Cited by 156Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsOnline Learning and Analytics

Towards an Agile Approach to Adapting Dynamic Collaboration Support to Student Needs

Open access
Adamson, David, Dyke, Gregory, Jang, Hyeju, Rosé, Carolyn Penstein·2014·International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education

Abstract

This paper investigates the use of conversational agents to scaffold on-line collaborative learning discussions through an approach called Academically Productive Talk (APT). In contrast to past work on dynamic support for collaborative learning, where agents were used to elevate conceptual depth by leading students through directed lines of reasoning (Kumar & Rosé, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4 (1), 2011 ), this APT-based approach uses generic prompts that encourage students to articulate and elaborate their own lines of reasoning, and to challenge and extend the reasoning of their teammates. This paper integrates findings from a series of studies across content domains (biology, chemistry, engineering design), grade levels (high school, undergraduate), and facilitation strategies. APT based strategies are contrasted with simply offering positive feedback when the students themselves employ APT facilitation moves in their interactions with one another, an intervention we term Positive Feedback for APT engagement. The pattern of results demonstrates that APT based support for collaborative learning can significantly increase learning, but that the effect of specific APT facilitation strategies is context specific. It appears the effectiveness of each strategy depends upon factors such as the difficulty of the material (in terms of being new conceptual material versus review) and the skill level of the learner (urban public high school vs. selective private university). In contrast, Feedback for APT engagement does not positively impact learning. In addition to an analysis based on learning gains, an automated conversation analysis technique is presented that effectively predicts which strategies are successfully operating in specific contexts. Implications for design of more agile forms of dynamic support for collaborative learning are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40593-013-0012-6

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adamson, D., Dyke, G., Jang, H., & Rosé, C. P.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Rosé, Carolyn Penstein
Venue
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
92-124
ISSN
1560-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065443038
Cited by
156
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
11.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0836012, 0835426)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
chatbots, dynamic support, cooperative learning, online forums, scaffolding, positive feedback, facilitation techniques, student reasoning, conceptual understanding, adaptive learning support

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review