The Effects of Emotion Regulation and Students’ Perceived Challenges on Emotion Synchrony in Collaborative Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we explored the relationships among students' perceived challenges in collaborative learning, emotion regulation strategies (i.e., reappraisal and suppression), and emotion synchrony (i.e., valence synchrony and arousal synchrony) in natural classroom settings.We performed the partial least squares structural equation modeling for data analysis.The results revealed a positive and direct effect of cognitive reappraisal on arousal synchrony, and a negative and direct effect of cognitive reappraisal on valence synchrony.Students' perceived challenges had a negative effect on their arousal synchrony.Students' perceived challenges also played a mediating role in the relationship between cognitive reappraisal and arousal synchrony.As a total effect, cognitive reappraisal still positively and significantly predicted arousal synchrony.This study provided insights into students' emotional responses in collaborative learning and informed the design of collaborative learning environments.This study has also methodological implications regarding the analysis of emotion synchrony.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it