Main Article Content
Teamwork capabilities are essential for 21st century life, with groupwork emerging as a fruitful context to develop these skills. Case studies that explore interpersonal affect dynamics in authentic higher education groupwork settings can highlight collaborative skills development needs. This comparative case-study traced the sociodynamic evolution of two groups of first-year university students to investigate the high collaborative variance outcomes of the two groups, which reported starkly contrasting group dynamics (negative and dysfunctional or positive and collaborative). Mixed-methods (video-recorded observations of five groupwork labs over one semester, and group interviews) provided interpersonal affect data as real-time visible behaviours, and the felt experiences and perceptions of participants. The study traced interpersonal affect dynamics in the natural fluctuation of not just task-focused (on-task), but also explicitly relational (off-task) interactions, which revealed their function in both task participation and group dynamics. Findings illustrate visible interpersonal affect behaviours that manifested and evolved over time as interactive patterns, and group dynamics outcomes. Fine-grained analysis of interactions unveiled interpersonal affect as a collective, evolving process, and the mechanism through which one group started and stayed highly positive and collaborative over the semester. The other group showed a tendency towards splitting to undertake tasks early, leading to low group-level interpersonal attentiveness, and over time, subgroups emerged through interactions both off-task and on-task. The study made visible the pervasive nature of interpersonal affect as enacted through seemingly inconsequential everyday behaviours that supported the relational and task-based needs of groupwork, and those behaviours which impeded collaboration.
FLR adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Common License (BY-NC-ND). That is, Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors with, however, first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Affect. In APA Dictionary of psychology. Retrieved 23 January 2020 from https://dictionary.apa.org/affecthttps://dictionary.apa.org/?_ga=2.160359743.368224603.1609865270-776417432.1606326331
Baker, M., Andrriessen, J., & Järvelä, S. (Eds.). (2013). Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning, pp. 1-30. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Bakhtiar, A., Webster, E. A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2018). Regulation and socio-emotional interactions in a positive and a negative group climate. Metacognition and Learning, 13(1), 57-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9178-x
Barkaoui, K., So, M., & Suzuki, W. (2008). Is it relevant? The role of off-task talk in collaborative learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v5i1.31
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912
Barsade, S. G., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Group affect. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 21-46. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963721412438352
Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 197-231. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667070
Braun, M. T., Kozlowski, S. W., Brown, T. A., & DeShon, R. P. (2020). Exploring the dynamic team cohesion–performance and coordination–performance relationships of newly formed teams. Small Group Research, 51(5), 551-580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496420907157
Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative science quarterly, 53(4), 655-684. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.4.655
Curşeu, P. L., Chappin, M. M., & Jansen, R. J. (2018). Gender diversity and motivation in collaborative learning groups: The mediating role of group discussion quality. Social Psychology of Education, 21, 289-302. https://doi:10.1007/s11218-017-9419-5
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg, (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Elsevier.
Do, S. L., & Schallert, D. L. (2004). Emotions and classroom talk: Toward a model of the role of affect in students’ experiences of classroom discussions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.529
Ferreira, J. M. (2021). What if we look at the body? An embodied perspective of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1455-1473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09607-8
Forsyth, D. R. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
García, A., Olivares, H., Simão, L. M., & Dominguez, A. L. (2020). Socioemotional interactions in collaborative learning: An analysis from the perspective of semiotic cultural psychology. Culture & Psychology, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X20976513
Gorse, C. A., & Emmitt, S. (2009). Informal interaction in construction progress meetings. Construction Management and Economics, 27(10), 983-993. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190903179710
Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
Hess, U., & Hareli, S. (2019). The emotion-based inferences in context (EBIC) model. In U. Hess & S. Hareli (Eds.), The social nature of emotion expression: What emotions can tell us about the world (pp. 1-5). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32968-6
Huber, M. (2020). Video-based content analysis. In M. Huber & D. E. Froehlich (Eds.), Analyzing group interactions: A guidebook for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods (pp. 37–48). Routledge.
Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2019). Cognitive and socio-emotional interaction in collaborative learning: Exploring fluctuations in students’ participation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 831-851. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1623310
Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., & Baker, M. J. (2018). Striking a balance: Socio-emotional processes during argumentation in collaborative learning interaction. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 16, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.09.003
Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Malmberg, J. (2017). Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation during collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 70, 101090 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.004
Järvenoja, H., Näykki, P., & Törmänen, T. (2019). Emotional regulation in collaborative learning: When do higher education students activate group level regulation in the face of challenges? Studies in Higher Education, 44(10), 1747–1757. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665318
Jones, C., Volet, S., & Pino-Pasternak, D. (2021). Observational research in face-to-face small groupwork: Capturing affect as socio-dynamic interpersonal phenomena. Small Group Research, 52(3), 341-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649642098592
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 128-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599
Knight, A. P., & Eisenkraft, N. (2015). Positive is usually good, negative is not always bad: The effects of group affect on social integration and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1214–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000006
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335-353. https://doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2
Kuppens, P. (2015). It’s About Time: A special section on affect dynamics. Emotion Review, 7(4), 297-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915590947
Kuppens, P., Tuerlinckx, F., Yik, M., Koval, P., Coosemans, J., Zeng, K. J., & Russell, J. A. (2017). The relation between valence and arousal in subjective experience varies with personality and culture. Journal of Personality 85(4), 530-542. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12258
Kwon, K., Liu, Y-H., & Johnson, L. P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators. Computers & Education, 78, 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.004
Langer-Osuna, J. M., Gargroetzi, E., Munson, J., & Chavez, R. (2020). Exploring the role of off-task activity on students’ collaborative dynamics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 514-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000464
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Meinecke, A. L. (2014). Observing culture: Differences in U.S.-American and German team meeting behaviors. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,17(2) 252-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213497066
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Chiu, M. M. (2018). Igniting and resolving content disagreements during team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis of team dynamics at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), 1142-1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2256
Lobczowski, N. G., Lyons, K., Greene, J. A., & McLaughlin, J. E. (2021). Socioemotional regulation strategies in a project-based learning environment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 65, 101968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101968
Mesquita, B., & Boiger, M. (2014). Emotions in context: A Sociodynamic model of emotions. Emotion Review, 6(4), 298-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914534480
Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2012). Comparative case study. In Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 175-176). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397
Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning: A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.07.001
Oțoiu, C., Rațiu, L., & Rus, C. L. (2019). Rivals when we work together: Team rivalry effects on performance in collaborative learning groups. Administrative Sciences, 9(3), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030061
Poupore, G. (2018). A complex systems investigation of group work dynamics in L2 interactive tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 350-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12467
Riebe, L., Girardi, A., & Whitsed, C. (2016). A systematic literature review of teamwork pedagogy in higher education. Small Group Research, 47(2), 619-664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416665221
Rogat, T. K., and Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially shared regulation in collaborative groups: An analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and group processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4), 375-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.607930
Rogat, T. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Understanding the quality variation of socially shared regulation: A focus on methodology. In M. Vauras & S. Volet (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (pp. 102-125). Routledge.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44(4), 695-729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216
Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 10. Using video in teacher education (pp. 1–27). Elsevier.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2009). Animation: The fundamental, essential, and properly descriptive concept. Continental Philosophy Review, 42 (3), 375-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-009-9109-x
Slaby, J. (2016). Relational affect. Working paper SFB 1171 Affective societies 02/16. http://edocs.fu-berlin.de/docs/receive/FUDOCS_series_000000000562
Sohr, E. R., Gupta A., & Elby, A. (2018). Taking an escape hatch: Managing tension in group discourse. Science Education, 102(5), 883-916. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21448
Summers, M., & Volet, S. (2010). Group work does not necessarily equal collaborative learning: Evidence from observations and self-reports. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25(4), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0026-5
Ucan, S., & Webb, M. (2015). Social regulation of learning during collaborative inquiry learning in science: How does it emerge and what are its functions? International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2503-2532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1083634
Ujitani E, & Volet, S. Socio-emotional challenges in international education: Insight into reciprocal understanding and intercultural relational development. Journal of Research in International Education, 7(3), 279-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240908099975
Van Kleef, G. A. (2021). Comment: moving (further) beyond private experience: on the radicalization of the social approach to emotions and the emancipation of verbal emotional expressions. Emotion Review, 13(2), 90-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073921991231
Vriesema, C. C., & McCaslin, M. (2020). Experience and meaning in small-group contexts: Fusing observational and self-report data to capture self and other dynamics. Frontline Learning Research, 8(3), 126-139. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i3.493
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Yin. R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
Yoerger, M., Allen. J. A., & Crowe. J. (2018). The impact of premeeting talk on group performance. Small Group Research, 49(2) 226-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417744883