In addition, the behavioral path CC → AE appeared in the high-achievement groups only; this indicated that students could advance or explain the solutions after they claimed comprehension failure.
(I asked Spritz what studies it has done to back up its comprehension claims and will update this post with any response).
AE → CC indicated that some students may claim partial understanding or comprehension failure when new solutions were advanced or explained.
When students made plans, others also claimed partial understanding or comprehension failure.
Claiming (partial) understanding or Comprehension failure (CC) "I don't understand how you made this animation".
In every week, advancing and explaining solutions (AE), monitoring or controlling group progress (MC), and claiming (partial) understanding or comprehension failure (CC) occurred the most frequently.
The behavioral path CC → MP revealed that when some students claimed partial understanding or comprehension failure, others made new plans for the collaborative learning task.
The monitoring and controlling dimension consisted of three categories: monitoring or controlling group progress (MC), claiming (partial) understanding or comprehension failure (CC), and detecting errors or checking plausibility (DC).
The most frequent behavior was advancing and explaining solutions (AE, 30.63 %), followed by claiming (partial) understanding or comprehension failure (CC, 23.98 %), monitoring or controlling group progress (MC, 9.52 %), and evaluating current solutions (EV, 7.70 %).
This hypothesis claims that action-language comprehension and motor processes share neural resources that co-operate mutually; that is to say that motor processes influences the comprehension of the action sentence, and action sentence comprehension influences the motor process.
