Computational modeling of collaborative discourse to enable feedback and reflection in middle school classrooms
Open accessAbstract
Collaboration analytics has the potential to empower teachers and students with valuable insights to facilitate more meaningful and engaging collaborative learning experiences. Towards this end, we developed computational models of student speech during small group work, identifying instances of uplifting behavior related to three Community Agreements: community building, moving thinking forward, and being respectful. Pre-trained RoBERTa language models were fine-tuned and evaluated on human annotated data (N = 9,607 student utterances from 100 unique 5-minute classroom recordings). The models achieved moderate accuracies (AUROCs between 0.67-0.84) and were robust to speech recognition errors. Preliminary generalizability studies indicated that the models generalized well to two other domains (transfer ratios between 0.46-0.85; with 1.0 indicating perfect transfer). We also developed four approaches to provide qualitative feedback in the form of noticings (i.e., specific exemplars) of positive instances of the Community Agreements, finding moderate alignment with human ratings. This research contributes to the computational modeling of the relationship dimension of collaboration from noisy classroom data, selection of positive examples for qualitative feedback, and towards the empowerment of teachers to support diverse learners during collaborative learning.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
People rated the rule-based approach higher than the semantic proximity method for selecting noticings.
“an evaluation study indicated that people rated the rule-based approach higher than the semantic proximity method”
From A Feasibility and Implementation Integrity Study of the Community Builder (CoBi): An AI-based Collaboration Support System in K-12 Classrooms (2025) · cites this paper as Chandler et al., 2024
There is some evidence that the computational models generalize beyond the one curriculum unit on which they were trained.
“with some evidence of generalizability (Chandler et al., 2024)”
From A Feasibility and Implementation Integrity Study of the Community Builder (CoBi): An AI-based Collaboration Support System in K-12 Classrooms (2025) · cites this paper as Chandler et al., 2024
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving
Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618808244 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
Self-citationClassroom Orchestration: Synthesis
Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.010 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Multimodal modeling of collaborative problem-solving facets in triads
Stewart, A. E. B., Keirn, Z., & D’Mello, S. K. (2021) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-021-09290-y · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Breideband, T., Bush, J. B., Reitman, J. G., Rose, S., Weatherley, J., Penuel, W. R., & D’Mello, S. K. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-025-00509-2 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Relatedly, the current computational models were only trained on data from one curriculum unit, with some evidence of generalizability (Chandler et al., 2024).”
InfluentialSelf-citation
- Authors
- Chandler, C., Breideband, T., Reitman, J. G., Chitwood, M., Bush, J. B., Howard, A., Leonhart, S., Foltz, P. W., Penuel, W. R., & D'Mello, S. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado Boulder, USA
- ORCID
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-03-18
- Pages
- 576-586
- OpenAlex
- W4392484141
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 3.51
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2019805)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- cooperative learning, small group work, community agreements, RoBERTa fine-tuning, transfer learning, qualitative feedback, noticing, middle school classrooms, teacher 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