Cited by 12Online Learning and AnalyticsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Algorithmic group formation and group work evaluation in a learning analytics-enhanced environment: implementation study in a Japanese junior high school

Open access
Liang, Changhao, Majumdar, Rwitajit, Nakamizo, Yuta, Flanagan, Brendan, Ogata, Hiroaki·2024·Interactive Learning Environments

Abstract

In-class group work activities are found to promote the interpersonal skills of learners. To support the teachers in facilitating such activities, we designed a learning analytics-enhanced technology framework, Group Learning Orchestration Based on Evidence (GLOBE) using data-driven approaches. In this study, we implemented the algorithmic group formation and group work evaluation systems in a Japanese junior high school context. Data from a series of 12 collaborative learning activities were used to validate the difference in the measured heterogeneity of the formed homogeneous and heterogeneous groups compared to random grouping. Further, the peer rating and self-perception of the group work were compared for comparative reading and idea exchange tasks. We found algorithmically formed groups, considering the learner model data, either heterogeneously or homogeneously performed better than random grouping. Specifically, students in groups created by the homogeneous algorithm received higher peer ratings and more positive self-perception of group work in the idea exchange group tasks. We did not find significant differences in the comparative reading tasks. Along with the empirical findings, this work presents a paradigm of continuous data-driven group learning support by incorporating the peer and teacher evaluation scores as an input to the subsequent algorithmic grouping.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10494820.2022.2121730

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liang, C., Majumdar, R., Nakamizo, Y., Flanagan, B., & Ogata, H.
Affiliations
Kyoto University (JP)
Corresponding author
Liang, Changhao
Venue
Interactive Learning Environments
Published
2022-09-19
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
1476-1499
ISSN
  • 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-5191
OpenAlex
W4296345904
Cited by
12
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Interactive Learning Environments (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
  • Kyoto University Research Information Repository (Kyoto University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • JSPS KAKENHI (16H06304)
  • NEDO (JPNP20006, JPNP18013)
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency (JPMJSP2110)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
group work evaluation, cooperative learning, learning analytics, student modeling, peer ratings, junior high school students, GLOBE framework

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