ArticlePDF Available

How UK HE STEM Students Were Motivated to Switch Their Cameras on: A Study of the Development of Compassionate Communications in Task-focused Online Group Meetings

Authors:

Abstract

HE’s pandemic-driven shift to online platforms has increased social and learning disconnection amongst students. In online group work/teamwork, many are reluctant to switch on their cameras to be more present to others. Compassion in group work/teamwork is defined as noticing, not normalizing, one’s own and/or others’ distress or disadvantaging and taking wise action to prevent or reduce this. This notion of compassion is being assessed in the HE sector using filmed task-focused in-class group work meetings to identify levels of both inclusivity and criticality around the team. This study investigates the use and outcomes of using the compassionate communications strategies (that were developed in and for the offline classroom) in online team meetings. In this mixed-methods study, two groups of four international STEM students, each from a sample of five UK universities, were video-recorded in task-focused group work meetings (TGMs) before and after an online interactive 90-min training session (‘the intervention’) on the Cognitive Skills of Compassionate Communications (CSCC) in teams. A comparison of the (pre and post CSCC intervention) quantitative and qualitative data results indicated, post-intervention, a significant increase in students’ screen gaze attentiveness to each other, and reasons why students’ motivation to switch on their cameras had changed. Keywords: cognitive skills; compassion; team/group work; online; screen gaze
Citation: Jayasundara, J.M.P.V.K.;
Gilbert, T.; Kersten, S.; Meng, L. How
UK HE STEM Students Were
Motivated to Switch Their Cameras
on: A Study of the Development of
Compassionate Communications in
Task-focused Online Group Meetings.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317. https://
doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050317
Academic Editor: Kelum
A.A. Gamage
Received: 13 February 2022
Accepted: 13 April 2022
Published: 30 April 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
education
sciences
Article
How UK HE STEM Students Were Motivated to Switch Their
Cameras on: A Study of the Development of Compassionate
Communications in Task-focused Online Group Meetings
J. M. P. V. K. Jayasundara 1,* , Theo Gilbert 2, Saskia Kersten 3and Li Meng 3
1School of Humanities, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9EU, UK
2Learning and Teaching Innovations Centre, School of Business School, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield,
Hertfordshire AL10 9EU, UK; t.1.gilbert@herts.ac.uk
3School of Physics, Engineering & Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield,
Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK; s.kersten@herts.ac.uk (S.K.); l.1.meng@herts.ac.uk (L.M.)
*Correspondence: pj19aac@herts.ac.uk or vijitha@uwu.ac.lk
Abstract:
HE’s pandemic-driven shift to online platforms has increased social and learning discon-
nection amongst students. In online group work/teamwork, many are reluctant to switch on their
cameras to be more present to others. Compassion in group work/teamwork is defined as noticing,
not normalizing, one’s own and/or others’ distress or disadvantaging and taking wise action to
prevent or reduce this. This notion of compassion is being assessed in the HE sector using filmed
task-focused in-class group work meetings to identify levels of both inclusivity and criticality around
the team. This study investigates the use and outcomes of using the compassionate communications
strategies (that were developed in and for the offline classroom) in online team meetings. In this
mixed-methods study, two groups of four international STEM students, each from a sample of five
UK universities, were video-recorded in task-focused group work meetings (TGMs) before and after
an online interactive 90-min training session (‘the intervention’) on the Cognitive Skills of Compas-
sionate Communications (CSCC) in teams. A comparison of the (pre and post CSCC intervention)
quantitative and qualitative data results indicated, post-intervention, a significant increase in students’
screen gaze attentiveness to each other, and reasons why students’ motivation to switch on their
cameras had changed.
Keywords: cognitive skills; compassion; team/group work; online; screen gaze
1. Introduction
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic-driven shift to online teaching and learning
in Higher Education (HE), disconnection amongst and between students has been en-
trenched [1,2]. This has become a problem for undergraduate and post-graduate students
all over the world irrespective of their demographic, social, educational, or economic
backgrounds. The term ‘social distancing’, used by many governments in many contexts,
including for public space (instead of the term ‘physical distancing’ properly used by the
WHO [
3
]) has contributed to increased feelings of social isolation or loneliness. In studies
of students, this has had negative psychological consequences, such as poorer overall
cognitive performance and reduction of quality of life [46].
This paper argues that students’ isolation, particularly during the pandemic, is further
exacerbated by the now widely reported reluctance of students to switch on their cameras
and thus be visible to others during their online teaching and learning experiences [
7
,
8
].
Thus, as both Bauer et al. [
1
] and Stanford University [
2
] identify, the move to online delivery
of Higher Education (HE) teaching and learning during the pandemic is entrenching
disconnection amongst and between students.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050317 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 2 of 32
A number of possible solutions have been suggested [
5
,
9
11
] to encourage students
to engage in active learning in online communities, including putting on their cameras.
There is, however, hardly ever discussion of the explicit role of the science of compassion
as a cognitive, psychobiological motivation [
12
] in enhancing one’s own and others’ social
and learning experiences [
13
] in online group work/teamwork. We argue that this is key
to overcoming the issues discussed above and we address the relevance of the science of
compassion for online learning in this study.
Compassion-focused Pedagogy in group work (CfP) was developed from research
conducted, in and for offline (e.g., physical face-to-face class) group work/teamwork in
higher education [
9
,
14
16
]. That research found that students given start-of-module com-
passionate communications training experienced enhanced learning and social cohesion
in task-focused teams compared to controls [
13
16
]. A key, assessable feature of CfP is
an evidence-based understanding by students, of the significance and use of practical,
evidence-based strategies for initiating and sustaining attentive, communicative, inclusive
eye contact amongst group members throughout their meetings [1316].
Under the current pandemic-related circumstances, an investigation into the adapt-
ability of such strategies in relation to groups/teams that meet online was urgently needed.
This paper is such a study. It refers to ‘screen gaze’ for the online context, since ‘eye
contact’ as experienced in groups/teams that meet around a table is not possible in online
group/teamwork meetings. Nevertheless, in online meetings as in offline meetings, strate-
gies for students to co-manage their group meetings compassionately require students to be
comfortable to express and observe their own as well as others’ non-verbal communication
(especially screen gaze and facial expressions), something that can only be achieved if they
actively look at the screen. In other words, they need visual access to the responses and
interactions of group members throughout the whole online meeting.
A reason for this is that humans are a highly social species that has evolved to work,
survive and learn—in groups. Our prehistory shows the evolutionary significance of
facial expressions and gestures in hunter-gatherer human communications, and this is
linked to the understanding of others’ behaviours [
17
21
]. That is to say, much of our
face-to-face communicative competence is informed by the evolutionary history of human
non-verbal communication using a range of complex facial muscles that no other species
has. However, this ability to simulate and ‘read’ (comprehend) non-verbal communications
of others is severely encumbered or impossible during online group meetings if learners
do not switch on their cameras. Thus, the development of social relationships (that non-
verbal interchanges can richly support) can be delayed or abandoned in online group
meetings [
22
,
23
]. Colonnello [
24
] refers to as a release of oxytocin that plays “a central
role” in enabling individuals in groups to “synchronise or tune with others” [
24
]. This is
pertinent to when students can see each other and make compassionate use of non-verbal
signals to encourage equal participation in discussions (e.g., through nodding, learning
to listen more attentively, showing understanding, disagreement or confusion as people
speak). Jenson et al. [
25
] identified that the syncing of group members coming to the
assistance of a single member may be related to the role that oxytocin plays as part of the
[brain’s] reward system. In other words, as Neff et al. [
26
] confirm, oxytocin can support
a more interdependent self-concept that is facilitated by compassion and its mediation of
neurobiological affiliation processes in individuals [
27
], including through the release of
oxytocin which acts to de-activate the social threat alert system in the brain [28,29].
Thus, it can be concluded that if cameras are not switched on during group work/
teamwork meetings, opportunities for the compassion-related non-verbal communications
that help sync students to each other are lost; it is now more difficult to support one another,
even if they are motivated to do so. Moreover, when students’ cameras are switched
off, tutors might not be able to identify who is speaking, or prompting, or who may be
supporting the speaker in their physical location. It might also be impossible to decide
whether a group member is script-reading when they speak to the group. In summary, it is
crucial for students as well as tutors and examiners to be able to see all students during their
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 3 of 32
online group work/teamwork meetings for optimal communicative efficiency in authentic
teaching and learning in online student group discussions.
Hence, the current study investigated whether and, if so, how students can be motivated to
switch their cameras on (technology allowing) during their online group meetings by learning
about practical, compassion-focused communications suitable for online group meetings.
Theoretical Background
The theoretical basis of the current study is the psychobiological model for Compas-
sionate Mind Training (CMT) which was developed by the Compassionate Mind Foun-
dation [
30
33
]. As the Compassionate Mind Foundation [
30
] explains, humans switch
between three mood-regulating systems: the threat, the drive and the soothing systems
(Figure 1). As Mindfulness and Clinical Psychology Solutions [
34
] also confirms, “Each
system is associated with different brain regions and different brain chemistry. Distress is
caused by an imbalance between the systems, often associated with underdevelopment of
the soothing system”.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 35
prompting, or who may be supporting the speaker in their physical location. It might also
be impossible to decide whether a group member is script-reading when they speak to the
group. In summary, it is crucial for students as well as tutors and examiners to be able to
see all students during their online group work/teamwork meetings for optimal
communicative efficiency in authentic teaching and learning in online student group
discussions.
Hence, the current study investigated whether and, if so, how students can be
motivated to switch their cameras on (technology allowing) during their online group
meetings by learning about practical, compassion-focused communications suitable for
online group meetings.
Theoretical Background
The theoretical basis of the current study is the psychobiological model for
Compassionate Mind Training (CMT) which was developed by the Compassionate Mind
Foundation [30–33]. As the Compassionate Mind Foundation [30] explains, humans
switch between three mood-regulating systems: the threat, the drive and the soothing
systems (Figure 1). As Mindfulness and Clinical Psychology Solutions [34] also confirms,
“Each system is associated with different brain regions and different brain chemistry.
Distress is caused by an imbalance between the systems, often associated with
underdevelopment of the soothing system”.
Figure 1. The Brain’s Emotion Regulation System. [Source: [34] adapted from Gilbert, P. (ed)
(2005) Compassion: Conceptualization Research and Use in Psychotherapy, Routledge].
Our brains are hard-wired to be alert to threats (fight, flight, freeze). This threat
system has enabled many species to survive. Problematically though, this system can
disable the human brain’s capacity to engage in higher-level thinking such as decision
making and problem-solving [35]. The second mood-regulatory system, the drive system,
enables us to strive to achieve what we want or need (or what we believe we need). Over
stimulation of the threat and drive systems leads to an imbalance between the three mood
regulatory systems in which the soothing system is left underdeveloped. This may cause
psychological difficulties in both groups and individuals. The soothing system, the third
mood-regulatory system in the brain, is activated by giving or receiving care from self or
others and allows us to think more calmly, rationally and to focus. The soothing system
of the brain can be trained in ways that facilitate maintaining the balance between these
Figure 1.
The Brain’s Emotion Regulation System. [Source: [
34
] adapted from Gilbert, P. (ed) (2005)
Compassion: Conceptualization Research and Use in Psychotherapy, Routledge].
Our brains are hard-wired to be alert to threats (fight, flight, freeze). This threat system
has enabled many species to survive. Problematically though, this system can disable the
human brain’s capacity to engage in higher-level thinking such as decision making and
problem-solving [
35
]. The second mood-regulatory system, the drive system, enables us to
strive to achieve what we want or need (or what we believe we need). Over stimulation
of the threat and drive systems leads to an imbalance between the three mood regulatory
systems in which the soothing system is left underdeveloped. This may cause psychological
difficulties in both groups and individuals. The soothing system, the third mood-regulatory
system in the brain, is activated by giving or receiving care from self or others and allows
us to think more calmly, rationally and to focus. The soothing system of the brain can be
trained in ways that facilitate maintaining the balance between these three systems [
36
]. These
mood-regulatory systems in our brains and their functions are shown in Figure 1(above).
The balance between these three systems becomes damaged in people who tend to
oscillate primarily between the first two systems, that is, between aversion (the threat
system which operates through fight, flight or freeze responses to perceived social or other
threats) and striving (the drive system which is seen in the brains’ efforts to address the
threat) [
36
]. The pandemic has caused sustained social disconnection of students from
their peers and this kind of isolation can draw people into loops of brooding, rumination
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 4 of 32
and (particularly anticipatory) worry, including about the ability to succeed compared
to others [
37
]. This relates to a striving to avoid inferiority as has been found amongst
university students [36].
The current study investigates whether these issues could be addressed in the context
of student team or group work through explicit pedagogical attention to compassion as a
cognitive, not emotion-based, social competence. This is in line with the above model’s
underlying elaboration and understanding of compassion as central to stimulating and
maintaining the soothing system by connecting the caring system, common to all mammals,
with the neocortex where reasoning and imagination processes are situated. To be clear,
the use of reasoning and imagination (the human neocortex) to elaborate care for self and
others (the human mammalian brain) is what is meant here by compassion [30].
That is not to say that many types of emotion cannot accompany the enactment of
compassion as defined above [
38
]. Nevertheless, compassion in itself is a psychobiological
motivation [
39
] which, during task-focused group meetings specifically, can be understood
as an intention to notice (not normalise) one’s own or others’ distress or disadvantaging,
and then to take (wise) action to reduce or prevent this [
37
]. This underpins the evidence-
based strategies that students (and staff) can use for compassionate management of their
task-focused discussions/meetings in relation to their group work [
13
,
37
,
39
]. Precisely
because these are practical skills of vigilance and appropriate action taking in group
meetings, these skills are now credit-bearing on some degrees as at the host university for
this study [
13
,
14
,
37
,
40
]. However, this pedagogy was developed pre-COVID-19 in the UK
and not for online group work meetings but specifically for the face-to-face (classroom)
context. Therefore, the current study investigates the applicability of this Compassion-
focused Pedagogy (CfP) to students’ online group work management skills. In this study,
however, three other theoretical aspects: constructivism [
41
,
42
], constructionism [
43
45
],
and reinforcement theory of motivation [
46
] (a well-known process theory) have also been
considered as follows.
The approach of the current research confirms the nature of social interactions as being
part of learning [
41
] and this informs constructivism. Aligned to constructivism, [
47
] it high-
lights the significance and responsibility of focusing attention on learners and on creating
collaborative, interactive environments for them which is the focus of the current study’s
group work design. Critics of constructivist methods consider that learners must display
their learning outcomes in a tangible manner to shape and sharpen students’ thinking
going forward [
47
]. Constructivism is also criticised for offering sometimes minimal guid-
ance [
48
52
]. Hence this study’s intervention—to train students in the Cognitive Skills of
Compassionate Communications (CSCC) during their task-focused group meetings—was
designed to allow the kinds of interactions that might lead to tangible outcomes, namely
assessable evidence of inclusivity and criticality.
In this sense, the study aligns also with constructionism which advocates that learners
need more instructions to produce tangible outcomes and so that their learning outcomes
become authentic [
48
]. The CSCC training that was delivered to students focused on how
to share information with each other (in this case from self-chosen, peer-reviewed articles
relevant to their STEM disciplines) and so feed each other’s learning. Tangible outcomes
of this e.g., in students videoed, on the hoof, critical perspective-taking on this shared
information in their group meetings, could in principle be carried out in future, (as for
offline) again without need for the real-time supervision or even the presence of a tutor.
Here the study resonates with Sugata Mitra’s [
53
] notion of the Self Organized Learning
Environment (SOLE).
In relation to SOLE and to this study, reinforcement theory is also relevant. It focuses
on the consequences of human behaviour as a motivating factor which could be positive
or negative. As Gorden [
54
] confirms, Skinner’s [
46
] reinforcement theory of motivation
identifies positive reinforcements—in this study that could mean encouragement, attention,
appreciation, validation—as promoting the potentials for more frequent enactments of
desired behaviours such as venturing more in response that participants might otherwise
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 5 of 32
be missed, both socially and intellectually. Hence, in relation to the current study’s training
intervention, this theory too provides insights into the management by students of their
group work.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Research Setting
The study was conducted online with international, Sri Lankan, STEM students
studying in a sample of five UK universities from May–September 2020. There were
two groups
of students. Each group consisted of (n= 4) members. All participants of
Group 1 were from one UK university—a pilot trial of the intervention. Group 2 consisted
of participants from four UK universities. All were STEM students in keeping with the
World Bank’s funding of Sri Lanka in the education of, specifically, its STEM students in
emotionally intelligent communication skills [
55
]. Sri Lankan students were in any case a
suitably challenging choice for this study because of the well-reported tensions between
Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim students from Sri Lanka. These tensions are a legacy of
the 30-year civil war [
56
], and intersectional violence in the country remains a problem,
including amongst Sri Lankan students. This caused the Sri Lankan government to shut
down all universities in the country—some for as long as two months—as recently as
2019 [
57
59
]. Sri Lankan students were therefore a good sample for intervention based on
compassionate group management skills, provided they could be motivated to switch on
their cameras as part of optimally compassionate communications skills building in the
online group meeting context.
2.2. Research Questions
The primary research question:
Can students be persuaded/motivated to switch their cameras on (technology allow-
ing) during their online group work meetings by learning about the cognitive skills of
compassionate communications in their online group meetings?
Sub research questions:
a.
Is there a significant difference in screen gaze behaviour of the respondents before
and after the CSCC training intervention?
The hypotheses were developed as follows.
H0
There is no difference in students’ screen gaze behaviour that could be attributed to
training in the CSCC.
H1
There is a difference in students’ screen gaze behaviour that could be attributed to
training in the CSCC.
b.
Are there any observable changes in respondents’ behaviours during their group
work meetings before and after the CSCC training intervention?
c.
How do respondents perceive their group work meetings before and after the CSCC
training intervention?
In particular, the first sub-research question is answered through quantitative data
analysis and the second and third sub-questions are addressed through both quantitative
and qualitative data analysis.
2.3. Participants and Procedures
The students taking part in the study were recruited from the five UK universities
involved through, first, convenience sampling as follows. The student union of each UK
university was contacted and asked to invite Sri Lankan STEM students to participate in
the study. Stratified sampling was then used in the interest of combining Sinhalese, Tamil
and Muslim students and representation of both genders in each group. Please see the
Tables 1and 2below for more details of the study sample.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 6 of 32
Table 1. Student Participants—(Group 01).
Students S01 S02 S03 S04
STEM Engineering Engineering Computer
Science
Computer
Science
Age Category 18–25 18–25 18–25 36–45
Gender Male Male Female Male
Table 2. Student Participants—(Group 02).
Students S05 S06 S07 S08
STEM Engineering Computer
Science
Information
Technology
Science and
Technology
Age Category 26–35 26–35 26–35 18–25
Gender Male Female Male Male
All procedures received ethics approval from the Ethics Committee of the researchers’
university (Ethics Protocol Number: cHUM/PGT/UH/04345).
Following the circulation of an email with a poster providing relevant information
on the group work meetings, participant information sheet and consent form, a briefing
for each respondent was carried out over the phone by the primary investigator. After
obtaining signed consent from the participants, a pre-study meeting was held with each
participant via MS Teams. This was to ensure: the availability of network connections and
a webcam to facilitate the group work meetings online, to discuss possible dates and time
slots, to provide clarification where needed and to invite each participant to choose two
separate subject-related journal articles. Thereafter, dates and time slots and the group
meetings were scheduled in consultation with all the participants.
All group work meetings and focus groups and/or interviews were video-recorded
and transcribed verbatim. Figure 2below shows an outline of what each group experienced
over the whole online exercise that was then conducted via MS Teams.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 35
2.3. Participants and Procedures
The students taking part in the study were recruited from the five UK universities
involved through, first, convenience sampling as follows. The student union of each UK
university was contacted and asked to invite Sri Lankan STEM students to participate in
the study. Stratified sampling was then used in the interest of combining Sinhalese, Tamil
and Muslim students and representation of both genders in each group. Please see the
Tables 1 and 2 below for more details of the study sample.
Table 1. Student Participants—(Group 01).
Students S01 S02 S03 S04
STEM Engineering Engineering Computer
Science
Computer
Science
Age Category 18–25 18–25 18–25 36–45
Gender Male Male Female Male
Table 2. Student Participants—(Group 02).
Students S05 S06 S07 S08
STEM Engineering Computer
Science
Information
Technology
Science and
Technology
Age Category 26–35 26–35 26–35 18–25
Gender Male Female Male Male
All procedures received ethics approval from the Ethics Committee of the
researchers’ university (Ethics Protocol Number: cHUM/PGT/UH/04345).
Following the circulation of an email with a poster providing relevant information
on the group work meetings, participant information sheet and consent form, a briefing
for each respondent was carried out over the phone by the primary investigator. After
obtaining signed consent from the participants, a pre-study meeting was held with each
participant via MS Teams. This was to ensure: the availability of network connections and
a webcam to facilitate the group work meetings online, to discuss possible dates and time
slots, to provide clarification where needed and to invite each participant to choose two
separate subject-related journal articles. Thereafter, dates and time slots and the group
meetings were scheduled in consultation with all the participants.
All group work meetings and focus groups and/or interviews were video-recorded
and transcribed verbatim. Figure 2 below shows an outline of what each group
experienced over the whole online exercise that was then conducted via MS Teams.
Figure 2. The framework of each group’s activities online.
Next, Table 3provides more detail on that framework.
2.4. Data Collections and Data Analysis
Data collection was conducted through task-focused group work meetings which
consisted of a journal article presentation by each group member and a follow-up group
discussion of that article (four separate journal articles by four group members) before
the CSCC training intervention (pre-intervention). Then, again the same procedure was
followed (with four separate journal articles) by the group members after the CSCC training
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 7 of 32
intervention (post-intervention). Fieldnotes were taken in real-time and from the video
recording of each (pre- and post-intervention) group meeting. Next, focus groups were
conducted after each group work meeting. In addition (n= 2) questionnaires were adminis-
tered just after the pre- and post-intervention group work meetings. Overall, this study
employed mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative), which are outlined below.
Table 3. The overall procedure of the Study for Groups 1 and 2.
Stage Procedure For Group 1 and Then Again for Group 2
1 Pre-intervention
Four students per group participated in a video-recorded, (control)
Pre-intervention Task-focused Group Meeting (PreTGM) online as
follows. Each student presented a journal article chosen from their
own STEM field and then joined the follow-up group discussion of
it where the whole group discussed it. This procedure was repeated
by all students in each group. Then students participated in a
video-recorded focus group and/or semi-structured interview to
explain their lived learning and social experiences of this
discussion (the control). They were invited to compare this
experience with any other online student task-focused group work
meetings they had participated in previously (including but not
limited to COVID-19-related changes to the mode of teaching). All
participants were provided with a link to access and complete two
questionnaires online (made available via the Bristol Online Survey
platform). Please see Section 2.4.2 for these questionnaires.
2 Intervention
The intervention was a 90-min training session in the Cognitive
Skills of Compassionate Communications (CSCC) for task-focused
group work meetings. During this interactive session, group
members were introduced to the key theory of compassion in terms
of brain function. This included an explanation of the
psychobiological modal of compassion [30]. Then, the practical
strategies for employing CSCC were introduced. This is
particularly in relation to dismantling monopolizing/dominating
behaviours, including by non-verbal means and without silencing
anyone; and non-contributing behaviours, using tone, name and
critical thinking to invite quieter students frequently into
mindfully-created safe spaces to contribute to the group discussion.
Students were guided on how and when to deploy and recognise
the skills and how, in relation to compassion theory and
participants’ suggestions, these could be adapted (from their use by
groups/teams meeting offline) to online group meetings. The
teacher/trainer was always the same for each group. The CSCC
training was conducted in the English language. The teacher ’s role
in this study was to facilitate the learners to understand the
theoretical base and the practical applicability of the CSCC in
online group work meetings.
3 Post-intervention
Participants were invited to apply the strategies they had agreed to
(in 2 above) and then in their same groups as before they conducted
Post-intervention Task-focused Group Meeting (PostTGM) online.
Each student presented their second self- chosen STEM-related
journal article and then joined their whole group discussion of it.
This procedure was repeated by all students in each group. Then
they participated in a focus group and/or interviews to explain
their lived experiences of the discussion in comparison with (i) the
control discussion above; and (ii) other online group meetings in
which they had participated previously so that the results between
pre-and post-intervention could be compared. All participants
were provided with a link to access and complete the same two
questionnaires online again (made available on the Bristol Online
Survey platform).
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 8 of 32
2.4.1. Qualitative Data and Their Analysis
Template Analysis (TA) was the overarching approach taken to identify key themes
arising from the transcriptions of group work meetings and focus groups/interviews. TA is
a thematic analysis method suited to research in applied psychology [
60
]. A useful aspect
of TA is that, like Grounded Theory (GT) [
61
,
62
], it requires the researcher to compare
data sets constantly as they are collected. However, TA does not allow the data to be
atomized into such small pieces that important themes may be lost which is a key criticism
of Grounded Theory [
63
]. To support the use of TA, NVivo (Pro 12) software was used
to code the data. Transcriptions of all pre- and post-intervention group work meetings
and focus groups were uploaded into the NVivo (Pro 12) software for analysis. The (n= 8)
transcriptions were repeatedly trawled for codes that might otherwise be missed, and this
also allowed constant cross-coding within each of the identified themes. In coding data,
first free codes (grouping the similar words, phrases and meanings) were identified. Then,
focused (interpretive) codes (grouping the codes that convey similar meanings or contribute
to constructing a single argument) were identified to derive interpretive meanings [
64
].
As the third and final step in the data coding, it was now possible to identify what the
emergent overarching themes were.
Task-Focused Group Work Meetings (TGMs)
Video recordings were made while student groups conducted their pre- and post-
intervention group meetings. This is in keeping with extant research on optimal task-
focused, online discussion group size. Transcriptions of pre- and post-intervention group
work meetings were analysed separately by applying TA. To identify the themes, the coding
of data was carried out as above (Section 2.4.1) using NVivo (Pro 12) software. Next, the
themes that emerged from the pre-intervention group meetings were compared with the
emergent themes from the post-intervention group meetings.
Pre- and Post-Intervention Focus Groups/Interviews
The focus groups/interviews conducted after each pre- and post-intervention group
meeting were also video recorded and, transcribed. All focus group/interview transcrip-
tions were uploaded into NVivo (Pro 12) software, and the data were coded using the same
procedure as above (see Section 2.4.1).
Micro-Ethnographic Analysis
In addition, a close analysis of the video-recorded student behaviours was carried
out using McDermott’s [
65
] micro ethnographic methods for analysing filmed classroom
behaviours. Specifically, in this study, McDermott’s methods were used to analyse the
filmed behaviour of each respondent, second by second, in their meetings before and after
their training in CSCC. To be clear, analysis, second by second, was conducted on the filmed
behaviour of:
a. Each presenter as they presented to the group.
b. The other three group members during each presentation (the ’listeners’).
c.
All four students during the immediate post-presentation group discussion of each
article presented (the ‘discussants’).
It was then possible to draw out from this qualitative data, particular themes that
appeared most aligned with the group’s overall behaviours and compare these before and
then after the 90 min CSCC training. Any critical incidents (interactions of note), how
they occurred and how they were responded to throughout the unfolding interactions in
the group could be observed repeatedly for close analysis via the video footage. Then
the results of these both pre-and post-intervention qualitative analyses were compared to
explore changes, if any, in individual and/or group behaviours after the CSCC training.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 9 of 32
2.4.2. Quantitative Data and Their Analysis
The quantitative data collected from the pre- and post-intervention task-focused group
work meetings and the two questionnaires were analysed as explained next.
Task Focused Group Work Meetings—Screen Gaze
Data related to the pre- and post-intervention task-focused group work meetings were
quantitatively analysed using three tools: Jupyter software in Python, R Programming
Language, and Microsoft Excel. These were applied to data derived from second-by-second
scrutiny of every student’s video recorded screen gaze behaviour i.e., throughout every
presentation and every group discussion during both the pre- and post-intervention task-
focused group work meetings. These data were fed into Jupyter software in Python to
identify and compare the overall average group screen gaze before (pre-intervention) and
after the CSCC training (post-intervention). Then, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was
run using R. This was to explore whether there was any statistically significant difference
or not between screen gaze behaviour of the group members before and after the CSCC
training. Alongside this, Microsoft Excel was used to generate graphical illustrations of the
averaged screen gaze results of every member of the group during each presentation and
each follow-up discussion before and after the CSCC training. Finally, the qualitative and
quantitative results were triangulated.
Two Questionnaires, Each Delivered Pre- and Post-Intervention
One questionnaire explored students’ previous experiences of their own and oth-
ers’ group work behaviours (See Appendix A). The other was the Compassionate Mind
Foundation’s Compassionate Engagement and Action Scale (See Appendix B). Both the
questionnaires were used before the pre-intervention group work meetings and then again
after the post-intervention group work meetings. The statistical software SPSS (
version 27
)
was used to analyse the four data sets provided by these two questionnaires. Each ques-
tionnaire is briefly explained next.
i. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
Both pre- and post-intervention, the questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours (see
Appendix A) explored the participants’ experiences of those group work behaviours that
had been cited by staff and several hundred students at the host university as—in their
experience—most damaging to the effectiveness of offline/physical group meetings [
13
]. Both
Gilbert, T and Harvey et al. [
13
,
16
,
66
], had earlier identified that monopolizing (talking so
much in offline group meetings that others have little chance to speak) and non-contributing
(or speaking very little in the meetings) were the two behaviours that most undermined
inclusivity and group critical thinking in offline group meetings. (Those results pertained
to the view of most student respondents in two UK universities and across four disciplines.)
It was not clear whether meeting online might or might not alter the responses, and so
this needed to be investigated. In addition, two Likert scale questions on the confidence
of students in engaging in group work meetings [
67
] were added. Questions were also
added on their perceived level of English language proficiency and their demographic
information, respectively.
ii. Questionnaire: Compassionate Engagement and Action Scale
The Compassionate Engagement and Action Scale developed by the Compassionate
Mind Foundation [
30
] (see Appendix B). It identifies levels of self-compassion (contrasting
strongly with the competitive individualistic elements of self-esteem) [
26
,
68
], compassion
for others and sensitivity (recognition) of compassion to oneself from others. All three
categories are known to mediate each other [30].
These two questionnaires were to better identify and explore changes, if any, in the
respondents’ experiences of self and others that might be attributable to the CSCC training
for group work conducted online.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 10 of 32
3. Results
Results indicated an increase in sustained screen gaze attentiveness in line with group
members’ motivation to switch their cameras on in their online group work meetings
after the CSCC training intervention. Apparent behavioural changes were found to occur
(between the pre- and post-intervention task-focused group work meetings) across both
groups according to the qualitative data analysis conducted by the above three methods.
Below (see Section 3.3) are examples of types of behaviour before and after the intervention
that were thematically representative of the students in each group.
In addition, statistically significant differences (before and after the CSCC training
intervention) were found for screen gaze attentiveness.
3.1. Quantitative Analysis of Task-Focused Group Work Meetings—Screen Gaze
3.1.1. Statistical Analysis—Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
In each group meeting before the CSCC, each student presented a self-chosen journal
article and then participated in a group discussion of the article. The same was done (with
different self-chosen journal articles) after the CSCC training intervention. Hence, each
student presenter, those who listened to each presentation, and the discussants (the full
group) during the follow-up discussion were separately considered for analysis, taking
into account the different roles they fulfilled in each case. The hypotheses for this analysis
were as follows:
The null hypothesis—there is no difference in students’ screen gaze behaviour that
could be attributed to training in the CSCC.
The alternative hypothesis—there is a difference in students’ screen gaze behaviour
that could be attributed to training in the CSCC.
The p-value for the test of the null hypothesis that there was no difference in screen
gaze of the group members before and after the training on CSCC was 0.001 (* p= 0.001).
Presenters: The screen gaze of each presenter was analysed separately for each group.
This revealed an increase in sustained screen gaze attentiveness of all the presenters after
the CSCC training intervention. However, this increase was statistically nonsignificant at
p= 0.05.
Listeners to the presentations: Analysis revealed a statistically significant increase
(
p= 0.001
) in sustained screen gaze attentiveness of those listening to the presenters, after
the CSCC training intervention.
Discussants: During the discussion component of the group work a statistically signifi-
cant increase in sustained screen gaze attentiveness of the group members during PostTGDs
was found (p= 0.001).
Overall, the analysis showed an improvement for all group members’ sustained screen
gaze after the CSCC training intervention. Moreover, this increase was statistically significant
for listeners and discussion group members (p= 0.001) in both groups. Although there was an
increase in screen gaze attentiveness of all group members while they were presenting after
the CSCC training, it was found to be statistically nonsignificant in both groups.
3.1.2. Averaged Screen Gaze
In both groups’ a substantial increase in the averaged percentage screen gaze was
evident through the quantitative data analysis. For example, Table 4presents the pre- and
post-intervention data on averaged screen gaze of each member (n= 4) in Group 1 during
the first presentation and the follow-up discussion.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 11 of 32
Table 4.
Averaged Percentage Screen Gaze of the Group Members during Pre- vs. Post-Intervention
Presentation and Discussion of S20s Journal Article.
Task Group Member/Role Pre % Post %
S20Presentation of Journal Article
S2 Presenter 09.40 65.75
S1 Listener 00.00 47.95
S3 Listener 25.64 70.55
S4 Listener 72.65 100.00
Discussion of S20s Journal Article
S2 Member 19.28 86.90
S1 Member 33.73 94.64
S3 Member 53.41 100.00
S4 Member 66.27 100.00
3.1.3. Jupyter in Python Analysis: Whole Group’s Averaged Screen Gaze during Pre- vs.
Post-Intervention Group Discussions
Figure 3compares the averaged percentage screen gaze of Group 1 during the pre- vs
post-intervention group discussions. In Figure 3below, the Y-axis indicates each group’s
averaged percentage screen gaze values as follows:
0 = no one (0%) offered screen gaze attentiveness at any time in the meeting.
0.25 = only one group member (25%) sustained screen gaze attentiveness.
0.5 = two members of the group (50%) sustained screen gaze attentiveness.
0.75 = three members of the group (75%) sustained screen gaze attentiveness.
1 = all four members (100%) sustained screen gaze attentiveness.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 35
Figure 3. Whole group’s averaged percentage screen gaze attentiveness during pre- versus post-
intervention discussions.
The red line representing the post-intervention averaged screen gaze of the whole
group remained near to 1 indicating sustaining screen gaze attentiveness by all four
members at any time during the follow-up discussion. In contrast, the blue line
representing pre-intervention averaged screen gaze of the whole group remained near to
the straight line which represents 0.5. Hence, during pre-intervention, only one or two
group members sustained screen gaze, and at no point in time did all group members
simultaneously sustain screen gaze during the group discussion. It was found overall that
the example result presented above in Figure 3, was representative of participants’ ‘before
and after’ screen gaze behaviours across both Groups 1 and 2.
3.2. Quantitative Analysis of Questionnaires
Results of the two questionnaires analysed employing the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank
Test for both Groups 1 and 2 are shown below.
3.2.1. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
The findings from the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test confirmed the increase of
students’ screen gaze attentiveness after the CSCC training. This was apparently mediated
through videoed/observable changes from pre-intervention negative group behaviours
(itemized in the questionnaire) into positive behaviours that were related to, for example:
4.13 Allowing others to speak too fast for everyone to understand them; and
5.14 Not asking for more explanation when understanding becomes too difficult.
Moreover, post-intervention increases in their confidence to engage in group
discussion was identified in their pre and post responses to;
6.1 How confident are you to engage in group discussion?
An enhancement of their understanding of the group discussion topics was seen
post-intervention (compared to pre-intervention for example (for 5-point Likert scale
question):
7.1 Group discussion with other students usually leads to a better understanding about a
topic.
Overall, the results of the questionnaire analysis indicated a statistically significant
difference in some aspects of the group work behaviours after the CSCC training
intervention of p = 0.1 (See Table A1, Appendix C).
Figure 3.
Whole group’s averaged percentage screen gaze attentiveness during pre- versus post-
intervention discussions.
The red line representing the post-intervention averaged screen gaze of the whole
group remained near to 1 indicating sustaining screen gaze attentiveness by all four mem-
bers at any time during the follow-up discussion. In contrast, the blue line representing
pre-intervention averaged screen gaze of the whole group remained near to the straight
line which represents 0.5. Hence, during pre-intervention, only one or two group members
sustained screen gaze, and at no point in time did all group members simultaneously
sustain screen gaze during the group discussion. It was found overall that the example
result presented above in Figure 3, was representative of participants’ ‘before and after’
screen gaze behaviours across both Groups 1 and 2.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 12 of 32
3.2. Quantitative Analysis of Questionnaires
Results of the two questionnaires analysed employing the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
for both Groups 1 and 2 are shown below.
3.2.1. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
The findings from the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test confirmed the increase of students’
screen gaze attentiveness after the CSCC training. This was apparently mediated through
videoed/observable changes from pre-intervention negative group behaviours (itemized
in the questionnaire) into positive behaviours that were related to, for example:
4.13 Allowing others to speak too fast for everyone to understand them; and
5.14 Not asking for more explanation when understanding becomes too difficult.
Moreover, post-intervention increases in their confidence to engage in group discus-
sion was identified in their pre and post responses to;
6.1 How confident are you to engage in group discussion?
An enhancement of their understanding of the group discussion topics was seen post-
intervention (compared to pre-intervention for example (for 5-point Likert scale question):
7.1 Group discussion with other students usually leads to a better understanding about a topic.
Overall, the results of the questionnaire analysis indicated a statistically significant dif-
ference in some aspects of the group work behaviours after the CSCC training intervention
of p= 0.1 (See Table A1, Appendix C).
3.2.2. Questionnaire on Compassionate Engagement and Action Scale (The Compassionate
Mind Foundation)
Comparison of before and after CSCC training intervention questionnaire data through
the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test indicated a statistically significant difference of p= 0.5 in
students’ responses related to Compassionate Engagement and Action Scale. This included
stronger evidence than before the CSCC training of participants’ compassion towards
themselves and of their noticing compassion from others as in their responses to the
following Likert scale statements:
4. I am emotionally moved by my distressed feelings or situations.
6. I reflect on and make sense of my feelings of distress.
38. Others take the actions and do the things that will be helpful to me.
39. Others treat me with feelings of support, helpfulness and encouragement.
(See Table A2, Appendix D).
3.3. Qualitative Analysis
3.3.1. Template Analysis of the Task-focused Group Meetings (Pre- and Post-Intervention)
Template Analysis of the task-focused group meetings identified an increase in group
members’ screen gaze attentiveness and their motivation to switch the cameras on in online
group work meetings after CSCC training intervention.
Pre-Intervention Task-Focused Group Work Meetings (PreTGMs)
As the first step in data coding using NVivo (Pro 12) software, 59 references were
identified under two free codes (avoidant/breaking screen gaze and long silences) in the
transcriptions of PreTGMs. This is how the data overall was seen to be offering ‘non-verbal
communication’ as a main, overarching theme for both groups. For a visual representation
of this please see Table 5below.
Post-Intervention Task-Focused Group Work Meetings (PostTGMs)
The same procedure as above was applied to the PostTGMs transcripts. As the first
step in data coding using NVivo (Pro 12) software, 119 references were identified under
three free codes (nodding, reduction of breaking screen gaze and silences) in the PostTGMs.
Thus, ‘non-verbal communication’ emerged as an overarching theme for both Groups as
shown next in Table 5.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 13 of 32
Next, the above screen gaze results were further explored using Micro-ethnographic
analysis of task-focused group work meetings (which consisted of the students’ journal
article presentations and follow-up group discussions) and Template Analysis of the focus
groups’ transcriptions respectively for data triangulation.
Table 5.
Emergent Themes from the Analyses of Pre Vs Post-Intervention Group Meetings Transcription.
Theme Focussed
Codes Free Codes
Groups 1 and 2
Pre Post
Frequencies
(59) %Frequencies
(119) %
Non-verbal
Communication
Disruptors
Breaking screen gaze
49 83.05 18 15.13
Long silences 10 16.95 4 3.36
Facilitators
Nodding 97 81.51
3.3.2. Micro-Ethnographic Analysis
The results of the micro-ethnographic analysis indicated behavioural changes amongst
the group members after the CSCC training as they tended to be more attentive and
interactive. Switching their cameras on and focusing on sustaining their screen gaze during
their post-intervention presentations and follow-up discussions were both factors here.
Students’ Journal Article Presentations
Below is an example from Group 1 of the pre-intervention screen gaze behaviours of S4
(the presenter) and the rest of the group (listeners) during S4’s journal article presentation
to his fellow members. The behaviour was characteristic of all the presenters in both groups
as well as the rest of the group (listeners) during the pre-intervention discussions. Box 1shows
the behaviours of all group members during S4’s pre-intervention journal article presentation.
A pattern that has emerged from the micro-ethnographic analysis for both groups
is that breaking engagement through avoidant screen gaze by a presenter appeared to
encourage the breaking of screen gaze attention amongst other members. They appeared to
be more easily distracted by their individual physical environments. For example, student
4 (Group 1) had the whole group’s screen gaze attention until he broke the screen gaze
himself by looking downward at his notes during nearly his whole presentation. This
may have facilitated S2’s verbal communication with his brother who came into the room
during S4’s presentation. When this happened, S1 repeatedly broke his screen gaze as well.
Overall, when a presenter broke screen gaze, the following two phenomena were apparent.
Without screen gaze, the presenter could not notice other group members’ non-verbal
signals, if any, of their understanding or lack of understanding of what the presenter was
saying. The presenter could not witness any possible cues of encouragement, agreement or
disagreement within the group in real-time. Second, it might be equally important that the
other group members could see that the presenter was not paying attention to them, therefore,
any non-verbal responses from them to what the presenter was saying were not observed.
Compared to the pre-intervention presentations, all group members in both groups
exhibited more positive and attentive behavioural changes during the post-intervention. As
a representative example for all speakers in both groups, Box 2records all group members’
behaviours during S40s post-intervention presentation.
This micro-ethnographic analysis demonstrated a reduction in breaking screen gaze
by all group members after the CSCC training intervention. For example, during the
pre-intervention presentation, when S4, the speaker, read from his notes with his eyes
down, S2 repeatedly turned away from the screen to converse with his brother who was on
a sofa behind him. Therefore, his screen gaze was mostly erratic. However, the tendency of
the group members to respond to external stimuli was reduced after the CSCC training
intervention as can be seen in Box 2above (S2’s behaviour in the post-intervention).
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 14 of 32
Box 1. Micro-Ethnographic Field notes during S40s Journal Article Presentation (Pre-Intervention).
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 38
Box 1. Micro-Ethnographic Field notes during S4′s Journal Article Presentation (Pre-Intervention).
Group 1/Pre-Intervention Screen Gaze and Related Behaviours during
S4’s Presentation
1. S4 presents his journal article to the group for a total of five minutes and 25 seconds.
2. The presenter appears to be mainly reading, eyes down, at the expense of maintaining
optimal gaze. He looks at his notes and presents without sustaining eye gaze with other
group members throughout most of his presentation. His eye gaze connection to others
is infrequent and fleeting.
3. At the start of the presentation, S2s brother enters the room [00:17:07] and sits on a sofa
behind S2 but then talks to S2 from behind. S2 moves his outstretched right hand
[00:12:16] behind him as expecting to be given something by his brother behind him.
Then he turns his body in his chair to communicate [for seven seconds 00:12:1700:12:25]
with his brother.
4. Within the group, S1 appears to notice this event and is suddenly smiling then covers his
mouth with his left hand as if to hide his smile. S4 may not be aware of this as he seldom
looks at the screen.
5. After this, S1 also looks down and bites the little finger of his left hand [00:12:2500:12:40]
and then communicates with another person in the room, breaks his screen gaze and
seldom looks at the screen.
6. S1 looks to his left and it seems, non-verbally communicating (nodding and smiling)
with another person outside their group [00:13:2600:13:34]. S1 communicates with
someone else in the room four more times, looking at the left continually till 00:13:56.
Afterwards he fixes his gaze downward [00:13:5900:14:17].
7. S2 is speaking, nodding and smiling at his brother who is in the room with him, and
repeats these actions two more times [00:14:00-00:14:12, 00:15:21- 00:15:29] during S4s
five minute and 25 second presentation.
8. S1 fixes his gaze downward for 17 seconds [00:14:1900:14:36]. Afterwards, he looks
away from the screen moving his head down and then to the left, breaking screen gaze
[00:14:5700:15:08].
9. There is a long pause (11 seconds) when S4 finishes presenting his journal article.
[00:16:0000:16:11].
10. S1 breaks screen gaze for a combined total of two minutes and 40 seconds.
11. S2 breaks screen gaze for a combined total of 55 seconds.
12. S3 breaks her screen gaze for a combined total of two minutes and 15 seconds.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 15 of 32
Box 2. Micro-Ethnographic Field notes during S40s Presentation (Post-Intervention).
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 38
A pattern that has emerged from the micro-ethnographic analysis for both groups is
that breaking engagement through avoidant screen gaze by a presenter appeared to en-
courage the breaking of screen gaze attention amongst other members. They appeared to
be more easily distracted by their individual physical environments. For example, student
4 (Group 1) had the whole group’s screen gaze attention until he broke the screen gaze
himself by looking downward at his notes during nearly his whole presentation. This may
have facilitated S2′s verbal communication with his brother who came into the room dur-
ing S4′s presentation. When this happened, S1 repeatedly broke his screen gaze as well.
Overall, when a presenter broke screen gaze, the following two phenomena were
apparent.
Without screen gaze, the presenter could not notice other group members’ non-ver-
bal signals, if any, of their understanding or lack of understanding of what the presenter
was saying. The presenter could not witness any possible cues of encouragement, agree-
ment or disagreement within the group in real-time. Second, it might be equally important
that the other group members could see that the presenter was not paying attention to
them, therefore, any non-verbal responses from them to what the presenter was saying
were not observed.
Compared to the pre-intervention presentations, all group members in both groups
exhibited more positive and attentive behavioural changes during the post-intervention.
As a representative example for all speakers in both groups, Box 2 records all group mem-
bers’ behaviours during S4′s post-intervention presentation.
Box 2. Micro-Ethnographic Field notes during S4′s Presentation (Post-Intervention).
This micro-ethnographic analysis demonstrated a reduction in breaking screen gaze
by all group members after the CSCC training intervention. For example, during the pre-
intervention presentation, when S4, the speaker, read from his notes with his eyes down,
S2 repeatedly turned away from the screen to converse with his brother who was on a
sofa behind him. Therefore, his screen gaze was mostly erratic. However, the tendency of
the group members to respond to external stimuli was reduced after the CSCC training
intervention as can be seen in Box 2 above (S2’s behaviour in the post-intervention).
Group 1/Post-Intervention Screen Gaze and Related Behaviours during
S4’s Presentation
1. S4 presents his journal article for six minutes and 20 seconds during which he sus-
tains screen gaze for five minutes and 12 seconds. He breaks screen gaze for one
minute and eight seconds.
2. S1 looks at the screen during most of S4’s presentation, sustaining screen gaze for
four minutes and 45 seconds and breaking screen gaze for 35 seconds. No external
communications occurred.
3. S2 sustains his screen gaze for five minutes and 11 seconds during S4’s presentation
but breaks screen gaze for nine seconds. When his brother tries repeatedly to com-
municate with him, S2 doesn’t break screen gaze with his group and does not re-
spond to his brother.
4. S3 sustains screen gaze for five minutes and three seconds during S4’s presentation.
He breaks screen gaze for one minute and 17 seconds.
Student Task-Focused Group Discussions
The micro-ethnographic analysis of the follow-up group discussions indicated similar
results to what was observed during the presentations: a reduction of erratic screen gaze
with an increase in screen gaze attentiveness in the post-intervention group discussion.
(See Boxes 3and 4).
Box 3. Micro-Ethnographic Field notes during S40s Discussion (Pre-Intervention).
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 38
Student Task-Focused Group Discussions
The micro-ethnographic analysis of the follow-up group discussions indicated simi-
lar results to what was observed during the presentations: a reduction of erratic screen
gaze with an increase in screen gaze attentiveness in the post-intervention group discus-
sion. (See Boxes 3 and 4).
Box 3. Micro-Ethnographic Field notes during S4′s Discussion (Pre-Intervention).
Notably, the results of group members’ screen gaze attentiveness during pre-inter-
vention discussions were found to be similarly erratic and unpredictable across all partic-
ipants in both groups, despite the thorough search through the videos for disconfirming
evidence by any group member.
Box 4. Micro-Ethnographic Field notes during S4′s Discussion (Post-Intervention).
Group 1/Pre-Intervention Screen Gaze and Related Behaviours
during Discussion on the Article Presented by S4
1. During the discussion of the journal article presented by S4 for three minutes and
20 seconds, S4 speaks continuously [00:16:37 - 00:19:38] without sustaining his
screen gaze with other group members there was an extended period of
downward gaze. S4 breaks screen gaze for a combined total of three minutes and
two seconds.
2. S1 breaks his screen gaze (looks downward) for a combined total of one minute and
16 seconds.
3. S2 breaks his screen gaze (communicates with his brother in his room and looks
downward) for a combined total of 18 seconds.
4. S3 breaks her screen gaze (touches her hair and looks downward) for a combined
total of one minute and 37 seconds during the discussion.
Group 1/Post-intervention screen gaze and related behaviours during
discussion on the article presented by S4
1. After S4 presents his journal article, the discussion of it takes five minutes and 37
seconds during which S4 breaks screen gaze for a combined total of 21 seconds.
2. S1 breaks screen gaze for a combined total of 42 seconds.
3. S2 sustains screen gaze throughout the discussion of S2’s journal article and looks
down for only one second.
4. S3 breaks screen gaze for a combined total of 27 seconds.
Commented [PJM6]: Please can you replace this
box 4 in place of the remaining one online.
Thank you.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 16 of 32
Notably, the results of group members’ screen gaze attentiveness during pre-intervention
discussions were found to be similarly erratic and unpredictable across all participants in
both groups, despite the thorough search through the videos for disconfirming evidence by
any group member.
Box 4. Micro-Ethnographic Field notes during S40s Discussion (Post-Intervention).
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 38
Student Task-Focused Group Discussions
The micro-ethnographic analysis of the follow-up group discussions indicated simi-
lar results to what was observed during the presentations: a reduction of erratic screen
gaze with an increase in screen gaze attentiveness in the post-intervention group discus-
sion. (See Boxes 3 and 4).
Box 3. Micro-Ethnographic Field notes during S4′s Discussion (Pre-Intervention).
Notably, the results of group members’ screen gaze attentiveness during pre-inter-
vention discussions were found to be similarly erratic and unpredictable across all partic-
ipants in both groups, despite the thorough search through the videos for disconfirming
evidence by any group member.
Box 4. Micro-Ethnographic Field notes during S4′s Discussion (Post-Intervention).
Group 1/Pre-intervention screen gaze and related behaviours during
discussion on the article presented by S4
1. During the discussion of the journal article presented by S4 for three minutes and 20
seconds, S4 speaks continuously [00:16:37 - 00:19:38] without sustaining his screen
gaze with other group members there was an extended period of downward gaze.
S4 breaks screen gaze for a combined total of three minutes and two seconds.
2. S1 breaks his screen gaze (looks downward) for a combined total of one minute and
16 seconds.
3. S2 breaks his screen gaze (communicates with his brother in his room and looks
downward) for a combined total of 18 seconds.
4. S3 breaks her screen gaze (touches her hair and looks downward) for a combined
total of one minute and 37 seconds during the discussion.
Group 1/Post-Intervention Screen Gaze and Related Behaviours
during Discussion on the Article Presented by S4
1. After S4 presents his journal article, the discussion of it takes five minutes and
37 seconds during which S4 breaks screen gaze for a combined total of 21 seconds.
2. S1 breaks screen gaze for a combined total of 42 seconds.
3. S2 sustains screen gaze throughout the discussion of S2’s journal article and looks
down for only one second.
4. S3 breaks screen gaze for a combined total of 27 seconds.
Commented [PJM5]: Please can you replace this
box 3 in place of the remaining one online.
Thank you.
Overall, the micro ethnographic evidence here helps explain how screen gaze was
better sustained across both groups after the CSCC training than before. The above field
note findings were found to be representative of both groups. These data inform and
appear to corroborate what was found in the quantitative data above in Section 3.1.
3.3.3. Template Analysis of Focus Groups Transcriptions
During the focus groups, the group members reflected on their meetings before
and after the CSCC training and the transcriptions were analysed using NVivo (Pro 12)
following the Template Analysis framework. The results show that sustained screen gaze
attentiveness emerged as a major theme in the post-intervention group work meetings.
Furthermore, the use of the CSCC was identified by the respondents as a major reason for
this increase of screen gaze attentiveness. Interestingly, the students reported their practical
applications of the compassionate strategies as having motivated them to switch on their
cameras during the post-intervention group meetings. Below, extracts of examples of these
accounts are presented using pseudonyms and it should be noted that English was not the
first language of any of the participants.
Listening:
S4
:When I listen [ed] to Jenuru [S1]’s (presentation) actually he was not smiling—always.
So,
. . .
I don’t know whether it’s the topic is boring
. . .
to him.. so, I was
. . .
asking [a]
question to make it more attractive
. . .
and the other people also got interacted with that
. . .
and him as well to express what he wanted to say. I did that [on] purpose actually.
(Group 1, Transcription of Post-intervention Focus Group, pp.2 & 3, lines 63–71).
Presenting:
S8
:For me, it was the body language. You know, that little nod of like clarification [that] they
were listening, was a lot more about telling that [they were]
. . .
there... When I was talking,
like, all you guys are nodding heads, so it gives you more confidence like you guys actually
paying attention.
( Group 2, Transcription of Post-intervention Focus Group, p.2, lines 42–46).
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 17 of 32
Presenting and Discussing:
S2:
Yeah, so I think I it went all good like I can see when I was discussing, when I was
presenting my article like people are curious and because of their facial expressions, that drives
me keep on going to complete my article [presentation]. So, I think it’s a good discussion even
. . . during the questioning time because of their feedback.
(Group 1, Transcription of Post-intervention, Focus Group, p.2, lines 42–46).
S8
:Now it’s more like more comfortably
. . .
joking around. It is much more confidence with
each other to actually talk. Now it seems like everything is different
. . .
we feel much more
comfortable in how we interact.
(Group 2, Transcription of Post-Intervention, Focus Group, p.11, lines 347–350).
S4
:
. . .
in my case I have confidence to talk in front of you all now without any fear. That’s
I’m saying, again, that’s what we gain through the [CSCC] techniques.
(Group 1, Transcription of Post-Intervention Focus Group p.7, lines 234–236).
S6
: I would also say about having the webcam turned on, the other day, I didn’t want to, but
now (after the CSCC training) I think by having it turned on,
. . .
it makes us feel more like
friendly. So, I think having camera turned on help all of us.
(Group 2, Transcription of Post-intervention Focus Group, p.16, lines 510–515).
The examples above illustrate the changes that group members experienced individu-
ally and the groups/teams after undergoing the CSCC training. This evidence confirmed
that post-intervention group members felt more comfortable, interactive and inclusive. This
helped them to be more attentive to one another’s presentations and in the follow-up group
discussions. Finally, group members articulated their increased readiness and willingness
to switch their cameras on during post-intervention online group/teamwork meetings in
contrast to their pre-intervention group meetings.
4. Discussion
According to the findings of this study, a lack of screen gaze attentiveness was evi-
denced during the pre-intervention group meetings by group members when fulfilling their
roles as speakers as well as listeners. This contrasts with the first component of compassion
which is to ‘notice the distress or disadvantaging of self and others’. This cannot be accom-
plished without full attention to one another in a group meeting. The current findings are
in line with Vertegaal et al.’s [
69
71
] research. Their eye-tracking study explored the role
of eye gaze in group work via video conferencing where the spread of eye gaze around
the group equalised the participation of the group members and enhanced the quality of
problem solving and decision making [
69
71
]. Of particular interest here was that although
the mediating effect of inclusive eye contact around the group when it met in class [
13
,
14
]
was not possible online, an increase in camera use, and with that, sustained screen gaze
attention throughout the group’s post-intervention meetings appeared to compensate for
this. Therefore, an important point to notice is that the switching on of the cameras during
such discussion meetings does appear to significantly enhance screen gaze attentiveness
and facilitate the equal participation of each group member.
Furthermore, the findings were relevant to both (a) Learning and (b) Social experiences
across the group.
(a) Learning experience across the group
If not looking at the screen, a speaker might fail to observe the non-verbal behaviours
of students who may be signalling, even unconsciously, that they do not understand parts
of the presentation, whether that is conceptual, or because of spoken English language
errors or accent, or difficulties of English comprehension such as from speed of others’
speech. Even a small frown or moving/turning of the head may signal to the speaker that
they should repeat or/and rephrase a point. Observing these signals is useful in particular
if listeners do not wish to verbally interrupt the presentation. Furthermore, if listeners do
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 18 of 32
not understand and cannot signal potential difficulties non-verbally to a presenter who
is not looking at them, a follow-up discussion might prove difficult. Not attending to
non-verbal cues will therefore not only affect the listeners trying to communicate their
difficulties in following what is said, but the whole group’s learning experience in terms
of the quality of criticality of the discussion that follows because some members may lack
the comprehension they needed to participate. Both groups experienced such a problem
during the pre-intervention group meetings.
(b) Social experience across the group:
(i)
If the presenter does not sustain screen gaze with the listeners, this may cause
the listening group members to dissociate from their compassionate role of
supporting the current speaker; this is true for the screen gaze of all students
in the group, but particularly for the speaker. This may lead to there being
no perceived necessity for listeners to sustain their own screen gaze because
evidence of their attention to a speaker is not noticed by that speaker; listeners
may feel that their supportive behaviours are pointless. Furthermore, in the online
group format, in particular, the listeners may then become more susceptible to
distractions in their physical environment.
(ii)
The speaker who does not sustain screen gaze with the listeners is most likely to
also miss other highly communicative non-verbal signals of engagement from
the listeners. Nodding and smiling are useful signals of understanding and/or
encouragement to the speaker to continue. Turning/moving heads from side to
side, frowning or expressions of puzzlement, or blank looks may be useful signals
to the speaker that he/she is not communicating successfully at this moment,
and should repeat, and/or rephrase, and/or slow down or simply stop and check
understanding around the group.
(iii)
An inability to notice their own behaviours does not allow group members to
observe their behaviours in terms of group tasks achievement.
In summary, it is important to enact the first component of compassion for the group
work/teamwork context, (‘noticing’), in order to fulfil the second component, (‘taking wise
actions to reduce or prevent the distress or disadvantaging of self and others’). Understand-
ing this phenomenon and application of the CSCC practically during the post-intervention
task-focused group work meetings assisted students’ recognition of the advantages of
switching their cameras on during their group/team meetings online. This was especially
enhanced by their realisation that they could offer a wide range of support to their peers
by implementing what they had learned about CSCC. Hence, this approach appears to
help address the multi-factored issue of delayed or abandoned development of social
relationships that could be remedied through even non-verbal exchanges in online group
meetings [
22
,
72
,
73
]. Further, the current findings are important for addressing negative
emotions including feelings of isolation and/or helplessness by students having had to
shift into the online platforms [74].
This study on compassion as an intention (not an emotion) [
30
] suggests new avenues
to enhance the productivity and inclusivity of online group work/teamwork meetings.
For example, in a group of four members with cameras on, each group member can
read the expressions, all on one screen, of all three other members of the group, at the
same time. Compared to when a group sits around the table, this is a change of spatial
dimensions for ‘reading’ faces and their non-verbal cues and signals (e.g., confusion,
approval, disagreement, encouragement) during the meeting. This alone may be worthy of
further research in terms of how the observing social brain adapts under compassionate
conditions, where oxytocin may help sync the group [
24
]. This is important because of
research such as that of Greenfield’s [
13
,
75
] on identifying how the current, widespread
requirement for daily digital multi-focusing is changing the architecture of children’s brains
in digital societies. She asserts, ‘if you only focused on the behaviour of one player (in
a game of football, for example) you couldn’t extrapolate the nature and context of the
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 19 of 32
game’. Similarly, in their group meetings, if students focus on the speaker only (which
often happens in offline meetings), they may not also pay close attention to the immediate
facial responses of the rest of the group members. However, this advantage of reading faces
(in online group meetings) is only possible when attendees have their cameras switched on.
During the post-intervention presentations, the follow-up discussions of the articles
and again in the focus groups, it was evident that, the CSCC training increased the confi-
dence of students when they spoke as presenters or/and as discussant participants because
of the non-verbal support they could consciously observe from their group/team. First, this
CSCC support confidence building of the student speaking as they experience the support
from their group/team. Second, students appeared to more easily assess responses and
overall reactions of the whole group to presentations or discussions more easily as they
were looking at three other faces at once. The verbal evidence for enhanced inter-students’
support of each other similarly aligned with the principles of the non-verbal compassionate
communications, above.
Overall, the findings suggest that training the students in CSCC motivated them to use
practical compassionate communications to manage their group/teamwork interactions
irrespective of their ethnic, religious or mother tongue differences. This may be the result
of compassion being a valued concept cross-culturally [
76
80
]. Thus, the study’s findings
are relevant for addressing the current tendency towards ethnic and religious polarization
of student communities [8186].
Moreover, the current study answers the constructivists’ concerns that students’ learn-
ing should be demonstrated in tangible products. By teaching students, the current empiri-
cal evidenced based understanding of compassion as it pertains to interactional dynamics
in group/teams, students demonstrated their learning not only through their recorded
completed presentations and discussions as outcomes but also by the content of these in
relation to shared criticality and enhanced group cohesion.
Finally, the study’s findings demonstrated the successful adaptation of the CSCC
(through partnership with the students) to the online group meeting context. The findings
also support the notion of the Self Organized Learning Environments (SOLE) introduced
by Mitra [
53
,
87
]. In the context of this study, ‘self-organized’ is inferred from the choice by
students of their journal articles to present and discuss without a tutor taking part. The
whole point of the discussion was to develop critical perspectives taking through the social
interaction (in this case based on an empirical understanding of compassion) considered by
the constructivists as necessary for student learning.
Limitations of the Study
Technological barriers in the form of unstable internet connections prevented one
student from keeping the camera continually switched on in Group 2 despite repeated
attempts by her to do so.
It may be that the single facilitator (teacher/trainer) for this study was a positive
variable in the findings. This is a variable that cannot easily be removed from many
teaching and learning situations unless carried out through human learning machine
instruction interactions, but it is important to consider. However, in the current approach,
this argument becomes much weaker as, once the exercise began, there was no supervision
or mediation by the teacher during either the group presentations or discussions.
The backgrounds of each student in their respective online environments may well
have been more distracting across the group than might be expected in a shared physical
space. Additionally, as planned, it will be necessary to investigate whether, and if so, in
what ways, students have taken forward and not discarded what they learned from this
study. This is to a planned and necessary extension of this study to be carried out several
months from now.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 20 of 32
5. Conclusions
The study identified that screen gaze was key to the kinds of non-verbal signals of social
connection most likely to mediate learning outcomes for the whole online group/teamwork
meetings. This aligns with the findings in previous studies [
13
,
16
,
66
] that inclusive eye con-
tact (around the group) was a key feature of the pedagogy of compassionate communication
in offline classroom group work.
The CSCC was found to license participants to exercise, their purposeful use of compas-
sionate verbal and non-verbal communications throughout their group/teamwork meetings.
Post-intervention, all participants reported being motivated to switch their cameras on
in contrast to the preference of some not to do so not only in the pre-intervention meetings in
this study but also as they reported in relation to their previous experiences of online group
work on their degree programmes. This change, attributed by all participants to a new
understanding of compassion specific to group work/teamwork suggests an accelerated
development of a shared, interdependent identity in each group. Moreover, the findings are
relevant to the current emphasis in higher education on the need for authentic assessment
in HE and as preparation for groups/teams in the workplace. The findings inform group
work/teamwork practice for students, teachers and syllabus designers. Specific to this
study though, further research will investigate the benefits of teaching the cognitive skills
of compassionate communications, as above, to Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslim students,
drawn together as strangers from a new sample of Sri Lankan, not UK, universities.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher Education
Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been anonymized.
Data Availability Statement:
Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey (pre
and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based compassionate
pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in groupwork. The work is
approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities Ethics
Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No. cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected environment,
for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and presentations.
The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 21 of 32
2. Demographic Information
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
18–25
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
26–35
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
36–45
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
46–55
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
56 and above
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
Prefer not to say
2.1 What is your gender?
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
Male
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
Female
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
Other
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
Prefer not to say
3. In your view, which of the following best describes your level of English?
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
Expert user—accurate, appropriate, fluent with full understanding
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
Very good user—rare errors, use complex language well
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
Good user—only occasional errors, use complex language quite well in most situations
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
Competent user—some errors, use some complex language in familiar situations
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 35
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources,
data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, and visualization,
J.M.P.V.K.J.; supervision, T.G., S.K., L.M.; project administration, funding acquisition, J.M.P.V.K.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by AHEAD Operations of Sri Lanka (Accelerating Higher
Education Expansion and Development) funded by the World Bank. Grant number
AHEAD/PhD/R1/AHSS/027.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study has been reviewed by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Hertfordshire (protocol code cHUM/PGT/UH/04345 and 3 October 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. No research participant can be identified in this research article as all study data have been
anonymized.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting reported results can be found in the secure One Drive
at the University of Hertfordshire, accessed through the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours
This short, anonymous survey asks questions about group work. Could you kindly
spend approximately 5 min sharing your opinions, please? The results from the survey
(pre and post) will help us identify the impact, if any, of the evidenced based
compassionate pedagogy to support students’ communicative ease with others in
groupwork. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social Sciences, Arts
and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol No.
cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
1. In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
2. Demographic Information
2.0 Which age group do you belong to?
o 18–25
o 26–35
o 36–45
o 46–55
o 56 and above
o Prefer not to say
2.1. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Other
o Prefer not to say
Modest user—frequent errors, have difficulties with complex language
4.
Please tick any of the following behaviours that you have demonstrated (your own
behaviour) in your group discussions.
Negative Group Behaviours Always
(1)
Quiet
Often (2)
Sometimes
(3)
Not Very
Often (4)
Never
(5)
4.1 Talking a lot so that others do not get many chances to speak.
4.2 Talking in silences when other group members are talking.
4.3 Not looking at all the other people in the group.
4.4 Using difficult language terms or expressions without explaining
so that other people in the group may not understand.
4.5 Not listening carefully to other peoples’ ideas.
4.6 Not helping other people when they are getting into difficulty
while they are speaking.
4.7 Talking over others.
4.8 Not inviting others to speak.
4.9 Not thanking others for their contribution.
4.10 Speaking very little or not at all in the group.
4.11 Not even reading a little bit in order to bring something to
the discussion.
4.12 Letting other people talk and talk without interrupting them.
4.13
Allowing others to speak too fast for everyone to understand them.
4.14 Not asking for more explanations when understanding becomes
too difficult.
4.15 Other:
4a. If you selected the item 15 ‘Other ’, please include your observations here.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 35
3. In your view, which of the following best describes your level of English?
o Expert user—accurate, appropriate, fluent with full understanding
o Very good user—rare errors, use complex language well
o Good user—only occasional errors, use complex language quite well in most
situations
o Competent user—some errors, use some complex language in familiar situations
o Modest user—frequent errors, have difficulties with complex language
4. Please tick any of the following behaviours that you have demonstrated (your own
behaviour) in your group discussions.
Negative Group Behaviours Always
(1)
Quiet
often (2)
Sometim
es (3)
Not very
often (4)
Never
(5)
4.1 Talking a lot so that others do not get many chances to
speak.
4.2 Talking in silences when other group members are
talking.
4.3 Not looking at all the other people in the group.
4.4 Using difficult language terms or expressions without
explaining so that other people in the group may not
understand.
4.5 Not listening carefully to other peoples’ ideas.
4.6 Not helping other people when they are getting into
difficulty while they are speaking.
4.7 Talking over others.
4.8 Not inviting others to speak.
4.9 Not thanking others for their contribution.
4.10 Speaking very little or not at all in the group.
4.11 Not even reading a little bit in order to bring something
to the discussion.
4.12 Letting other people talk and talk without interrupting
them.
4.13 Allowing others to speak too fast for everyone to
understand them.
4.14 Not asking for more explanations when understanding
b
ecomes too difficult.
4.15 Other:
4a. If you selected the item 15 ‘Other’, please include your observations here.
5. Please tick any of the following behaviours that others have demonstrated (you have
observed in others) in your group discussions.
5.
Please tick any of the following behaviours that others have demonstrated (you have
observed in others) in your group discussions.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 22 of 32
Negative Group Behaviours Always
(1)
Quiet
Often (2)
Sometimes
(3)
Not Very
Often (4)
Never
(5)
5.1 Talking a lot so that others do not get many chances to speak.
5.2 Talking in silences when other group members are talking.
5.3 Not looking at all the people in the group.
5.4 Using difficult language terms or expressions without explaining
so that other people in the group may not understand.
5.5 Not listening carefully to other peoples’ ideas.
5.6 Not helping other people when they are getting into difficulty
while they are speaking.
5.7 Talking over others.
5.8 Not inviting others to speak.
5.9 Not thanking others for their contribution.
5.10 Speaking very little or not at all in the group.
5.11 Not even reading a little bit in order to bring something to
the discussion.
5.12 Letting other people talk and talk without interrupting them.
5.13
Allowing others to speak too fast for everyone to understand them.
5.14 Not asking for more explanations when understanding becomes
too difficult.
5.15 Other:
5a. If you selected the item 15 ‘Other ’, please include your observations here.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 35
3. In your view, which of the following best describes your level of English?
o Expert user—accurate, appropriate, fluent with full understanding
o Very good user—rare errors, use complex language well
o Good user—only occasional errors, use complex language quite well in most
situations
o Competent user—some errors, use some complex language in familiar situations
o Modest user—frequent errors, have difficulties with complex language
4. Please tick any of the following behaviours that you have demonstrated (your own
behaviour) in your group discussions.
Negative Group Behaviours Always
(1)
Quiet
often (2)
Sometim
es (3)
Not very
often (4)
Never
(5)
4.1 Talking a lot so that others do not get many chances to
speak.
4.2 Talking in silences when other group members are
talking.
4.3 Not looking at all the other people in the group.
4.4 Using difficult language terms or expressions without
explaining so that other people in the group may not
understand.
4.5 Not listening carefully to other peoples’ ideas.
4.6 Not helping other people when they are getting into
difficulty while they are speaking.
4.7 Talking over others.
4.8 Not inviting others to speak.
4.9 Not thanking others for their contribution.
4.10 Speaking very little or not at all in the group.
4.11 Not even reading a little bit in order to bring something
to the discussion.
4.12 Letting other people talk and talk without interrupting
them.
4.13 Allowing others to speak too fast for everyone to
understand them.
4.14 Not asking for more explanations when understanding
b
ecomes too difficult.
4.15 Other:
4a. If you selected the item 15 ‘Other’, please include your observations here.
5. Please tick any of the following behaviours that others have demonstrated (you have
observed in others) in your group discussions.
6.
These questions are about your confidence in considering your and others’ behaviours
during group work. Please tick your answer for each question.
Confidence of Working in Groups Not
Confident at All (1)
Not That
Confident (2)
Reasonably
Confident (3)
Extremely
Confident (4)
6.1 How confident are you to engage in group discussion?
6.2 How confident are you to draw others into group discussion?
6.3 How confident are you to address the behaviour of someone
who is dominating the discussion during group work?
6.4 How confident are you in moderating your own behaviour to
benefit group discussion?
7.
To what extent do you think group behaviours can influence your learning? Please
tick your answer for each question.
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Somewhat
Disagree (2)
Neither Agree
nor Disagreed
(3)
Somewhat
Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
7.1 Group discussion with other students usually leads to a better
understanding about a topic
7.2
The quality of the discussion is determined by the way the group
members interact
7.3
The quality of the discussion is determined by knowledge of the
group members
8. Please add any additional thoughts about group work.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 35
3. In your view, which of the following best describes your level of English?
o Expert user—accurate, appropriate, fluent with full understanding
o Very good user—rare errors, use complex language well
o Good user—only occasional errors, use complex language quite well in most
situations
o Competent user—some errors, use some complex language in familiar situations
o Modest user—frequent errors, have difficulties with complex language
4. Please tick any of the following behaviours that you have demonstrated (your own
behaviour) in your group discussions.
Negative Group Behaviours Always
(1)
Quiet
often (2)
Sometim
es (3)
Not very
often (4)
Never
(5)
4.1 Talking a lot so that others do not get many chances to
speak.
4.2 Talking in silences when other group members are
talking.
4.3 Not looking at all the other people in the group.
4.4 Using difficult language terms or expressions without
explaining so that other people in the group may not
understand.
4.5 Not listening carefully to other peoples’ ideas.
4.6 Not helping other people when they are getting into
difficulty while they are speaking.
4.7 Talking over others.
4.8 Not inviting others to speak.
4.9 Not thanking others for their contribution.
4.10 Speaking very little or not at all in the group.
4.11 Not even reading a little bit in order to bring something
to the discussion.
4.12 Letting other people talk and talk without interrupting
them.
4.13 Allowing others to speak too fast for everyone to
understand them.
4.14 Not asking for more explanations when understanding
b
ecomes too difficult.
4.15 Other:
4a. If you selected the item 15 ‘Other’, please include your observations here.
5. Please tick any of the following behaviours that others have demonstrated (you have
observed in others) in your group discussions.
Thank you very much for your participation.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 23 of 32
Appendix B
The Compassionate Engagement and Action Scale
This short, anonymous survey (taken from the Compassionate Mind Foundation)
asks questions about
Self-compassion
, (Section 1),
Compassion to others
(Section 2) and
Sensitivity to
compassion from others
(Section 3). Could you kindly respond to the
questions below? This will take approximately 10 min. The results from the survey will
help us identify each individual participant’s engagement with, and then action, if any,
in relation to: Self-compassion; sensitivity/receptiveness to compassion from others, and
compassion for others. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social
Sciences, Arts and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol
No. cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected environment,
for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure conditions.
The data will be analysed, and the results will be used in publications and presenta-
tions. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 35
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Somewhat
Disagree
(2)
Neither
Agree nor
Disagreed
(3)
Somewhat
Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree
(5)
7.1 Group discussion with other
students usually leads to a
b
etter understanding about a
topic
7.2 The quality of the discussion
is determined by the way the
group members interact
7.3 The quality of the discussion
is determined by knowledge
of the group members
8. Please add any additional thoughts about group work.
Thank you very much for your participation.
Appendix B
The Compassionate Engagement and Action Scale
This short, anonymous survey (taken from the Compassionate Mind Foundation)
asks questions about Self-compassion, (Section 1), Compassion to others (Section 2) and
Sensitivity to compassion from others (Section 3). Could you kindly respond to the
questions below? This will take approximately 10 min. The results from the survey will
help us identify each individual participant’s engagement with, and then action, if any, in
relation to: Self-compassion; sensitivity/receptiveness to compassion from others, and
compassion for others. The work is approved by the University of Hertfordshire Social
Sciences, Arts and Humanities Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority, UH protocol
No. cHUM/PGT/UH/04345.
You are free to withdraw at any stage, just stop answering the questionnaire or leave
this page.
What will happen to the data collected within this study?
The data collected will be stored electronically, in a password-protected
environment, for four years, after which time it will be destroyed under secure
conditions.
The data will be analysed, and the results will be used in publications and
presentations. The analysis will contribute to the primary researcher’s PhD project.
In the box below, please enter the code given to you by the researcher.
Self-Compassion
When things go wrong for us and we become distressed by setbacks, failures,
disappointments or losses, we may cope with these in different ways. We are interested
in the degree to which people can be compassionate with themselves. We define
compassion as “a sensitivity to suffering in self and others with a commitment to try to
alleviate and prevent it”.
This means there are two aspects to compassion. The first is the ability to be
motivated to engage with things/feelings that are difficult as opposed to trying to avoid
or supress them. The second aspect of compassion is the ability to focus on what is helpful
Self-Compassion
When things go wrong for us and we become distressed by setbacks, failures, disap-
pointments or losses, we may cope with these in different ways. We are interested in the
degree to which people can be compassionate with themselves. We define compassion
as “a sensitivity to suffering in self and others with a commitment to try to alleviate and
prevent it”.
This means there are two aspects to compassion. The first is the ability to be motivated
to engage with things/feelings that are difficult as opposed to trying to avoid or supress
them. The second aspect of compassion is the ability to focus on what is helpful to us. Just
like doctors with their patients. In other words, the first aspect of compassion is to be
motivated and able to pay attention to the pain and (learn how to) make sense of it. The
second is to be able to take the action that will be helpful. Below is a series of questions that
ask you about these two aspects of compassion. Therefore, read each statement carefully
and think about how it applies to you if you become distressed.
Section 1—These are questions that ask you about how motivated you are, and able to
engage with distress when you experience it. So:
When I’m distressed or upset by things . . .
1. I am motivated to engage and work with my distress when it arises.
12345678910
Never Always
2. I notice, and am sensitive to, my distressed feelings when they arise in me.
12345678910
Never Always
3. I avoid thinking about my distress and try to distract myself and put it out of my mind.
12345678910
Never Always
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 24 of 32
4. I am emotionally moved by my distressed feelings or situations.
12345678910
Never Always
5. I tolerate the various feelings that are part of my distress.
12345678910
Never Always
6. I reflect on and make sense of my feelings of distress.
12345678910
Never Always
7. I do not tolerate being distressed.
12345678910
Never Always
8. I am accepting, non-critical and non-judgemental of my feelings of distress.
12345678910
Never Always
Section 2—These questions relate to how you actively cope in compassionate ways
with emotions, thoughts and situations that distress you. So:
When I’m distressed or upset by things . . .
9. I direct my attention to what is likely to be helpful to me.
12345678910
Never Always
10. I think about and come up with helpful ways to cope with my distress.
12345678910
Never Always
11. I don’t know how to help myself.
12345678910
Never Always
12. I take the actions and do the things that will be helpful to me.
12345678910
Never Always
13. I create inner feelings of support, helpfulness and encouragement.
12345678910
Never Always
Compassion to Others
When things go wrong for us and we become distressed by setbacks, failures, disap-
pointments or losses, we may cope with these in different ways. We are interested in the
degree to which people can be compassionate with themselves. We define compassion
as “a sensitivity to suffering in self and others with a commitment to try to alleviate and
prevent it”.
This means there are two aspects to compassion. The first is the ability to be motivated
to engage with things/feelings that are difficult as opposed to trying to avoid or supress
them. The second aspect of compassion is the ability to focus on what is helpful to us.
Just like doctors with their patients. In other words, the first aspect of compassion is to be
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 25 of 32
motivated and able to pay attention to the pain and (learn how to) make sense of it. The
second is to be able to take the action that will be helpful. Below is a series of questions that
ask you about these two aspects of compassion. Therefore, read each statement carefully
and think about how it applies to you if you become distressed.
Section 1—These are questions that ask you about how motivated you are, and able to
engage with distress when you experience it. So:
When I’m distressed or upset by things . . .
14. I am motivated to engage and work with other peoples’ distress when it arises.
12345678910
Never Always
15. I notice and am sensitive to distress in others when it arises.
12345678910
Never Always
16.
I avoid thinking about other peoples’ distress, try to distract myself and put it out of
my mind.
12345678910
Never Always
17. I am emotionally moved by expressions of distress in others.
12345678910
Never Always
18. I tolerate the various feelings that are part of other people’s distress.
12345678910
Never Always
19. I reflect on and make sense of other people’s distress.
12345678910
Never Always
20. I do not tolerate other peoples’ distress.
12345678910
Never Always
21. I am accepting, non-critical and non-judgemental of other people’s distress.
12345678910
Never Always
Section 2—These questions relate to how you actively respond in compassionate ways
when other people are distressed. So:
When others are distressed or upset by things . . .
22. I direct attention to what is likely to be helpful to others.
12345678910
Never Always
23. I think about and come up with helpful ways for them to cope with their distress.
12345678910
Never Always
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 26 of 32
24. I take the actions and do the things that will be helpful to others.
12345678910
Never Always
25. I don’t know how to help other people when they are distressed.
12345678910
Never Always
26. I express feelings of support, helpfulness and encouragement to others.
12345678910
Never Always
Compassion from Others
When things go wrong for us and we become distressed by setbacks, failures, disap-
pointments or losses, others may cope with our distress in different ways. We are interested
in the degree to which you feel that important people in your life can be compassionate to
your distress. We define compassion as “a sensitivity to suffering in self and others with a
commitment to try to alleviate and prevent it”.
This means there are two aspects to compassion. The first is the ability to be motivated
to engage with things/feelings that are difficult as opposed to trying to avoid or supress
them. The second aspect of compassion is the ability to focus on what is helpful to us or
others. Just like doctors with their patients. In other words, the first aspect of compassion
is to be motivated and able to pay attention to the pain and (learn how to) make sense
of it. The second is to be able to take the action that will be helpful. Below is a series
of questions that ask you about these two aspects of compassion. Therefore, read each
statement carefully and think about how it applies to the important people in your life
when you become distressed.
Section 1—These are questions that ask you about how motivated you think others
are, and how much they engage with your distress when you experience it. So:
When I’m distressed or upset by things . . .
27.
Other people are actively motivated to engage and work with my distress when it arises.
12345678910
Never Always
28. Others notice and are sensitive to my distressed feelings when they arise in me.
12345678910
Never Always
29.
Others avoid thinking about my distress, try to distract themselves and put it out of
their mind.
12345678910
Never Always
30. Others are emotionally moved by my distressed feelings.
12345678910
Never Always
31. Others tolerate my various feelings that are part of my distress.
12345678910
Never Always
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 27 of 32
32. Others reflect on and make sense of my feelings of distress.
12345678910
Never Always
33. Others do not tolerate my distress.
12345678910
Never Always
34. Others are accepting, non-critical and non-judgemental of my feelings of distress.
12345678910
Never Always
Section 2—These questions relate to how others actively cope in compassionate ways
with emotions and situations that distress you. So:
When I’m distressed or upset by things . . .
35. Others direct their attention to what is likely to be helpful to me.
12345678910
Never Always
36. Others think about and come up with helpful ways for me to cope with my distress.
12345678910
Never Always
37. Others don’t know how to help me when I am distressed.
12345678910
Never Always
38. Others take the actions and do the things that will be helpful to me.
12345678910
Never Always
39. Others treat me with feelings of support, helpfulness and encouragement.
12345678910
Never Always
Thank you very much for your participation and time spent on this survey.
Appendix C
Table A1. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Statistics—Questionnaire on Group Work Behaviours.
Z Asymp. Sig. (2-Tailed)
AEngLevel – BEngLevel 1.000 b0.317
AQ4.1 – BQ4.1 0.577 c0.564
AQ4.2 – BQ4.2 0.137 c0.891
AQ4.3 – BQ4.3 1.667 b0.096
AQ4.4 – BQ4.4 1.134 b0.257
AQ4.5 – BQ4.5 0.108 b0.914
AQ4.6 – BQ4.6 0.707 b0.480
AQ4.7 – BQ4.7 0.816 c0.414
AQ4.8 – BQ4.8 0.378 b0.705
AQ4.9 – BQ4.9 1.000 c0.317
AQ4.10 – BQ4.10 1.633 b0.102
AQ4.11 – BQ4.11 0.000 d1.000
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 28 of 32
Table A1. Cont.
Z Asymp. Sig. (2-Tailed)
AQ4.12 – BQ4.12 0.879 c0.380
AQ4.13 – BQ4.13 1.732 b0.083
AQ4.14 – BQ4.14 0.447 b0.655
AQ5.1 – BQ5.1 0.412 c0.680
AQ5.2 – BQ5.2 0.276 b0.783
AQ5.3 – BQ5.3 0.000 d1.000
AQ5.4 – BQ5.4 0.184 b0.854
AQ5.5 – BQ5.5 0.604 b0.546
AQ5.6 – BQ5.6 0.378 b0.705
AQ5.7 – BQ5.7 0.378 c0.705
AQ5.8 – BQ5.8 0.087 b0.931
AQ5.9 – BQ5.9 0.879 b0.380
AQ5.10 – BQ5.10 0.577 b0.564
AQ5.11 – BQ5.11 0.213 b0.832
AQ5.12 – BQ5.12 0.425 b0.671
AQ5.13 – BQ5.13 1.633 b0.102
AQ5.14 – BQ5.14 1.732 b0.083
AQ6.1 – BQ6.1 1.732 c0.083
AQ6.2 – BQ6.2 0.577 c0.564
AQ6.3 – BQ6.3 1.633 c0.102
AQ7.1 – BQ7.1 1.414 c0.157
AQ7.2 – BQ7.2 1.732 c0.083
AQ7.3 – BQ7.3 0.000 d1.000
AQ7.4 – BQ7.4 1.414 b0.157
a. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, b. Based on positive ranks, c. Based on negative ranks, d. The sum of negative
ranks equals the sum of positive ranks.
Appendix D
Table A2. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Statistics—Questionnaire on CEAS.
Z Asymp. Sig. (2-Tailed)
AQ1 – BQ1 0.962 b0.336
AQ2 – BQ2 0.282 c0.778
AQ3 – BQ3 0.184 b0.854
AQ4 – BQ4 1.973 c0.049
AQ5 – BQ4.5 0.954 c0.340
AQ6 – BQ4.6 1.980 c0.048
AQ7 – BQ4.7 0.144 c0.886
AQ8 – BQ4.8 0.340 c0.734
AQ9 – BQ4.9 1.725 c0.084
AQ10 – BQ10 0.000 d1.000
AQ11 – BQ11 1.382 c0.167
AQ12 – BQ12 0.425 c0.671
AQ13 – BQ13 1.732 b0.083
AQ14 – BQ14 0.447 c0.655
AQ15 – BQ.15 0.970 b0.332
AQ16 – BQ16 1.065 c0.287
AQ17 – BQ17 0.412 c0.680
AQ18 – BQ18 1.414 b0.157
AQ19 – BQ19 0.756 b0.450
AQ20 – BQ20 1.276 c0.202
AQ21 – BQ21 0.272 c0.785
AQ22 – BQ22 0.000 d1.000
AQ23 – BQ23 0.000 d1.000
AQ24 – BQ24 0.000 d1.000
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 29 of 32
Table A2. Cont.
Z Asymp. Sig. (2-Tailed)
AQ25 – BQ25 0.406 b0.684
AQ26 – BQ26 1.725 b0.084
AQ27 – BQ27 0.921 b0.357
AQ28 – BQ28 0.755 c0.450
AQ29 – BQ29 1.289 c0.197
AQ30 – BQ30 0.351 c0.725
AQ31 – BQ31 0.422 b0.673
AQ32 – BQ32 1.378 c0.168
AQ33 – BQ33 0.000 d1.000
AQ34 – BQ34 1.289 c0.197
AQ35 – BQ35 1.063 c0.288
AQ36 – BQ36 1.633 c0.102
AQ37 – BQ37 0.962 c0.336
AQ38 –BQ38 2.233 c0.020
AQ39 –BQ39 2.121 c0.034
a. Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test, b. Based on positive ranks, c. Based on negative ranks, d. The sum of negative
ranks equals the sum of positive ranks.
References
1.
Bauer, C.; Dicks, M.; Holbrook, K.; Sarnell, C. All of My Students Turn Their Cameras Off. It’s Making Class Miserable.
Available online: https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/10/distance-learning- students-keep-cameras- on.html (accessed on
20 December 2020).
2.
Stanford University. Cameras and Masks: Sustaining Emotional Connections with Your Students in an Age of COVID19 (Part 2
of 2): Tomorrow’s Teaching and Learning. 2020. Available online: https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/1814 (accessed on
12 January 2021).
3.
World Health Organization. COVID-19: Physical Distancing. COVID-19 Advice—Know the Facts—WHO Western Pacific . 2021.
Available online: http://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19/information/physical-distancing (accessed on
15 October 2021).
4.
Aleman, A.; Sommer, I. The Silent Danger of Social Distancing. Psychol. Med.
2022
,52, 789–790. Available online:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/silent-danger-of-social-distancing/9CFFBF280
2D6A6042A0707CD6D8E1052 (accessed on 8 September 2021). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Cacioppo, J.T.; Hawkley, L.C. Perceived Social Isolation and Cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci.
2009
,13, 447–454. Available online:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309001478?via%3Dihub (accessed on 10 August 2021). [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
6.
Hawkley, L.C.; Cacioppo, J.T. Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann.
Behav. Med. 2010,40, 218–227. [CrossRef]
7.
Castelli, F.R.; Sarvary, M.A. Why students do not turn on their video cameras during online classes and an equitable and inclusive
plan to encourage them to do so. Ecol. Evol.
2021
,11, 3565–3576. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1
002/ece3.7123 (accessed on 17 February 2021). [CrossRef]
8.
McBrien, J.L.; Jones, P.; Cheng, R. Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in
online learning. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 2019,10, 1–15. [CrossRef]
9.
Katchen, J.E. Using the Video Camera to Improve Speaking and Performance Skills. In Papers from the Eighth Conference on English
Language Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China; Crane Publishing: Taipei, Taiwan, 1992; pp. 531–540. Available online:
http://mx.nthu.edu.tw/~{}katchen/professional/Using%20the%20video%20camera.htm (accessed on 6 January 2022).
10.
Schwenck, C.M.; Pryor, J.D. Student Perspectives on Camera Usage to Engage and Connect in Foundational Education Classes:
It’s Time to Turn Your Cameras on. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open
2021
,2, 100079. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S266637402 (accessed on 6 January 2022). [CrossRef]
11.
Leung, H.T.T.; Bruce, H.; Korszun, A. To See or Not to See: Should Medical Educators Require Students to Turn on Cameras
in Online Teaching. Med. Teach.
2021
,43, 1099. Available online: https://cfrps.unistra.fr/fileadmin/uploads/websites/cfrps/
Analyse_d_articles/2021_juin_ML.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2022). [CrossRef]
12.
Gilbert, P. Explorations into the Nature and Function of Compassion. Curr. Opin. Psychol.
2019
,28, 108–114, ISSN 2352-250X.
Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X18301222 (accessed on 16 December 2021).
[CrossRef]
13.
Gilbert, T. Assess compassion in Higher Education? Why and how would we do that? LINK
2016
,2. Available online:
https://www.herts.ac.uk/link/volume-2,-issue-1 (accessed on 12 July 2019).
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 30 of 32
14. Gilbert, T.; Doolan, M.; Beka, D.S.; Spencer, N.; Crotta, D.M.; Davari, S. Compassion on University Degree Programmes at a UK
University: The Neuroscience of Effective Group work. J. Res. Innov. Teach. Learn. 2018,11, 4–21. [CrossRef]
15.
Gilbert, T.; Bryan, C. Developing and accessing inclusivity in group learning. In Innovative Assessment in Higher Education: A
Handbook for Academic Practitioners, 2nd ed.; Bryan, C., Clegg, K., Eds.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2019; pp. 151–162.
16.
Harvey, C.; Maratos, F.A.; Montague, J.; Gale, M.; Clarke, K.; Gilbert, T. Embedding Compassionate Micro Skills of Communication
in Higher Education: Implementation with psychology undergraduates. Psychol. Educ. Rev. 2020,44, 68–72.
17.
Rizzolatti, G.; Sinigaglia, C. The mirror mechanism: A basic principle of brain function. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
2016
,17, 757–765.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Spikins, P. How Compassion Made Us Human: The Evolutionary Origins of Tenderness, Trust and Morality; Pen and Sword: Barnsley,
UK, 2015.
19.
Barrett, L.F.; Ajay Satpute, A.B. Large-Scale Brain Networks in Affective and Social Neuroscience: Towards an Integrative
Functional Architecture of the Brain. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
2013
,23, 361–372. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0959438813000172?via%3Dihub (accessed on 15 October 2021). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Spunt, R.P.; Falk, E.B.; Lieberman, M.D. Dissociable neural systems support retrieval of how and why action knowledge. Psychol.
Sci. 2010,21, 1593–1598. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21.
Zaki, J.; Hennigan, K.; Weber, J.; Ochsner, K.N. Social cognitive conflict resolution: Contributions of domain-general and
domain-specific neural systems. J. Neurosci. 2010,30, 8481–8488. [CrossRef]
22.
Bedenlier, S.; Wunder, I.; Gläser-Zikuda, M.; Kammerl, R.; Kopp, B.; Ziegler, A.; Händel, M. Generation Invisible. Higher
Educa-tion Students’ (Non)Use of Webcams in Synchronous Online Learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open
2021
,2, 100068. Available
online: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aAOI_k7nAYkJ:https://psyarxiv.com/7brp6/download+
&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ro (accessed on 6 January 2022). [CrossRef]
23.
Gherhes, V.; Para, S.S.I. Analysing Students’ Reasons for Keeping Their Webcams on or off during Online Classes. Sustainability
2021
,13, 3203. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350091697_Analysing_Students%27_Reasons_for_
Keeping_Their_Webcams_on_or_off_during_Online_Classes (accessed on 5 January 2022). [CrossRef]
24.
Colonnello, V.; Petrocchi, N.; Heinrichs, M. The Psychobiological Foundation of Procsocial Relationships: The Role of Oxytocin
in Daily Social Exchanges. In Compassion: Concepts, Research and Applications; Gilbert, P., Ed.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK,
2017. Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315564296-6/psychobiological-foundation-
prosocial-relationships-valentina- colonnello-nicola-petrocchi-markus-heinrichs?context=ubx (accessed on 14 December 2021).
25.
Jensen, K.B.; Petrovic, R.; Kerr, C.E.; Kirsch, I.; Raicek, J.; Cheetham, A.; Spaeth, R.; Cook, A.; Gollub, R.L.; Kong, J. Sharing pain
and relief: Neural correlates of physicians during treatment of patients. Mol. Psychiatry 2013,19, 392–398. [CrossRef]
26.
Neff, K.D.; Kirkpatrick, K.L.; Rude, S.S. Self-compassion and adaptive psychological functioning. J. Res. Personal.
2007
,41,
139–154. [CrossRef]
27.
Depue, R.A.; Morrone-Strupinsky, J.V. A Neurobehavioural model of affiliative bonding. Behav. Brain Sci.
2005
,28, 313–395.
[CrossRef]
28.
Gilbert, P. Compassion and cruelty: A biopsychosocial approach. In Compassion: Conceptualisations, Research and Use in Psychother-
apy; Gilbert, P., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 9–74.
29.
Uvnäs-Moberg, K.; Handlin, L.; Petersson, M. Self-soothing behaviors with particular reference to oxytocin release induced by
non-noxious sensory stimulation. Front. Psychol. 2015,5, 1529. [CrossRef]
30. Compassionate Mind Foundation. 2005. Available online: http://www.compassionatemind.co.uk (accessed on 20 November 2019).
31.
Beaumont, E.; Rayner, G.; Durkin, M.; Bowling, G. The Effects of Compassionate Mind Training on Student Psychotherapists.
J. Ment. Health Train. Educ. Pract. 2017
,12, 300–312. Available online: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/41234/ (accessed on
25 November 2019). [CrossRef]
32.
Maratos, F.A.; Gilbert, P.; Gilbert, T. Improving Well-Being in Higher Education: Adopting Compassionate Approach. In Values of
the University in a Time of Uncertainty; Gibbs, P., Jameson, J., Elwick, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 261–278.
[CrossRef]
33.
Gilbert, P.; Procter, S. Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-criticism: Overview and pilot study of a
group therapy approach. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 2006,13, 353–379. [CrossRef]
34.
Mindfulness and Clinical Psychology Solutions. 2019. Available online: https://mi-psych.com.au/your-brains-3-emotion-
regulation-systems/ (accessed on 20 October 2019).
35.
Cozolino, L. The Social Neuroscience of Education: Optimizing Attachment and Learning in the Classroom (The Norton Series on the Social
Neuroscience of Education); WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
36.
Gilbert, P.; McEwan, K.; Bellew, R.; Mills, A.; Gale, C. The dark side of competition: How competitive behaviour and striving to
avoid inferiority are linked to depression, anxiety, stress and self-harm. Psychol. Psychother. Theory Res. Pract.
2009
,82, 123–136.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
Gilbert, T. Compassion in Education, Embedding and Assessing Compassion in the University Curriculum. Available online:
https://compassioninhe.wordpress.com/ (accessed on 9 December 2018).
38. Gilbert, P.; Choden. Mindful Compassion; Constable & Robinson: London, UK, 2013.
39.
Gilbert, P. Compassion: Definitions and controversies. In Compassion: Concepts, Research and Applications; Routledge; Taylor &
Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2017; pp. 3–15. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 31 of 32
40.
Gilbert, T. When Looking is Allowed: What Compassionate Group Work Looks Like in a UK University. In The Pedagogy of
Compassion at the Heart of Higher Education, 1st ed.; Gibbs, P., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 189–202.
41. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Process; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.
42.
Vygotsky, L.S. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1); Rieber, R.W., Carton, A.S., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA;
London, UK, 1987.
43. Papert, S.; Harel, I. Situating constructionism. Constructionism 1991,36, 1–11.
44.
Piaget, J. Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach.
1964
,2, 176–186.
[CrossRef]
45. Piaget, J.; Inhelder, B. The Psychology of the Child; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
46. Skinner, B.F. The Behavior of Organisms; Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York, NY, USA, 1938.
47.
Alanazi, A. A critical review of constructivist theory and the emergence of constructionism. Am. Res. J. Hum. Soc. Sci.
2016
,2, 1–8.
48.
Kirschner, P.A.; Sweller, J.; Clark, R.E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of
constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ. Psychol. 2006,41, 75–86. [CrossRef]
49. Brown, A.; Campione, J. Guided Discovery in a Community of Learners; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994.
50.
Hardiman, P.T.; Pollatsek, A.; Weil, A.D. Learning to Understand the Balance Beam Cognition and Instruction; Taylor & Francis, Ltd.:
Abingdon, UK, 1986; Volume 3, pp. 63–86. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233605 (accessed on 18 September 2020).
51.
Moreno, R. Decreasing cognitive load in novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based
multimedia. Instr. Sci. 2004,32, 99–113. [CrossRef]
52.
Tuovinen, J.E.; Sweller, J. A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. J. Educ.
Psychol. 1999,91, 334–341. [CrossRef]
53.
Mitra, S. New Systems for Children’s Learning: Changes Required in Education. In Handbook of Research on Educational Design and
Cloud Computing in Modern Classroom Settings; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 22–33.
54.
Gorden, L.J. The Cognitive Antecedents of Procrastination among Secondary Students. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1987.
55.
Accelerating Higher Education Expansion and Development (AHEAD). Increasing Enrollment in Higher Education in Priority
Disciplines for Economic Development. 2019. Available online: https://ahead.lk/result-area-1/ (accessed on 10 January 2019).
56.
Gunasingam, M. Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism: A Study of Its Origins; MV Publications: Sydney, Australia, 1999; p. 246.
ISBN 0646381067.
57.
AdaDerana. Schools and Universities to Reopen on May 6. 26 April 2019. Available online: http://www.adaderana.lk/news/54
686/schools-and-universities-to- reopen-on-may-6 (accessed on 7 January 2020).
58.
AdaDerana. Two Jaffna Uni Students Arrested During Special Security Check Remanded. 3 May 2019. Available online:
http://www.adaderana.lk/news/54873/two-jaffna-uni-students- arrested-during- special-security-check- remanded (accessed
on 21 June 2019).
59.
Alwis, D.D. All Universities, Schools Closed after Suicide Bombings. University World News; The Global Window on Higher
Education. 23 April 2019. Available online: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190423165020811
(accessed on 23 October 2019).
60.
Brooks, J.; McCluskey, S.; Turley, E.; King, N. The Utility of Template Analysis in Qualitative Psychology Research. Qual. Res.
Psychol. 2014,12, 202–222. [CrossRef]
61. Lewin, K. Action Research and Minority Problems. J. Soc. Issues 1946,2, 34–46. [CrossRef]
62.
Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Grounded Theory Methodology. In Handbook of Qualitative Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 1994; pp. 273–285.
63. Alvesson, M.; Sköldberg, K. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2009.
64.
King, N.; Horrocks, C. An introduction to Interview Data Analysis. In Interviews in Qualitative Research; Sage: London, UK, 2010;
pp. 142–174.
65.
McDermott, R. Inarticulateness. In Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding; Tannen, D., Ed.; Ablex
Publishing: Norwood, MA, USA, 1988; pp. 37–68.
66.
Harvey, C.; Maratons, F.; Montague, J.; Gale, M.; Gilbert, T.; Clarke, K. Developing compassionate micro skills of communication
to facilitate group work with undergraduate psycholoyg students. In Proceedings of the British Psychological Society Education
Section Conference, Manchester, UK, 12–13 September 2009.
67.
University of Hertfordshire. Group Work Reflection Questions: Learning and Teaching Innovation Centre; University of Hertfordshire:
London, UK, 2020.
68. Kingston, E. Emotional competence and dropout rates in higher education. Educ. Train. 2008,50, 128–139. [CrossRef]
69.
Vertegaal, R.; Weevers, I.; Sohn, C.; Cheung, C. Gaze-2: Conveying Eye Contact in Group Video Conferencing Using Eye-
Controlled Camera Direction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Lauderdale,
FL, USA, 5–10 April 2003; pp. 521–528. Available online: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/642611.642702 (accessed on
10 May 2020).
70.
Vertegaal, R.; Ding, Y. Explaining effects of eye gaze on mediated group conversations: Amount or synchronization? In
Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New Orleans, LA, USA, 16–20 November 2002;
pp. 41–48.
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 317 32 of 32
71.
Vertegaal, R.; Weevers, I.; Sohn, C. GAZE-2: An attentive video conferencing system. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 20–25 April 2002; pp. 736–737.
72.
Khalil, R.; Mansour, A.E.; Fadda, W.A.; Almisnid, K.; Aldamegh, M.; Al-Nafeesah, A.; Alkhalifah, A.; Al-Wutayd, O. The sudden
transition to synchronized online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study exploring
medical students’ perspectives. BMC Med. Educ. 2020,20, 285. [CrossRef]
73.
Gherhe
s
,
, V.; Stoian, C.E.; Fărca
s
,
iu, M.A.; Stanici, M. E-Learning vs. Face-To-Face Learning: Analyzing Students’ Preferences and
Behaviors. Sustainability
2021
,13, 4381. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2948/d853d384c92d3f3de9b8b41f9ff5
a20ecf74.pdf?_ga=2.190885610.1921795052.1648634848-36397666.1648634848 (accessed on 24 January 2022). [CrossRef]
74.
Butz, N.T.; Stupnisky, R.H.; Pekrun, R. Students’ emotions for achievement and technology use in synchronous hybrid graduate
programmes: A control-value approach. Res. Learn. Technol. 2015,23, 26097. [CrossRef]
75.
Greenfield, S. Neuroscience of Consciousness. 2010. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5Fs6_O2mY&
ab_channel=ANUTV[00:16:56] (accessed on 8 September 2020).
76. Van der Cingel, M. Compassion: The missing link in quality of care. Nurse Educ. Today 2014,34, 1253–1257. [CrossRef]
77.
Davidson, R.; Harrington, A. Visions of Compassion: Western Scientists and Tibetan Buddhists Examine Human Nature; Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. Available online: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view (accessed on
20 January 2022). [CrossRef]
78. Goetz, J.L.; Keltner, D.; Simon-Thomas, E. Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychol. Bull. 2010,136,
351–374. [CrossRef]
79.
Immordino-Yang, M.H.; Damasio, A. We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education.
Mind Brain Educ. 2007,1, 115–131. [CrossRef]
80.
Schwartz, S.H.; Bardi, A. Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. J. Cross Cult. Psychol.
2001
,32,
268–290. [CrossRef]
81.
Butt, A. ‘PEACEBRIEF210: Nationalistic Narratives in Pakistani Textbooks’. 2016. Available online: http://www.usip.org/sites/
default/files/PB210-Nationalistic-Narratives-inPakistani- Textbooks.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2022).
82. Subramanian, S. This Divided Island: Stories from the Sri Lankan War; Penguin Books Limited: London, UK, 2015.
83.
Harrison, N.; Peacock, N. Cultural distance, mindfulness and passive xenophobia: Using Integrated Threat Theory to explore
home higher education students’ perspectives on ‘internationalisation at home’. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2010,36, 877–902. [CrossRef]
84.
Turner, Y. Knowing me, knowing you, is there nothing we can do? Pedagogic Challenges in Using Group Work to Create an
Intercultural Learning Space. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 2009,13, 240–255. [CrossRef]
85.
Leask, B. Internationalisation of the curriculum: Teaching and learning. In Teaching International Students: Enhancing Learning for
All Students; Carroll, J., Ryan, J., Eds.; Routledge Falmer: London, UK, 2005; pp. 119–129.
86.
Haigh, M.J. Internationalisation of the curriculum: Designing inclusive education for a small world. J. Geogr. High. Educ.
2002
,26,
46–66. [CrossRef]
87.
Mitra, S.; Dangwal, R. Acquisition of computer literacy skills through self-organizing systems of learning among children in
Bhutan and India. Prospects 2017,47, 275–292. [CrossRef]
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The pandemic situation continues to influence teaching and learning in higher education, with students oftentimes participating in synchronous videoconferencing sessions as a means to interact with peers and instructors. The frequently noted non-use of webcams by students incited the current study, investigating usage behavior as well as potentially related course variables and individual characteristics. N = 3,527 students from a German university took part in an online survey at the end of the regular summer term 2020 (August 2020). Findings indicate that students’ webcam usage behavior was related to personal thoughts and feelings (e.g., privacy), to course characteristics (e.g., group cohesion), and it differed due to specific groups (gender, study level). With the ongoing importance of videoconferencing in higher education, this study provides a foundation for further investigation into this synchronous learning context.
Article
Full-text available
Educational life worldwide has been shaken by the closure of schools due to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. The ripple effects have been felt in the way both teachers and students have adapted to the constraints imposed by the new online form of education. The present study focuses exclusively on the beneficiaries of the educational process and aims to find out their perceptions of face-to-face and e-learning and their desire to return, or not, to the traditional form of education. These perceptions are represented by 604 students of the Politehnica University of Timisoara, who were asked to respond anonymously to an 8-question questionnaire between December 2020 and February 2021. The results show the respondents’ levels of desire to return to school (especially of those who have only benefited from e-learning) and their degree of involvement during online classes. The results also specify the advantages and disadvantages of the two forms of education from a double perspective, namely that of first-year students (beneficiaries of e-learning exclusively), and of upper-year students (beneficiaries of both face-to-face and e-learning). The study points out key information about e-learning from the students’ perspectives, which should be considered to understand the ongoing changes of the educational process and to solve its specific problems, thus ensuring its sustainability.
Article
Full-text available
Since, in some higher education institutions, it is not mandatory for students to turn their webcams on during online classes, teachers have complained that their students have adopted this behaviour once the educational activities moved online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Considering this, the present research aimed to identify the reasons behind students’ choice to hide their faces during online classes and find possible solutions to remedy the situation to enhance the educational process’s sustainability. Thus, this article presents the results obtained by applying an online questionnaire between December 2020 and January 2021 among the students pursuing an academic degree, recording 407 responses. The results highlighted the fact that more than half of the students participating in the study reported that they do not agree to keep their webcams on during online classes, the main reasons being anxiety/fear of being exposed/shame/shyness, desire to ensure privacy of the home/personal space, and chances that other people might walk into the background. The relevance of the research, besides the scarcity of studies on the topic, is also given by the fact that finding and understanding the reasons for this behaviour are, in fact, the first steps in undertaking regulatory interventions on it.