains (r = 0.47). This measure was not significantly correlated with the measures of physiological synchrony mentioned above, suggesting that it is capturing a different construct. We compare those results with prior studies and discuss implications for measuring collaborative process through physiological sensors.

[1]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality , 2013, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.

[2]  W. Damon Peer education: The untapped potential , 1984 .

[3]  W. Damon,et al.  Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education , 1989 .

[4]  Jie Xu,et al.  Shared Experiences of Technology and Trust: An Experimental Study of Physiological Compliance Between Active and Passive Users in Technology-Mediated Collaborative Encounters , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems.

[5]  Hua Wang,et al.  Empathic tutoring software agents using real-time eye tracking , 2006, ETRA.

[6]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks , 1999 .

[7]  Jürgen Buder,et al.  Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[8]  G. Salomon,et al.  When teams do not function the way they ought to , 1989 .

[9]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Referring as a collaborative process , 1986, Cognition.

[10]  Guillaume Chanel,et al.  Physiological compliance for social gaming analysis: Cooperative versus competitive play , 2012, Interact. Comput..

[11]  M. Dawson,et al.  The electrodermal system , 2007 .

[12]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  An Interactive Table for Supporting Participation Balance in Face-to-Face Collaborative Learning , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[13]  Annemarie S. Palincsar,et al.  Group processes in the classroom. , 1996 .

[14]  R. Henning,et al.  Social psychophysiological compliance in a four-person research team. , 2009, Applied ergonomics.

[15]  J. Roschelle Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change , 1992 .

[16]  Judy Kay,et al.  An Interactive Teacher's Dashboard for Monitoring Groups in a Multi-tabletop Learning Environment , 2012, ITS.

[17]  Sanna Järvelä,et al.  Investigating collaborative learning success with physiological coupling indices based on electrodermal activity , 2016, LAK.

[18]  Marcelo Worsley,et al.  Multimodal Learning Analytics and Education Data Mining: using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks , 2016, J. Learn. Anal..

[19]  Sanna Järvelä,et al.  Monitoring in collaborative learning: Co-occurrence of observed behavior and physiological synchrony explored , 2018, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  Adam W. Hoover,et al.  Physiological compliance and team performance. , 2009, Applied ergonomics.

[21]  Naomi Miyake Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding , 1986 .

[22]  F. Fischer,et al.  A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[23]  N. Ravaja,et al.  Physiological Linkage of Dyadic Gaming Experience , 2014 .

[24]  Rosalind W. Picard,et al.  Empatica E3 — A wearable wireless multi-sensor device for real-time computerized biofeedback and data acquisition , 2014 .

[25]  M. C. Gil,et al.  Social-physiological compliance as a determinant of team performance. , 2001, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[26]  David Weintrop,et al.  Using Commutative Assessments to Compare Conceptual Understanding in Blocks-based and Text-based Programs , 2015, ICER.

[27]  Gerry Stahl,et al.  Meaning making in CSCL: conditions and preconditions for cognitive processes by groups , 2007, CSCL.

[28]  Akane Sano,et al.  Automatic identification of artifacts in electrodermal activity data , 2015, 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[29]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[30]  M. Baker COMPUTER-MEDIATED ARGUMENTATIVE INTERACTIONS FOR THE CO-ELABORATION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTIONS , 2003 .

[31]  Franziska Tschan,et al.  Ideal Cycles of Communication (or Cognitions) in Triads, Dyads, and Individuals , 2002 .

[32]  N. Webb,et al.  Constructive Activity and Learning in Collaborative Small Groups. , 1995 .

[33]  B. Parkinson,et al.  Affecting Others: Social Appraisal and Emotion Contagion in Everyday Decision Making , 2009, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[34]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.