Cited by 8Online Learning and AnalyticsInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Computational modeling of collaborative discourse to enable feedback and reflection in middle school classrooms

Open access
Chandler, Chelsea, Breideband, Thomas, Reitman, Jason G., Chitwood, Marissa, Bush, Jeffrey B., Howard, Amanda, Leonhart, Sarah, Foltz, Peter W. +2 more·2024·Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1145/3636555.3636917

Cites

4 of 4 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
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
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
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