Socioemotional interactions in collaborative learning: An analysis from the perspective of semiotic cultural psychology

Introduction

Socioemotional interactions refer to emotional regulation strategies used by members of a group in the context of resolving collaborative learning tasks (hereon CL) (Hadwin & Oshige, 2011; Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011). Through this type of interaction, groups are able or not to resolve conflicts, maintain positive or negative motivational climates, share expectations about the task to be resolved and the performance of others, make positive or negative evaluations, and express and share their emotions and affections (Onrubia et al., 2015). Studies related to socioemotional interactions in CL have emphasized the need to identify and characterize social regulation processes used by groups and the relationship with CL performance levels (Onrubia et al., 2015; Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011; Sobocinski et al., 2017).

Studies with small groups in CL contexts have shown that there are positive or negative consequences in learning and global group functioning at the level of the type and quality of socioemotional interactions (Onrubia et al., 2015; Sobocinski et al., 2017). For example, improved performance has been observed in solving mathematical problems when there are a larger number of positive and collaborative socioemotional interactions, characterized by active listening and respect (Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011). As well, successful groups alternate between cognitive interactions and socioemotional interactions. Another interesting finding of these studies is that socioemotional interactions increase when the group is presented with a task because group members must talk about their emotions and motivations (Näykki et al., 2017; Sobocinski et al., 2017).

The positive or negative effects are conceived of mainly in terms of the results of learning, that is, socioemotional interactions are studied in function of the results of the task and not as a phenomenon of interest in itself. In contrast, this article, in which socio-emotional interactions are the fundamental unit of analysis, investigates the effects of socioemotional interactions independently of the results of collaborative learning, considering them a constituent component of intersubjectivity, and a basis for the construction of meaning.

Groups that are considered to have low performance in CL tasks are characterized by negative and non-collaborative socioemotional interactions, for example, lack of respect or group cohesion or explicit discouragement of participation by group members (Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011). It has been found that group members are less involved, there is more difficulty in understanding the task, less discussion about the content, and lack of follow-up and monitoring when this type of negative interaction is more evident (Onrubia et al., 2015).

Recent research has focused on showing how CL activates cognitive and affective processes as strategies to create interactions that favor the socioemotional climate of the classroom (Meirovich, 2012; Pulido & Herrera, 2017; Reyes et al., 2012). It has been observed that pleasing and displeasing emotions can be present in CL activities that affect the socioemotional climate of the classroom (Bakhtiar et al., 2018), reducing the perception of difficulty and promoting the belief about increased resources available to reach the objective (Brackett et al., 2016; Brigido et al., 2010; Ciotto & Gagnon, 2018; Crossman, 2007; Gogol et al., 2017; Ndiku et al., 2014).

There is interest in the study of affectivity in CL situations. Nevertheless, the incorporation of affectivity in CL research has at least two limitations. Firstly, affectivity tends to be considered a medium, vehicle or facilitator of cognitive and metacognitive processes. In this sense, these investigations are focused on understanding the ways in which positive or negative socioemotional interactions affect CL results in terms of comprehension and planning the content and the task (Volet & Vauras, 2013). As a result, there is not sufficient knowledge about socioemotional interactions independent of their effect on CL results.

Secondly, considering that learning is not only a rational-cognitive activity, but also an affective-cognitive one that leads students to make a significant connection with what they learn while carrying out a task, socioemotional interactions that favor active listening, respect, and collaboration, among other aspects, are only a dimension of the experience. Affectivity in the context of learning evidences how subjects involve their expectations, desires, interests, and subjective and intersubjective meanings in the framework of a shared and disquieting experience (Simão, 2003, 2016).

The conception of affectivity adopted here indicates that socio-emotional interactions are shared and situated experiences, that is, interactions between people who experience emotions, bodily engagement with the world and with others, and who construct and transform meanings during experiences. This view goes beyond the reductionism posed by other approaches to affectivity, for example, cognitive or evaluative theories. In the case of cognitive theory, emotion is situated as an evaluation (judgment) of external events (Scarantino & De Sousa, 2018). This conception faces several difficulties, such as the fact that it maintains the duality between the world and the subject, and favors internal and rational aspects in particular. This cognitive view does not offer clarity about the phenomenological nature of emotional experience, nor does it allow us to understand the aspects that motivate behavior. On the other hand, evaluative theories (Prinz, 2004) that see emotion as perceptions of bodily and physiological changes in the organism fail to argue how emotional experience holistically integrates the embodied and situated subject, the world and significant situations, as well as others who form part of the experience.

The objective of this study is to describe the socioemotional interactions of university students while resolving a CL task, from the perspective of semiotic cultural psychology, which assumes affectivity/cognition as an indissoluble unit, understanding affectivity as a phenomenon that configures intersubjective dynamics (Simão, 2010; Valsiner, 1987). Likewise, this work seeks to contribute to the semiotic cultural psychology and broaden its scope, inquiring about affective aspects of interactions that occur in a learning context.

Intersubjectivity, tension and disquieting experience in semiotic cultural psychology

The perspective assumed in this article is outlined in the works of Valsiner (1998) in the context of semiotic cultural psychology, building on the Vygotskian perspective, the central thesis of which is that intersubjective relationships form the base of human phenomena. Intersubjectivity is understood as “a temporal domain of meanings shared among two or more persons, or different levels of semiotic functioning of an individual” (Valsiner, 1998, p. 33). In other words, intersubjectivity implies constructing meanings with others, in a particular moment and context. According to Vygotsky (1978), the levels of semiotic functioning also imply that the interpersonal and intrapersonal levels are connected domains in which intersubjective phenomena occur.

An important aspect of the cultural semiotic approximation of intersubjectivity is that the construction of meanings implies negotiation and transformation, but does not necessarily imply consensus. “This shared domain of meanings is not necessarily an end in itself, since what is important is that in negotiating meanings, the subjects are always transforming” (Simão, 2010, p. 92). That is, whether or not consensus is reached, the exchange in negotiating promotes transformation of the subjects, which in turn leads to change in the way they relate to each other. For example, even from other research perspectives, we have results showing that sharing opinions about the same phenomenon in the context of a CL task can broaden the field of meanings, allowing the subjects to establish new ways of relating to their surroundings (Smith & Collins, 2010). Thus, it is assumed that intersubjectivity is a constant search in human relationships in the course of personal development. It is clear that this does not necessarily lead to consensus of meanings, however, in this process a transformation takes place, which emerges by sharing intentions, expectations and symbolic actions through discussion (Valsiner, 1998).

Individuals bring meanings to intersubjective relationships that they have already built in their history, which they share, build on and transform in the course of their relationships. From the cultural semiotic perspective, this process emerges in the sociocultural space, as is the case of the school, where transformation of meanings is possible through interactions in the classroom (Bertoni, 2015). Thus, a relationship is established between intra- and intersubjective dimensions, that is, the intra and intersubjective nature of the learning experience is recognized, as well as the constant interaction between the two. This is consistent with the views of Vygotskyans, who argue that all psychological function appears twice, firstly in an external plane, and then in an internal one (Vygotsky, 1978).

Addressing intersubjectivity from the cultural semiotic perspective implies considering at least two fundamental premises, the first being the existence of an indissoluble link between affectivity and cognition (Simão, 2010; Valsiner, 1987, 1998). That is, the experience with the other constitutively includes affective and cognitive aspects. The other fundamental premise is that the study of intersubjectivity evidences the importance of socially shared experience that not only configures the experiences of every subject, but also reaffirms the collective experience and cumulative knowledge in a cultural context. For Rommetveit (1992), to be in a shared world demands willingness to share one’s own expectations, contemplate the perspectives of others and recognize them as interlocutors, in other words, to trust in the relationship itself.

Meaning in semiotic cultural psychology is not reduced to the equivalent of content, but rather also implies reflecting on oneself, others and one’s relationship with the world, “In a communicative dialogue, words not only represent positions about a theme, but are also opportunities to reorganize the relative position of an interlocutor with another”(Simão, 2010, p. 101). Meaning is an intersubjective creation in that it is not alien to the context or the interactive circumstances (Cornejo, 2008). It is a shared experience that is only possible when individuals have similar experiences as a result of being in the world. Meaning implies a subjective dimension as a particular experience, and another intersubjective one as a shared experience.

Meaning is likewise constructed in a cultural context, which in this case consists of a field of symbolic action (Boesch, 1991), that is to say, as a symbolic border in movement that is constantly created and recreated, in the relations between oneself and others, it is a border as long as it offers possibilities and limits to novelty in the actor's actions (Boesch, 1991; Simão, 2016). It is a social field in which the interactions between the self and the other act as modulators, and at the same time are modulated by the experience of the action (Simão, 2016).

The construction, negotiation and transformation of meanings occurs thanks to the disquieting experience (Simão, 2003, 2016) a unit of analysis of semiotic cultural psychology, and a focal point to understand the I with the world relationship in the construction of human subjectivity, This implies that the disquieting experience is one of the fundamental categories, from which the role of affectivity in the negotiation and transformation of meanings that are part of intersubjectivity is evident. The disquieting experience at both the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels is understood as the rupture/tension between experience as it appears, and expectations of the same, that is, the gulf between what happened and what should have happened (Simão, 2003). In this sense, the disquieting experience generates a rupture in expectations, leading subjects both cognitively and affectively to think and act differently, since the new experience cannot adjust to the semantic field that the actor has constructed. It is disquieting in that it is perceived by subjects as a field without sense, in the context of which the individual who experiences it is obliged to generate new symbolic actions to provide new meaning to the experience (Simão, 2003, 2016). Thus, when new meanings are constructed, they are usually related to the need to resolve the disquieting experience.

Tension refers to the fact that meanings are constructed in the dynamic of interactions that confront each other at individual and interpersonal levels, and it is possible that in this confrontation new meanings emerge (Valsiner, 1998). The construction of a personal and sociocultural world of individuals arise thanks to the need to resolve these tensions (Simão, 2010). Tension requires new symbolic actions from the subject to reorganize his/her experience and give it meaning, which implies the need to seek stability and coherence.

This view from cultural semiotic psychology offers a different perspective from traditional positions on cognition, which have been interested in understanding the construction of meanings, recognizing this process as essential in cognitive development and human learning (Piaget, 1986, 1997). Piagetian theory recognizes the importance of difficulties in solving a problem (what the individual does not understand), as a fundamental and necessary part in the transformation of knowledge. The search for balance allows the individual through intentional action to reach levels of understanding and construction of meanings about numerous phenomena in the world. The main difficulty faced by this vision is that it restricts the explanation of the construction of meaning to an essentially cognitive and individual matter, which focuses on the existence of the required schemas and cognitive structures and not so much on aspects of an affective order that makes up the human experience and cannot be separated from it. The experience of creating meaning is neither solipsistic nor separated from the world, it is a situated, affective and intersubjective act.

From the cultural semiotic perspective, intersubjectivity can then be understood as a process in which subjects constantly contribute to, construct and negotiate meanings, in the context of a specific, unique and unrepeatable situation. The notion of shared meanings is much more than a cognitive process of configuration and shared beliefs, it is generated through the tensions and disquieting experiences that occur through interactions and the meaning that subjects give to them.

Method

Results

Representative fragments that are empirical instances of the concept of intersubjectivity from the perspective of semiotic cultural psychology are presented below. The fragments present specifically the role of the negotiation and transformation of meanings in this process, arisen by tension and the disquieting experience. The following dialogue began at minute 12 in the collaborative learning session. In dialogue 4, the participants (indicated with the names Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4) discuss having designed an artificial intelligence device, the objective of which is to aid in creating habits among users. Specifically, the group discussed how the artificial intelligence device would function after the habit is formed. The segment lasted approximately 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

Y4: It doesn't do the work for one.

The fundamental concern that mobilizes the dialogue is the question of what the criteria should be, and at what point it can be affirmed that artificial intelligence has created a habit in the person who uses it the device. The discussion becomes relevant when the participant identified as Y3 introduces tension in the form of a question "But the other question is whether it becomes obsolete after the objective has been met?” (see line 6). The question appears as a disquieting experience for the participants (Simão, 2016) when a rupture in expectations is generated to the extent that it is not enough for the participants when they indicate the characteristics that make a device an example of artificial intelligence, but also there is a tension regarding the need to set limits, and define how long the device can be used. The two tensions created a lack of clarity in what until then had been the participants’ conception of the device.

This dialogue is characterized by positive socioemotional interactions, mainly active listening and respect (Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011). Specifically, from line 1 to 6, the dialogue is shared in a coordinated manner in that each member of the group intervenes as a response to the previous intervention. For this to happen, the members of the group must focus on the interventions of their peers. In this sense, it can be observed that the participants turn their gaze to the member of the group who is speaking, showing a shared interest in what the speaker is saying (see Figure 1, Photogram 1). The interventions of each member of the group encourage participation by requesting ideas from one another. They are considered positive socio-emotional interactions because they encourage the proper functioning of the group, favoring the resolution of the task. Although this phenomenon is important in understanding the role of emotions in group interaction in collaborative learning situations, the analysis is focused on the way in which these interactions favor the proper functioning of the group, independent of the meanings constructed in the interaction, and the place of these interactions in the construction of meaning

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Intersubjectivity expressions in CL situations.

From the perspective of cultural semiotic psychology, the fundamental characteristic of the analyzed fragment is the negotiation and transformation of meanings that emerge in the intersubjective plane. Thus, the negotiation of meanings is generated from the need to clarify the type of relationship between artificial intelligence and human beings, which is not previously given, but is constructed in the course of the dialogue. In this sense, it is initially stated that the subject does not have a dependent relationship with the system, and that contrary to this, there should be the construction of a habit, Y2 (see line 3) “what we talked about the other time was that the device should not serve as a dependency.”, given the response of Y1 “Until a certain period of time when the body already has a habit” (see line 4).

A second moment in which the negotiation and transformation of meanings can be appreciated is the change that generated by the interaction ranging from habit to autonomy. The group members indicate as fundamental that the system be able to help persons to achieve autonomy in their behavior, thus favoring a relationship of help or support and not of dependence. It is important to note that prior to this transformation of meanings, there is a negotiation exercise in which Y4 fulfills a synthesis function by obtaining the ideas of the others, specifically his intervention is: “And how to program a series of objectives, where for example, when fulfilling all the objectives, and the application says, you have achieved a habit, you are perfect, you can leave me”, but that they are achievements, for example, the first achievement that has been completed in your diagnostic week, we are prepared to continue and help you in this, and then it would be, “you have been fulfilling everything we are telling you at the bottom of the letter for three weeks. You can go to the next level” (Y1 interrupts) (see line 10). To carry out this synthesis, an active listening attitude is necessary, which allows collecting and integrating previously expressed ideas. In this sense, a positive socioemotional interaction is generated.

However, from perspective of semiotic cultural psychology, the intervention of Y4 not only represents active listening, but is also understood as negotiation and transformation of meanings, mobilized by the need to resolve the disquieting experience (see line 11). Here there is an integration process, which gathers the ideas of others and poses a new direction to the subject, from a previous negotiation exercise. Although synthesis is traditionally considered a cognitive exercise, in order to achieve this, active listening, attention and recognition of the participants' ideas and aspects of an affective order are required. From the perspective of Rommetveit (1992), this represents a willingness to share and interact with others.

We present another fragment of the discussion below in which, after having designed an artificial intelligence device to help create habits in people, the members discuss the limitations of the artificial intelligence. The dialogue began at minute 18, and lasted approximately 2.08 minutes

Y2: M … Well, what else can you can think of, what else can the program have? What do we need … What problems could there be, for example, when could it not be used?

The discussion about the limitations of artificial intelligence began with the question by Y2 (see line 1), which lead immediately to the answers by Y3 (see line 2), and Y4. This exchange can be understood as a positive socioemotional interaction, characterized by active listening and attention to the ideas of the others (Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011). Although, the importance of emotions in the interactional plane is recognized in this type of analysis, there is no mention of how listening and emotions, understood as affective phenomena, occur in a context where meaning is constructed among the participants.

From the point of view of semiotic cultural psychology, affective phenomenon like active listening and emotions emerge from the subjective and intersubjective experience of the participants. The participants’ dialogue indicates a disquieting experience, arising from the question of Y2 about the limitations of artificial intelligence, “What problems could arise? For example, at what times could I not use it? (see line 1). It is a concern as the design of an artificial intelligence system is not enough, since questions about its limits also emerge. Likewise, at the moment in which the dialogue begins, the participants evidence an attitude of attention and listening, in particular participants Y2 and Y3 are looking at each other (see Figure 1, Photogram, 2), just at the moment when Y2 raises the question about when the program cannot be used (see line 1), and Y3 answers “in part” (see line 3). In the same way, although the participant identified as Y1 does not intervene directly in the dialogue, she takes notes on her computer. This aspect can account for the degree of affective involvement of the participants in the shared experience of the CL task.

The tension is characterized by the question/concern that gives rise to the entire conversation, and in which all participants intervene, involving them in a shared experience (Cornejo, 2008). In addition, it puts interests and expectations at stake in the sense that the participants do not limit themselves to designing the artificial intelligence device in response to the instructions given in the task, but also assume a reflective attitude about the limits of this system. Likewise, at the moment in which the dialogue begins, the participants evidence an attitude of attention and listening.

It should also be noted that the tension associated with the question favors two aspects: a) the creation of meanings regarding the limits of the psychologist's role (see lines 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14; b) consensus on the importance of an individual's autonomy in change when he assists the psychologist as one who makes use of artificial intelligence (see lines 5, 12, 15 and 16). Tension refers to the fact that in the course of the interaction meanings are confronted with other meanings, and other meanings emerge in the need to resolve the tension (Valsiner, 1998).

Regarding the creation of meanings, Y3 stated, “the problem is that we say that people are not committed to changing their way of life, as it would be like destroying the program. That is, the program only gives 50% and the subjects give the other 50%” (see line 5). This leads to the statement by Y2, “as a psychologist” (see line 6). Construction and transformation of meanings about the role of the psychologist in the processes of change in the subjects is generated, together with the importance of the willingness of people to change in relation to achieving therapeutic objectives. It is clear that these meanings are built gradually and jointly in the framework of this particular situation. The meanings in learning situations are located in this sense (Cornejo, 2008). As well, these meanings occur in the course of a particular interaction (Simão, 2004).

It is also important to note that the meanings constructed go beyond the resolution of the task as such, because the exercise of jointly building an intelligent artificial model ends in a discussion about the role of the psychologist in the processes of personal change. There are expectations, uncertainties and interests in the discussion that, together with thematic aspects of meaning, involve the affectivity of the participants, expressed in the tension of the dialogue. From Rommetveit (1992) perspective, the construction of meanings is possible thanks to the willingness to share.

The reflection generated by the discussion has a cognitive and affective configuration, while critical positioning emerges (cognitive dimension) about the role of the psychologist, which cannot be understood without considering the fact that they are emotionally experienced in this context, that is, that the subject of the psychologist's role emerges beyond the resolution of the task, and appears because it is important for them, in their condition of psychology students. This interaction makes evident how an academic activity makes reflection of a personal nature possible, with respect to the commitment of individuals and their professional roles as future psychologists. This last idea is consistent with Valsiner (1998) views on the different domains of intersubjectivity, the domain related to an academic and a professional dimension being evident in light of the resolution of the task.

The two fragments described above are characterized as collaborative interactions in that at least two members intervene, there is no division of the task, and all members are encouraged to participate, aspects that favor the functioning of the group, depending on the task (Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011) Nevertheless, from the cultural semiotic perspective, collaboration implies much more than this in the sense of understanding interactions in the CL situation as a shared experience in which meanings are constructed and transformed and in which affectivity is not only in function of resolving the task, but also plays a constitutive part of the subjective and intersubjective experiences. Although negative socio-emotional interactions are not evident in the selected fragments, these, like all kinds of interactions, are constitutive parts of the CA experience, and play a fundamental role in the configuration of intersubjectivity.

Discussion

This study describes the socioemotional interactions among university students engaged in a CL task, from the perspective of intersubjectivity. As a result, in the case of the analyzed fragments, intersubjectivity is mainly characterized by the negotiation and transformation of meanings (Simão, 2010; Valsiner, 1998) that is developed in the course of the interactions, and that are mobilized mainly by tensions and disquieting experiences (Simão, 2003, 2004, 2016) in the form of questions.

Five inter-related dimensions of the process of knowledge construction can be identified in relation to the collaborative learning task: affectivity-cognition, interactions, disquieting experience and tension, the transformation of meanings and new modes of interaction (see Figure 2). These five dimensions show two fundamental aspects, the indissoluble link between affectivity and cognition, and the shared, situated and distributed character of the learning task experience. The model shows that the process of constructing knowledge is seen as a system in which the components are continuously in dialogue with each other. From the data obtained, it can be denoted how the interactions between the participants influence the transformation of meanings, whether related or not to the task. This transformation of meanings (e.g., the sense of habit-first dialogue), which is made possible by the disquieting experience and tension leads to the creation of new dialogic-based interactions that are both affective and cognitive. It is important to clarify that the types of socioemotional interactions that are part of CL can be positive or negative.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Collaborative learning situation. Source: the authors.

Affectivity is part of the shared CL experience (Cornejo, 2008; Simão, 2010), where the interactions among group members are not strictly cognitive in the sense that students put into play their interests, fears, and concerns while generating and building dialogues, as seen in the second example analyzed in the results (see lines 4, 5, 6 and 14). Reflection on the role of the psychologist, and the commitment with people activates the interests, expectations, and personal concerns of the participants, aspects of affective order that transcend the cognitive order; that require the willingness to share as a starting point (Rommetveit, 1992).

Interactions have the power to transform group and individual meanings through participation in collaborative exercises. As evidenced in the two analyzed examples, meanings are not always the same, but rather change in the course of the interaction, evidencing in this way the situated and contextual nature of the interaction, (Cornejo, 2008; Valsiner, 1998) as is seen in Example 1, where participants begin by talking about habit until reaching the idea of autonomy (see lines 4 to 14). Thus, the transformation and negotiation of meanings lead to the construction of new modes of interaction among the participants. It can happen then that an idea offered by a group member that seems novel and interesting creates new possibilities of relationships between member, his/her peers and the content (example 2, lines 14, 15 and 16). These transformations occur thanks to the need to resolve the disquieting experience (Simão, 2003, 2016).

The results of this study differ from those of other investigations that conceived of affectivity and cognition as having independent natures and which, in the investigation of affectivity (socioemotional interactions), focused on analyzing its effect on CL results (Mayordomo & Onrubia, 2015; Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011; Sobocinski et al., 2017). An indissoluble link between cognition and affectivity is assumed in this work, evidencing that interactions in collaborative learning task are affective/cognitive, which emerge and are transformed in the context of the situation through the negotiation and transformation of meanings (Valsiner, 1998), mobilized by disquieting experiences (Simão, 2003, 2004). In this sense, the CL task is an intersubjectivity scenario. What is essential is not only that the interactions support the construction of knowledge, but also that the participating subjects engage in dialogue, negotiate and transform meanings about the task and themselves, and thus the interactions change.

This study seeks to contribute to semiotic cultural psychology by broadening its area of action to the study of intersubjective phenomenon in educational contexts, particularly in collaborative learning situations, which has traditionally been studied from a cognitive perspective that emphasizes results, and not from the perspective of affectivity in itself, as proposed in this study. An additional step in investigating CL from the cultural semiotic perspective could be to study the transformation of meanings in terms of learning by individual students, the latter from a subjective perspective. In this way, we can better understand the relationship between intersubjective and intrasubjective aspects of the learning experience.

Finally, the results of this study are preliminary findings that contribute to the understanding of the role of affectivity in CA situations. However, it is necessary to continue exploring what happens in other groups, according to the life cycle of the students, cultural differences, and other factors, as well as more systematically deepening the relationship of positive and negative socio-emotional interactions with learning, this in the way of exploring similar situations that allow us to continue expanding knowledge about affectivity in CA, while recognizing the unique and particular character of the situations. Likewise, the analysis of bodily aspects of affectivity is presented in this article at an exploratory level. In this sense, we suggest that future research deepen the analysis of these aspects for a fuller understanding of affectivity in socio-emotional interactions in CL, and open new possibilities of analysis for semiotic cultural psychology.