The Emotional Science Lab: Exploring Social and Emotional Dynamics in Undergraduate Biomedical Science Discovery Learning

Abstract

Social and emotional learning (SEL) is seldom explicitly considered in science-based higher education (HE), yet we argue that group-based lab learning both requires and facilitates the development of valuable interpersonal and emotional skills. This study focuses on Year 1 and Year 2 Biomedical Science undergraduates working in groups to undertake an innovative, discovery-based laboratory module. It explores students’ perceptions of how emotions impact science discovery learning and whether and how they used and developed social and emotional skills in this learning context. We draw together theories that explain the development of emotional intelligence and how people influence each other’s emotions, and apply them to an HE context. Data were collected using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, and analysis identified three key themes: situated and social emotion in the lab, awareness of interpersonal emotional influence, and SEL as experiential and relational. These give insight into the subtle yet powerful ways that students work with emotion in the process of collaborative discovery learning We identify successful strategies and challenges, and make recommendations for embedding SEL in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) HE settings. These include approaches to integrate context-relevant emotional skill development both explicitly and implicitly, and nurture peer emotional scaffolding.

1. Introduction

1.1. Team-Based Discovery Learning as a Catalyst to Develop Social and Emotional Skills

In recent years, STEM university education has increasingly adopted student-centred approaches, developing active learning pedagogies (Freeman et al., 2014) and curricula that include authentic content and methods (James et al., 2022). Practical, lab-based, discovery-focused modules are strong examples of active learning in STEM education. These have evolved from staged laboratory experimental demonstrations, where students have a one-off opportunity to practise techniques, to student-led research-based projects. Examples of activities students engage with encompass the identification of open research questions, the formulation of hypotheses, the development and execution of experimental plans, and the critical interpretation of data (Elgin et al., 2016; Damiani et al., 2025). This is cognitively and emotionally challenging; it requires problem-solving, critical analysis, and learning from failures by dissecting the processes that lead to the experimental outcomes. By troubleshooting and devising new experimental strategies iteratively, students authentically engage with the process of scientific discovery, including its inherent failures (Firestein, 2015; Lanni, 2021). To adopt new strategies and find alternative solutions, students must deal with frustration, overcome disappointment, stay curious, and sustain motivation. STEM students must become equipped with emotion skills to persevere in problem-solving and learn from failures (Swenson et al., 2024; Henry et al., 2019).

Teamwork, which is often part of research-based learning, is designed to facilitate the exchange of ideas, peer learning, and sharing of tasks. It also offers a network of support to offload emotional burden (Ippolito & Kingsbury, 2024), although it can also cause emotional tension when conflicts emerge (Kotluk et al., 2023). According to Parkinson (1996), emotions serve as a form of communication and transaction in social settings. Expressing emotions conveys thoughts and intentions that may influence emotion and behaviour in oneself and others. Emotions in collaborative learning settings are co-constructed within the context of shared goals and disagreements, and involve listening, explaining, compromising, and negotiating (Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2009). Demanding active learning classes and challenges emerging from social interactions can result in difficult emotions that can affect students’ wellbeing (Araghi et al., 2023; Näykki et al., 2014). Furthermore, teachers’ failure to recognise students’ lack of collaboration skills can result in a reciprocal relationship between uncomfortable emotion and poor group functioning (Lobczowski, 2020).

Despite the potential for emotional discomfort, we suggest that by mimicking a real research environment, where discovery and teamwork are key, collaborative lab-based learning provides an authentic opportunity to develop valuable, transferable social and emotional skills. This paper explores how students navigate and make meaning of these emotional experiences and, informed by this, how SEL could be supported to better equip higher education students.

1.2. Emotion in Science Learning

Strongly influenced by Cartesian dualism, science-based higher education still privileges logic and objective measures over affective dimensions. Challenging the long-held belief that emotion clouds judgment and impedes rational thought, Damasio (1994) reported that individuals with neurological lesions affecting emotion-controlling areas of the brain did not become more logical in their choices; on the contrary, they often made incongruent decisions. In the educational context, Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2015) argue that emotions give meaning to what students are learning and that effective education must incorporate activities that elicit and acknowledge emotions, whilst in HE STEM learning and teaching, empirical studies illustrate how emotions are central to both learners’ and teachers’ problem-solving, decision-making and goal setting (Swenson et al., 2024; Ippolito, 2025a). Despite growing neuroscientific and psychological evidence of the fundamental interplay between emotion and cognition (Immordino-Yang et al., 2019), and the collaborative nature of scientific research, the stereotypical scientist is depicted as a solitary, analytical, and unemotional individual (Sinatra et al., 2014). University science students may still identify with the ideal of unemotional and individualistic scientists and, as such, may not recognise or even reject the fundamental role emotion plays in science learning and scientific discovery.

1.3. Purpose of the Study

While extensive research has been dedicated to the role of achievement and epistemic emotion in learning (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014; Muis et al., 2021; Graesser & D’Mello, 2011), very little is known about students’ beliefs regarding the role of emotion in science learning. Furthermore, as university educators, we observe that students must consciously or subconsciously deal with feelings related to performing scientific tasks and navigating their social environment, yet their social and emotional skills (Figure 1) are seldom considered.

Despite the successful integration of SEL in school contexts (Hoffmann et al., 2020), the HE setting has proven challenging. Brackett (2019) highlights that larger cohorts of students, sporadic contact between teachers and students, and densely packed curricula are significant obstacles to implementing SEL in HE. Understanding whether STEM students value the role of emotion in science learning and whether they are developing and using social and emotional skills (Figure 1) through the process of STEM learning is crucial for identifying gaps and implementing strategies for SEL in STEM HE.

We argue that although SEL is seldom explicitly considered in science-based HE (Lönngren et al., 2024), group-based lab learning both requires and facilitates the development of specific social and emotional skills. We present a study that illustrates how Year 1 and Year 2 Biomedical Science undergraduates, working in groups to undertake an innovative, discovery-based laboratory practical module, practice and develop social and emotional skills through this experience. This study is designed to identify embedded, valuable opportunities for SEL that can be more deliberately supported through future curriculum design and delivery. Based on our experience as educators and the identified gaps in understanding, this study was designed to answer the following research questions:

• What do students perceive as the role of emotions in discovery-based science learning?
• In what ways do HE science students deploy social and emotional skills in their learning context?
• How can we embed SEL in STEM higher education?

1.4. Conceptualising SEL in STEM Higher Education

In this work, we draw on Salovey and Mayer’s model of emotional intelligence (EI), defined as “a subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and use this information to guide thinking and action” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189).

Social intelligence was amongst those identified in Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory, a multifaceted categorisation of intellectual abilities that influence how different individuals process information (Davis et al., 2011). Social intelligence is about oneself as much as others, as it can be directed both inwardly and outwardly (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The concept of EI may seem an oxymoron, particularly in the context of the Western world culture, in which emotions have been considered incompatible with intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990) clarify that the EI model is not about the coexistence of affect and cognition but how affect informs cognition by influencing flexibility in decision-making, creativity in problem-solving, and motivation. All these attributes are fundamental in learning, and particularly in STEM education. Understanding the meaning of emotion and using emotional information to facilitate thought are pillars of the EI ability model (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). This model posits that social–emotional skills such as recognising, communicating, and regulating emotion are changeable and learned through experience, rather than innate and crystallised. This is compatible with Barrett’s (2017) neuroscientifically informed theory of constructed emotion, which postulates that individuals interpret sensory inputs and compare them to previous experiences stored in memory circuits. By integrating the new and old information, our brain constructs new, context-dependent emotional instances to make sense of a given situation. In this way, prior knowledge and experiences, cultural norms, and social interactions all influence the construction of emotion (Gendron et al., 2014). This is particularly relevant in internationalised university contexts, like the one in this study, with highly diverse national and cultural backgrounds represented within the staff and student community.

The integration of key social and emotional skills, such as self and social awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making, aims to maintain wellbeing and sustain positive relationships across developmental stages and learning contexts (CASEL, 2020). Based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) ability model of emotional intelligence, Brackett’s RULER is an acronym for a set of skills that offers a systematic approach for integrating SEL into existing curricula and educational practices (Brackett et al., 2019). Recognition relates to identifying the appropriate emotional cues in someone’s behaviour and oneself. Understanding focuses on what has caused the emotion, and the impact of these emotions on us or others. Labelling refers to using appropriate vocabulary to explain emotions and, therefore, be able to discriminate between subtle differences in emotional experience. Expression is about knowing when and how to convey our emotions in a context-appropriate and socially aware manner. Regulation refers to selecting strategies to monitor and modify our emotional reactions in order to achieve our goals (Brackett et al., 2019). The RULER framework is aimed at facilitating the deliberate implementation of SEL in educational settings. In this exploratory study, we used RULER instead as a tool to evaluate existing and developing emotional skills in the context of collaborative science-based learning.

Salovey and Mayer’s, Barrett’s, and Brackett’s emotion theories and models recognise the dynamic, responsive, and socially influenced nature of emotion and emotional skills and, taken together, provide a framework for researching how SEL processes may already be naturally occurring through collaborative discovery learning (Figure 1).

2. Methods

2.1. Study Context

This study was set in a research-intensive university focussing on Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine and Business (STEMMB) in the UK. The BSc in Medical Bioscience (BMB) programme within the Faculty of Medicine was launched in 2017 as part of a university-wide curriculum development initiative to adopt more student-centred and inclusive pedagogies (Kandiko Howson & Kingsbury, 2023). The first two years of the programme focus on teaching content that explores the fundamentals of human biology and the molecular basis of human disease. In parallel to theory-based modules, students undertake a core research-focused laboratory practical (Lab Pod) that mimics an authentic research laboratory. In Year 3, individual students are embedded in a research team within the institution or with external companies, working on a lab-based or data-based research project or a work placement.

All the modules in Year 1 and 2 are taught using a flipped learning approach: students engage with virtual eModules that include content, activities and knowledge checks, and then, while together in class, they apply and further consolidate what they had learnt independently. Appendix A provides a summary of key aspects of Lab Pod 1 and 2 teaching activities, while assessments are described in Firth et al. (2023). Briefly, each academic year, students are provided with one broad research area based on a health and disease problem (examples of topics explored include infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis, role of microplastics and vaping on cell damage, brain cancer) and, in groups of six, develop a research hypothesis and an experimental plan that they investigate over two terms. Term one is mainly dedicated to theoretical and practical preparation, while in terms two and three, students explore the hypotheses they generated in term one through experimental work. When experiments fail, students can discuss new strategies among themselves and with the help of their supervisors. They can repeat experiments as required. During experimental work, each student group’s self-managed allocation of laboratory tasks and decisions on how to proceed are fundamental to the project’s progression.

2.2. Participants

To gain insights into the emotions experienced during laboratory group tasks, this study involved Year 1 and 2 undergraduate students undertaking the discovery laboratory practical module, Lab Pod, in the academic year 2021–22. These cohorts of students were selected because by taking the class at the time the study was conducted, they represented the most valuable informants about contextual social–emotional experiences. The study’s information sheet outlining details of the survey and the interviews was sent via email by the Faculty Education Office to the Year 1 and 2 cohorts, and participants self-enrolled on a voluntary basis. Twelve students participated in the anonymous survey, five from Year 1 and seven from Year 2, and ten students participated in the interview, four from Year 1 and six from Year 2. To preserve anonymity, each of the participants in the interview was given a pseudonym. Students in the survey were referred to by number, e.g., Student 1. Student demographics, including ethnic background and age, were not collected in this study.

2.3. Instruments

We adopted a hermeneutic phenomenological approach in order to understand the participants’ lived experiences that they described as evoking emotional instances, and how these were perceived and dealt with by the participants (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). Using an interpretive lens, we also integrated the context and the investigators’ perspectives (Neubauer et al., 2019). We used both an anonymous survey and semi-structured interviews to collect data. The intended use of the survey was to encourage frank opinions and engage students who may not typically volunteer for interviews. The anonymous survey included 12 multiple-choice questions and one open-ended question (Appendix B). The questions were designed to probe understanding of the role of emotion in science learning (Q1), the awareness of emotion in oneself and others (Q2,6,10), the value and utility of emotion in a learning setting (Q3), and the participants’ self-assessed ability to regulate emotions (Q5). The survey also included questions about the value of working in a team and being empathetic towards teammates (Q4,7,8,9), EI as a transferable skill for future career endeavours (Q11), and whether they felt equipped with social and emotional skills such as emotion recognition and regulation (Q12). We also provided space for the participants to elaborate on how they would like to be supported in SEL (Q13). To facilitate the identification of emotions, the survey participants were provided with the Wilcox wheel of emotions, a tool developed by psychotherapist Gloria Wilcox (Willcox, 1982) to facilitate emotion recognition. Some of the survey questions provided scenarios about challenging team dynamics or task-related activities that occur frequently in the lab and often provoke strong emotion. These were developed by Investigator 1, who has taught the Lab Pod 2 class over the last 7 years, and were based on observation from their teaching practice, as well as being underpinned directly by well-established emotion theory.

The six semi-structured interview questions were formulated to be open-ended and to probe for deeper understanding of the contextual social and emotional experiences of the participants than a survey allows (Appendix C). The use of pre-set questions in the interview, flexibly integrated with follow-up questions, enabled the exploration of new aspects emerging from the participant–interviewer dialogue, including the exchange of ideas and the co-interpretation of lived experiences between student participants and Lab Pod teacher (Investigator 1) (Cohen et al., 2017).

2.4. Procedure

The data were collected between March and June 2022. The twelve anonymous questionnaire responses were collected using Microsoft Forms. The semi-structured interviews were conducted on MS Teams or in person at the university premises by Investigator 1. The one-on-one interviews lasted between 30 and 45 min. These were audio- and/or video-recorded using MS Teams or the Otter App. The recordings were transcribed verbatim and cross-checked twice for accuracy against the original recordings. The participants were invited to make amendments after the transcripts were completed. Data were stored in a data protection-compliant file, separate from anonymisation keys. Ethical approval was obtained from the university’s Education Ethics Review Process Committee (EERP) before commencing the research (reference number: EERP2122-048a).

2.5. Data Analysis

The questionnaire data were analysed using Excel and plotted in bar charts. A word cloud generator (www.freewordcloudgenerator.com) (accessed on 20 May 2023) was also used to create a word frequency diagram (Appendix D). The semi-structured interview transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. This approach involves the researcher developing codes that capture units of meaning and identify patterns in lived experiences across the data, and constructing themes based on these patterns in relation to the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2022). This approach is flexible and allows the development of the data from initial codes to categories into themes, with the researcher taking an active interpretative role in this process (Clarke et al., 2015). Investigator 1 initially coded the data, and the codes were discussed with Investigator 2 to enable the development of themes. We utilised a theory-driven, deductive coding approach in which the coding frame was developed based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) theory of EI and Brackett’s (2019) RULER framework for SEL. Examples of the codes included recognising emotion in others, understanding the effect of emotion, and managing emotion in a social context.

In instances where unexpected features, including contradictions and differences, were identified in the data, these were analysed with an inductive coding approach by creating de novo codes (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). These included ‘the role of the teacher’, ‘peer relationships’, and ‘demonstrating empathy’. The codes were grouped in categories, and these were merged and integrated where there was a meaningful connection to reduce the data volume. These were also compared with the categories identifiable in survey data and further cross-examined against the research questions to develop themes. Reliability and validity were ensured by triangulation between data collected via the questionnaire and interviews and the researchers’ in-depth understanding of learning in this context.

3. Results

This paper presents three key themes: (1). recognising situated and social emotion in the lab, (2). awareness of interpersonal emotional influence, (3). SEL as experiential and relational, and their sub-themes. These give valuable insight into students’ beliefs about the role of emotion in scientific lab-based learning and the emotional skills they deploy and develop through working and interacting in this context.

3.1. Theme 1: Recognising Situated and Social Emotion in the Lab

This theme considers the various and situated ways in which the students recognised the role and value of emotion for learning and achievement, in these collaborative, lab-based settings.

3.1.1. Realising the Value of Emotion in Science

Students’ beliefs about how emotion influences learning are an under-researched area compared to the research on the type of emotions experienced in learning. We hypothesised that if students conceptually deny emotions a role in their development of scientific understanding, it would be challenging for them to use and regulate emotions effectively. More than half of the survey respondents suggested that it would be most appropriate to approach scientific research unemotionally or that emotions are a distraction in science learning (Appendix D, Question 3). Interestingly, this was despite rating the role of emotional awareness and regulation to navigate future careers successfully as very important (Appendix D, Question 11). This suggests that students understand the currency of emotions in the wider context of research and professional settings. Still, some may not have considered the role of emotions in scientific discovery and may have subconsciously internalised the notion of emotion as divorced from cognition. By contrast, all 10 students participating in the interview discussed valuing the role of emotion in science learning and discovery, and provided examples of how both achievement and epistemic emotions, such as confusion and curiosity, are fundamental for learning. For example, Rachel, a Y1 student, explained that she came to understand the role of emotion in scientific discovery whilst working in the lab:

“I have always been, like, you have to be objective. You have to have cold eyes in the case… This year has been, like, a process of understanding that it is not true, that emotion… like confusion can drive [you] to do good things, understand more, learn more…”.

(Rachel, interview)

Student 1’s survey response suggested that lab-based teaching could take an active role in challenging students’ preconceptions:

“I believe that unmanteling [dismantling] the belief that science has to be cold and emotionless is a good head start for undergraduate students who have just been introduced to a laboratory setting such as Lab Pod I…”.

(Student 1, survey)

Although half of the survey participants thought that emotions hindered performing scientific tasks, the others stated that they used emotions to motivate and guide their actions, as asserted by Salovey and Mayer (1990). None of the students denied having an emotional experience while learning (Appendix D Question 1 and Figure 2). Valerie acknowledged the central role emotions play in motivating her learning:

“I think I’m a pretty emotional person, and I think that is what motivates me, it’s what keeps me curious and continuously wanting to learn more. I feel like if I didn’t have emotions, I wouldn’t really care as much to further my knowledge…”.

(Valerie, interview)

Contrary to common stereotypes about scientists being objective and non-emotional, she seemed to suggest that being ‘a pretty emotional person’ enhanced her ability as a science undergraduate.

3.1.2. Influence of Situated and Social Expectations

Across the survey data, emotions experienced during lab learning with a positive valence were perceived as having a positive impact on learning, whilst emotions with a negative valence were mainly associated with hindering learning. The only emotion perceived as having both a positive and negative impact on learning was confusion. Apathy and indifference, which imply the absence of emotions, were considered detrimental to learning (Figure 2 and Appendix D Question 1). This resonates with Brackett’s (2019) view that for effective learning, students must be emotionally invested.

The participants in the interview elaborated on what enabled them to recognise, understand, and label emotions experienced when working in the laboratory. The participants all started by describing a situation in which the emotion occurred, and completely unprompted, followed by an explanation for why they felt that way. This indicated that through reflection, the participants engaged beyond the emotional perception and retrospectively provided meaning by interpreting the situation that caused the emotion. The meaning attributed to the emotion was situated either in the lab tasks or their outcome, or in the immediate social environment. According to a constructionist perspective, emotions are personal interpretations or constructions of the surrounding context, both situationally and socially influenced (Mesquita, 2007). Both Rachel’s and Jia’s quotes illustrate how high expectations, specifically associated with learning in this lab setting, influenced their emotion:

“Confusion, anger, sadness, I assume it’s because it’s such a new environment that even with the guidance provided, it’s hard to get a head start into the protocols, into the techniques…”.

(Rachel, interview)

“Anxiety… because usually, the labs are quite time-pressured… and also a desire to make the results as good as possible to do every step correctly”.

(Jia, interview)

Meanwhile, Shyla’s and Grace’s quotes highlight the influence of social expectations involved in cooperating in teamwork on their emotional experiences:

“I would feel stressed… afraid to complete this task…I have this responsibility, I know I am one of the team…”.

(Shyla, interview)

“Because it’s a team-based learning, I also can feel very connected to my team members, and I can feel l am responsible for them as well”.

(Grace, interview)

Interestingly, Grace and Shyla both felt accountable to their peers, but while one constructed an emotion of fear around failing to meet their social expectations, the other felt motivated and connected by social responsibility. Their constructed emotion may have been influenced by distinct previous experiences of team-working (Barrett, 2017).

Despite uncomfortable emotions for science students caused by not understanding, making mistakes, and failing to obtain meaningful results in the lab (Corwin et al., 2022), Luca and James seemed to recognise that these challenges were inherent to the demands of authentic discovery lab learning. They used this understanding to construct motivational meaning around frustration:

“Frustration can facilitate my academic benefit because if I am frustrated because I can’t understand something… I’ll usually work harder to try and understand it”.

(Luca, interview)

“Frustration if something does go wrong… It kind of motivates me to keep trying, and more and more and more, no matter how many times it goes wrong”.

(James, interview)

3.1.3. Identifying Emotion in Peers

The survey and interview participants were confident in their ability to understand others’ emotions. Most survey respondents reported perceiving both positive and negative emotions in others, even when these emotions were subtle and not explicitly expressed. A smaller proportion stated that clear signals helped them identify emotions, and a minority said they preferred to focus on the task rather than their teammates’ emotions (Appendix D, Question 6). When the interviewees were asked to elaborate on what enabled them to infer about others’ emotions, the majority gave specific examples of non-verbal communication, such as body language and tone of voice.

“I could easily recognise [emotions in others]… facial expression… when people move things fast, sometimes means, they’re, like, quite anxious…”.

(Shyla, interview)

“I feel like I can pick up quite well on when someone is a bit sad or when they’re struggling or when they’re happy or when they’re angry… I guess changes in tonality in their voice”.

(Luca, interview)

Despite the students’ confidence, this approach could result in misinterpretation without a fuller understanding of the context and an explanation of why a person felt this way. As Salovey and Mayer (1990) explain, emotional non-verbal communication lacks accuracy because cultural values and social experiences, although shared collectively by many, vary extensively. Moreover, Barrett (2017) provides evidence of a lack of universality in facial expressions when experiencing emotions, amongst individuals and across different cultures. Bianca specifically highlighted this and demonstrated her awareness of the intercultural differences in emotion recognition that became evident whilst using face masks, a requirement for all the participants when they attended labs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I find this quite interesting, I was born and raised in Japan and in Japan, it’s…quite normal [to wear a mask] even before COVID, and in Japan, the way we interact and I guess look at emotion is through the eyes. So how big the eyes are and how it’s shaped almost. But I read a research paper about how in the West people look at your mouth… So, I didn’t find it a problem, but I know some other people sometimes misinterpret my emotions”.

(Bianca, interview)

Making assumptions when interpreting social cues in our often highly culturally diverse organisations can be misleading. Interestingly, a third of the survey respondents did not find masks a barrier, whilst half of them found that wearing a mask was only an initial barrier, prompting them to communicate more effectively or look for emotional signals in other ways. A small proportion found masks a real barrier, encouraging them to proactively ask about their peers’ feelings or express emotions differently (Appendix D, Question 10).

Furthermore, Student 2 illustrated the complexity of emotional expression, which may not reflect true feelings but be masked or faked, including to conform with social expectations and norms:

“I start crying really easily. It often hinders me from expressing dissatisfaction. I could choose to get angry instead, but that seems like a bad option, or I could communicate through texts, but I usually prefer talking in person. I’m not sure how to solve this problem”.

(Student 2, survey)

Not only does Student 2 recognise that their expressed emotion gets in the way of the emotional information about being dissatisfied that they would prefer to communicate, but they also evaluate the social acceptability of a given emotion expression and the corresponding channel (texts versus talking). We suggest that, despite feeling less in control of their emotional expression than they wish, they demonstrate strong emotional awareness.

Theme 1—recognising situated and social emotion in the lab—captures the diverse ways in which the student participants recognised the role of emotion in science learning, especially their various beliefs about how emotion should and could inform scientific practice. It also illustrates how the student participants recognised that academic and social expectations shaped specific emotional experiences in these collaborative lab settings. Finally, despite the students feeling confident about recognising each other’s emotional expressions, it highlights barriers, including cultural and individual differences, and social norms, influencing emotion recognition.

3.2. Theme 2: Awareness of Interpersonal Emotional Influence

This theme draws on the data collected to identify the extent to which the participants were aware of how students influenced each other emotionally and how emotionally skilled they perceived themselves to be.

3.2.1. Context-Relevant Empathy

Empathy can be defined as the capability to perceive, understand and respond pro-socially to the emotional experiences of others (Zaki, 2020). Szanto and Krueger (2019) highlight the situated nature of empathy, which acknowledges the complex environments in which experiences and feelings develop. This helps to broaden the possibilities of empathy to include reciprocal support offered between students in labs as they interact. The examples below illustrate how the participants deployed empathy towards peers, using perception and contextual understanding in considerate ways to help peers in achieving their goals despite the challenging context:

“…I’ll talk to them. Ask them if they need any help… like when you’re overwhelmed… [you] feel in denial, and when you try to talk to them [they would] be like, ‘No, I’m fine I don’t need any help’… I will just start helping them because I’m sorry, I can almost tell that they can’t tell”.

(James, interview)

“Anyone can ask if you’re OK. but it takes a bit more to ask with meaning, and even ask a second time… they get into a corner, and they don’t want the help…but actually, social interaction is about letting yourself into that, you know, overlapping emotion that people can bring in…”.

(Luca, interview)

James’ use of the word ‘you’re’ suggests that he has shared and understands his teammates’ feelings of being overwhelmed. Luca’s recognition of the value of asking twice and ‘overlapping emotion’ also suggests strong empathy for peers. However, their view on helping those who do not want help may indicate that their understanding of appropriateness still lacks nuance. Based on their experiences of lab-based learning, Student 3 recognised the importance of empathy in this context, and their potential to develop it:

“I personally don’t have much empathy or sympathy towards my teammate and that has cause frustration within my team, I would like to work on that department”.

(Student 3, survey)

Despite a strong focus on peers, when discussing their social–emotional environment, the participants saw empathetic teachers as a part of it. Their responses suggested that teacher empathy involved being honest about students’ mistakes, but also being able to perceive and show understanding about how students might feel about their mistakes, and how to improve:

“Having a teacher that was, you know, clear, making sure you know, this was a mistake. But being very understanding…Without that sort of understanding section part, it’s a bit more just like ‘you’ve done this wrong’, rather than ‘you have done this wrong, but…”.

(Anthony, interview)

“…They might say, ‘oh, you did great, you did everything well…’ And so it doesn’t really affect us because if we’re disappointed, even if a teacher’s nice, we know that they’re trying to be nice for the sake of being nice”.

(Bianca, interview)

This resonates with Dweck’s (2010) assertion that encouraging a growth mindset and developing students’ beliefs in their own abilities must come from a place of authenticity.

3.2.2. Selectively Regulating Emotion

Through the interviews, the participants revealed various ways in which they regulated their own and others’ emotions through the process of learning and cooperating in labs. Emotion regulation (ER) can be defined as “the process by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them and how they experience and express these emotions” (Gross, 1998, p. 275). ER goals can involve changing one’s own emotion (intrapersonal ER) or changing someone else’s emotion (interpersonal ER) (Zaki, 2020).

The participants’ decisions regarding whether and how to regulate each other’s emotions varied greatly, with Anthony preferring to avoid any interaction that may provoke uncomfortable emotion in himself or a peer:

“I don’t wanna be the person who kind of brings up something that’s an issue… my preference has actually been not mentioning anything… I would definitely struggle in that sort of situation”

(Anthony, interview)

Meanwhile, Jia described an advanced conflict resolution strategy that involved explicitly discussing how a peer’s behaviours influenced her emotionally, and the implications of this:

“There’s a three-step technique when it comes to confrontation that I usually use. So first you say let’s say this action of yours made me feel a certain way. So, when you did this, I felt that; and then you go on to give a request. So in the future, could you please do […]?… And if that is impossible, let me know in advance”.

(Jia, interview)

Several students illustrated that awareness of how one’s own emotions and behaviours interacted with and influenced others acted as a catalyst to promote self-regulation, as exemplified by James and Bianca:

“I feel like I’m quite bad at managing sort of how I act when I’m overwhelmed… [I] tend to like sort of bleed off on to other people, [and] when it starts affecting other people because I start putting my stress on them and it’s not a good thing”.

(James, interview)

“So sometimes I become very stressed, and I know that has an impact on the rest of the group… when I stress out I guess I put more effort into making sure things are well done, but for other people that can be quite the opposite… if I calm myself a little bit, then it can have a positive impact on the rest of the group”.

(Bianca, interview)

Bianca acknowledges how, although she can make meaning of her stress as positively associated with effort, this may not be experienced so positively by her peers. She recognises that by regulating her own emotions, she can influence others’ emotions too (Parkinson, 2019). Some students also gave valuable insights into the benefits of being on the receiving end of peer ER when this involved upregulating positive emotion (Luca) and downregulating negative emotion (Student 5):

“Two of my other lab group members are just extremely positive the entire time…When a certain member of my group walks into the labs, it’s almost like it’s quite warming… They can say the right things and it will make me feel a bit more secure”.

(Luca, interview)

“I always feel anxious and stressed about group work because I tend to blame myself whenever something goes wrong. But when someone in my group can recognise my feelings and give me support, I feel so much better and even feel motivated for the group work. Therefore, I think trainings on how to recognise people’s emotions are very important for bonding with your groupmates…”.

(Student 5, survey)

Despite some participants providing good examples of interpersonal ER, some felt ill-equipped to do so. Despite expressing empathy, including prosocial motivation, some participants felt lacking in skills to intervene.

“I see my teammates feeling pretty sad, and I really don’t know what to do”.

(Corinne, interview)

“…I don’t think I could handle others’ emotions or manage their emotion, well I don’t know how… And I would really want to, I just don’t know how. It is a problem for me”.

(Shyla, interview)

Similarly, only a minority of the survey participants reported attempting to regulate their peers’ emotions. The majority responded that the best course of action would be not to interfere with others or create additional problems (Appendix D, Question 8). Some interviewees reasoned that any action in regulating others’ emotions could be perceived as an intrusion into someone else’s sphere, and they would rather avoid it. This is a legitimate response that the predominantly psychology-based literature in this area tends not to consider, but is important for thinking about developing SEL that takes everyone’s agency into account.

3.2.3. Peer Emotional Scaffolding

The interviewees explained that the perception of sharing emotion provided reciprocal scaffolding. This ranged from an awareness that others felt the same as them (e.g., James) to actively expressing emotion through talking (e.g., Anthony) and sharing responsibility for the source of uncomfortable emotion (e.g., Grace). Similar findings emerged from the participants in the survey (Appendix D, Question 4).

“It’s definitely a common feeling and not just in our group, but I feel like across the whole lab… where [we] all are like feeling overwhelmed and all in the same ship and all doing the same experiment…put things into perspective and be like, OK, I’m overwhelmed, but so is every person in this lab”.

(James, interview)

“…you’ve got some people to talk to and just be like, you know, either get frustrated or just let the emotions out, rather than just sort of letting them kind of build-up…”.

(Anthony, interview)

“…Everyone in the group is frustrated, so we can support each other and also we share the responsibility of the failure of an experiment”.

(Grace, interview)

Possibly, unlike some group-based learning contexts, the design of Lab Pods enabled trust to grow, mitigating students’ fear of revealing that they do not understand, as Shyla expresses:

“[I am] not afraid to ask them questions like, how am I going to do this? And also showing them sometimes I don’t understand, and this is fine”

(Shyla, interview).

We suggest that this perception of shared feelings allows students to construct peer emotional scaffolding that we see as different from ER, both in terms of emotional support being multi-directional and linked to shared goals and responsibility, and not associated with deliberate intervention.

Theme 2—awareness of interpersonal emotional influence—illustrates how the students used their in-depth awareness of what it means and feels like to learn in this context to understand their peers’ emotions and to respond empathetically. It also gives insights into the challenges the students faced when they found themselves lacking in the emotional skills they felt they needed to work with emotion in their teams. Finally, it provides evidence of how the students may be continually and unconsciously influencing each other’s emotional experiences in positive ways, providing emotional scaffolding through their everyday interactions.

3.3. Theme 3: SEL as Experiential and Relational

This theme captures students’ beliefs about the ways in which SEL is, and could be, meaningfully embedded in their STEM curricula, paying attention to delicate and developing peer relationships.

3.3.1. Can Emotional Skills and Empathy Be Taught?

The interviewees unanimously agreed that social–emotional skills cannot be formally taught, but rather are learnt through interacting with peers and tutors they have close contact with:

“It can’t really be taught, like you sort of just have to, like, develop the skill, like as you meet new people… you kind of just sort of become aware socially of what’s going on around you… It’s just experience”

(James, interview).

“it is understandable that group lectures on emotional intelligence might not be useful given the amount of students and the little proximity between teaching fellows and us, students. Perhaps encouraging discussion with academic tutors could be useful… as it becomes easier to believe when given advice.”.

(Student 1, survey)

Whilst endorsing support for learning to deal with emotion, Student 5’s use of the term ‘over-sensitivity’ perhaps reveals their perception of emotion as undesirable and contextually inappropriate:

“Negative emotions and I would feel overwhelmed with both others’ emotions and my own emotions. Therefore, I think it would be useful to receive support on how to deal with this kind of over-sensitivity”.

(Student 5, survey)

Some students cautioned against specific activities for developing emotional awareness and empathy:

“Being social and perceiving people’s emotions is something that should come naturally as you develop relationships with your group mates. I feel like if we were forced to do ‘bonding’ activities by teachers, it wouldn’t be beneficial. It really just comes down to the person and it should come from a place of empathy, instead of a place of education and almost being told that you should be empathetic instead of having the natural instinct to be that way”.

(Student 6, survey)

By recognising the role of experience in shaping social and emotional skills, the students demonstrated an understanding of the processes involved in developing emotional literacy. It is noteworthy that the participants talked about experience as an event separate from the learning and social interaction they have in class. Conversely, throughout interviews, the students repeatedly referred to lab-based activities as being relevant for social and emotional development. Perhaps students perceive learning as describing a didactic activity where students engage passively. It is, however, surprising that this view emerged from the participants in this study, given that the classes they take involve active learning and group work, with minimal passive lecturing. This suggests that students may not recognise activities promoting SEL, and that a curriculum that explicitly illustrates these to students may be required to embed SEL in HE.

3.3.2. Peer Feedback as an Emotion Regulation Tool

The participants found the end-of-term anonymised peer feedback process (Appendix A) valuable for communicating emotion information, especially where they otherwise found it difficult. The participants who avoided conflict suggested that it allowed them to voice concerns, and this may have indirectly enabled them to regulate their own and each other’s emotions:

“Definitely having that sort of feedback [activity] part for Lab Pod 2 obviously allows that sort of capacity to mention things”.

(Anthony, interview)

Luca suggested finding peer feedback useful for understanding how peers perceived his emotions about failed experiments.

“…It was brought up in the feedback, and I tend to have quite exaggerated reactions to lab failures”.

(Luca, interview)

Theme 3—SEL as experiential and relational—highlights how the participants perceived emotional literacy to be developed, what they felt would be valuable to learn about how to work with emotion and ways in which this might be facilitated. This included approaches that took into account the science context, peer relationships and appropriate levels of intervention.

4. Discussion

4.1. Role of Emotion in Discovery-Based Science Learning

This study offers insights into science undergraduates’ range of beliefs about the role of emotion in science learning, an under-researched area compared to extensive research on the type of emotions experienced in learning (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014). It offers evidence of a shift in beliefs away from science being understood as a dispassionate discipline, illustrating an awareness that, instead, as Sinatra et al. (2014) argue, “Like all human endeavours, science is conducted and learned with the full range of emotions present” (p. 145). Some participating students even recognised that emotion contributed to their persistence and success as science learners. This contrasts with assumptions that STEM disciplines are emotionally detached (Kandiko Howson & Kingsbury, 2024).

There was some sense that the participants recognised that emotional literacy is valuable in science learning and successful careers, but for some participants, emotion was considered inappropriate in science research or discovery. This suggests a tension between the persistence in dualistic thinking about cognition versus emotion and the need for ‘cold eyes’ in science, at the scientist-identity level, and this lab environment that forces students to confront emotions as fundamental to learning. This may be especially the case in authentic discovery settings, characterised by feeling uncertain about what can be discovered and how, irritated over differences in opinion in experimental decision-making, and frustrated by failed experiments and unbalanced work contributions. It is for these very reasons that emotional literacy is an essential, transferable skill for becoming a successful professional scientist who works with and leads teams of scientists. Emotional literacy also involves recognising and harnessing positive emotions such as shared curiosity, surprise at unexpected success, and joy at conclusive results.

By combining an anonymous survey and interviews, this study demonstrated how emotional literacy may be enhanced through supported reflection. We suggest that the differences between the survey and interview responses may, to some extent, be accounted for by quick, instinctive survey responses being biassed by stereotypes, versus the interview participants having a scaffolded opportunity to elaborate on the emotions experienced. Furthermore, their meaning-making about emotions during lab-based interactions may have been realised, and even constructed, in the verbal expression during the interview (Averill, 1998). On this basis, we recommend using tools such as the authentic scenarios developed for this research (Appendix B) to promote conversation between students in induction sessions in preparation for learning collaboratively in labs. Such metacognitive processes seem important, given our data also indicates that the notion of emotion being detrimental to science discovery lingers in the mindset of some science students.

Despite neuroscientific evidence of the interconnected nature of cognition and emotion, including in problem-solving and decision-making (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2015), the way we understand emotion in scientific thinking is entrenched and complex. Future research could explore how to help students understand when science should be approached in an analytical, objective, and unbiassed manner, and when the use of emotion and its regulation can be beneficial. This includes harnessing curiosity and excitement to motivate and foster creativity, and utilising frustration to inform decision-making.

4.2. Context-Relevant Emotional Skillset

The students’ emotional self-awareness varied significantly, even across this self-selecting sample, and Brackett’s (2019) RULER framework can be used as a tool to compare their differing emotional skills along a continuum. As illustrated in the findings, not only could all the interviewees instinctively recognise social and contextually situated emotion, but they also intuitively demonstrated understanding of why they felt that way in relation to their science learning. They also labelled their emotion with a varied vocabulary, demonstrating emotional granularity (Barrett, 2017). Some participants critically considered the universality of emotional expression and how to regulate emotion, all in the context of science learning. We recommend promoting reflection about emotional experience with the explicit use of the RULER framework to support the widespread development of emotional literacy, and the Wilcox wheel of emotion for pinpointing an emotion more specifically in supporting conversations.

Despite the students’ confidence in recognising emotion in peers, they seemed to rely on non-verbal signals that, as illustrated, especially in these dynamic, multicultural contexts, may not be reliable (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). However, when referring to empathy and instances of interpersonal emotional influence, the students also relied on their awareness of context-specific goals and what each other were trying to achieve, as elaborated in Manstead and Fischer’s (2001) social appraisal theory. We advocate encouraging students to think critically about how they come to be aware of emotion in these settings and to make the link between emotional experiences and scientific and collaborative goals explicit (Ippolito & Kingsbury, 2024).

Data suggested that the students’ ability to regulate others’ emotions intentionally was limited. Based on our findings we suggest that in this collaborative learning context, empathy functioned as a pre-requisite to ER. Having perceived and understood their peers’ emotions, the students expressed a desire to respond but often did not know how to help by using ER strategies, or feared that their intervention would not be appreciated and would result in negative emotion for both parties. Conversely, other students expressed the benefits felt, both to their academic progress and wellbeing, when on the receiving end of empathy and ER. This perspective is rarely captured in the literature, but is important because for empathy to be effective, it needs to be received and appreciated, as well as intended and given. This valuable emotional connection between students is worth nurturing, given reports of increasing isolation and loneliness in students (Cibyl, 2024).

4.3. Embedding SEL in STEM HE

We suggest that these emotionally charged contexts are unexpected yet fertile ground for embedding SEL and developing emotional skills in STEM degrees. This is especially important given the difficulty in systematically integrating SEL into HE, including perceived lack of value (Brackett, 2019). This is also relevant given concerns that approaches for ‘embedding wellbeing in the curriculum’ (Houghton & Anderson, 2017) and so-called ‘therapeutic education’ are not the role of academics, waste curriculum time, and risk positioning all students as vulnerable (Ecclestone & Hayes, 2019). Instead, we aim to offer an alternative approach that integrates learning to navigate emotion into scientific and technical learning processes themselves (Ippolito, 2025b). This can inform and complement steps to embed SEL in other disciplines such as Law (Jones, 2021) and Languages (Billy & Garríguez, 2021).

The student voices in this study also remind us that despite the argument for embedding SEL more deliberately and explicitly, it is important not to upset the delicate ecosystem of growing cooperation and trust within student teams. The participants reminded us to be cautious about expecting all students to confront conflict, to intentionally regulate peers’ emotions in unwanted ways, to accept being ‘forced to do bonding activities’, or to fake inauthentic empathy. Rather, we should take a coherent, authentic, and scaffolded approach. Coherence and authenticity can be achieved by mapping curricula to identify opportunities for SEL and developing pedagogic approaches that are experiential and social. It should also take into account the desire for empathy by students in teacher feedback.

Along with contributing a rare focus on SEL in STEM HE, this study contributes to conceptualisations of emotional scaffolding in HE. We identify peer emotional scaffolding as a sense of emotional perception and connection between students. This develops organically through collaborative learning, rather than involving deliberate actions to regulate their peers’ emotions, which we suggest may be unreasonable to expect of most undergraduate students. This is more implicit than Lönngren et al.’s (2021) definition of emotional scaffolding, which refers to peers’ use of pedagogical tools. Furthermore, as teachers, we should deliberately design emotional scaffolding that implicitly nurtures students’ emotional interactions and subtly promotes co-construction of peer emotional scaffolding. For example, based on this study, we suggest progressing from anonymised peer feedback that allows students to share emotional information without uncomfortable direct confrontation to fading scaffolding towards non-anonymous, owned, and emotionally honest peer feedback, perhaps using the strategy suggested by Jia.

In terms of teacher development, embedding SEL in HE curricula requires teachers to develop and combine contextually relevant SEL knowledge, as set out in this paper, with reflection on the emotions experienced whilst learning in their discipline and contexts. In our own university, we support this through development workshops, guidance (Ippolito, 2025a), co-teaching and observation of taught sessions with embedded SEL, and integration of SEL into our Master’s in University Learning and Teaching, as well as an Emotions in Education Special Interest Group.

5. Limitations

This is a small-scale, single-site study, and we recognise that it is a specific and well-resourced science discovery learning context. In terms of its applicability to a broader context, we hope to have provided sufficient detail to make the ideas presented transferable to collaborative group learning that provokes strong emotions in other HE contexts and disciplines. Another limitation is that the small sample of self-selecting students may have a natural interest in emotion and better emotion monitoring ability, and this could have created a bias towards successful students’ stories. Despite low numbers for a survey, we included these responses as they offer a more diverse perspective than those volunteering to be interviewed, including rich qualitative responses to open survey questions that can be undervalued (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Given its exploratory nature, the study sought to capture experience from across the cohort. Future studies might consider the impact of SEL in neurodivergent students specifically, or make cultural differences in interpersonal emotional influence the specific focus.

6. Conclusions

This study illustrates how SEL can naturally occur through the process of collaborative, discovery-based learning and provides evidence-informed recommendations for enhancing its effectiveness and promoting more widespread SEL. This involves a delicate balance between implicitly scaffolding and nurturing SEL, and identifying and explicitly highlighting activities that support SEL in areas where students feel ill-equipped. To promote long-term wellbeing, we counterintuitively encourage the use of challenging pedagogies that foreground social and contextual authentic experiences, and productive emotions. We suggest that this will promote development of learner agency, strategies for coping with emotionally difficult situations, and navigating contextual and social dynamics. Ultimately, these transferable emotional skills can be deployed in new social contexts.