Search for: All records

Abstract Understanding students’ multi-party epistemic and topic based-dialogue contributions, or how students present knowledge in group-based chat interactions during collaborative game-based learning, offers valuable insights into group dynamics and learning processes. However, manually annotating these contributions is labor-intensive and challenging. To address this, we develop an automated method for recognizing dialogue acts from text chat data of small groups of middle school students interacting in a collaborative game-based learning environment. Our approach utilizes dual contrastive learning and label-aware data augmentation to fine-tune large language models’ underlying embedding representations within a supervised learning framework for epistemic and topic-based dialogue act classification. Results show that our method achieves a performance improvement of 4% to 8% over baseline methods in two key classification scenarios. These findings highlight the potential for automated dialogue act recognition to support understanding of how meaning-making occurs by focusing on the development and evolution of knowledge in group discourse, ultimately providing teachers with actionable insights to better support student learning. 

AbstractRecent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) and multimodal learning analytics (MMLA) have allowed for new and creative ways of leveraging AI to support K12 students' collaborative learning in STEM+C domains. To date, there is little evidence of AI methods supporting students' collaboration in complex, open‐ended environments. AI systems are known to underperform humans in (1) interpreting students' emotions in learning contexts, (2) grasping the nuances of social interactions and (3) understanding domain‐specific information that was not well‐represented in the training data. As such, combined human and AI (ie, hybrid) approaches are needed to overcome the current limitations of AI systems. In this paper, we take a first step towards investigating how a human‐AI collaboration between teachers and researchers using an AI‐generated multimodal timeline can guide and support teachers' feedback while addressing students' STEM+C difficulties as they work collaboratively to build computational models and solve problems. In doing so, we present a framework characterizing the human component of our human‐AI partnership as a collaboration between teachers and researchers. To evaluate our approach, we present our timeline to a high school teacher and discuss the key insights gleaned from our discussions. Our case study analysis reveals the effectiveness of an iterative approach to using human‐AI collaboration to address students' STEM+C challenges: the teacher can use the AI‐generated timeline to guide formative feedback for students, and the researchers can leverage the teacher's feedback to help improve the multimodal timeline. Additionally, we characterize our findings with respect to two events of interest to the teacher: (1) when the students cross adifficulty threshold,and (2) thepoint of intervention, that is, when the teacher (or system) should intervene to provide effective feedback. It is important to note that the teacher explained that there should be a lag between (1) and (2) to give students a chance to resolve their own difficulties. Typically, such a lag is not implemented in computer‐based learning environments that provide feedback. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicCollaborative, open‐ended learning environments enhance students' STEM+C conceptual understanding and practice, but they introduce additional complexities when students learn concepts spanning multiple domains.Recent advances in generative AI and MMLA allow for integrating multiple datastreams to derive holistic views of students' states, which can support more informed feedback mechanisms to address students' difficulties in complex STEM+C environments.Hybrid human‐AI approaches can help address collaborating students' STEM+C difficulties by combining the domain knowledge, emotional intelligence and social awareness of human experts with the general knowledge and efficiency of AI.What this paper addsWe extend a previous human‐AI collaboration framework using a hybrid intelligence approach to characterize the human component of the partnership as a researcher‐teacher partnership and present our approach as a teacher‐researcher‐AI collaboration.We adapt an AI‐generated multimodal timeline to actualize our human‐AI collaboration by pairing the timeline with videos of students encountering difficulties, engaging in active discussions with a high school teacher while watching the videos to discern the timeline's utility in the classroom.From our discussions with the teacher, we define two types ofinflection pointsto address students' STEM+C difficulties—thedifficulty thresholdand theintervention point—and discuss how thefeedback latency intervalseparating them can inform educator interventions.We discuss two ways in which our teacher‐researcher‐AI collaboration can help teachers support students encountering STEM+C difficulties: (1) teachers using the multimodal timeline to guide feedback for students, and (2) researchers using teachers' input to iteratively refine the multimodal timeline.Implications for practice and/or policyOur case study suggests that timeline gaps (ie, disengaged behaviour identified by off‐screen students, pauses in discourse and lulls in environment actions) are particularly important for identifying inflection points and formulating formative feedback.Human‐AI collaboration exists on a dynamic spectrum and requires varying degrees of human control and AI automation depending on the context of the learning task and students' work in the environment.Our analysis of this human‐AI collaboration using a multimodal timeline can be extended in the future to support students and teachers in additional ways, for example, designing pedagogical agents that interact directly with students, developing intervention and reflection tools for teachers, helping teachers craft daily lesson plans and aiding teachers and administrators in designing curricula. 

Abstract The EngageAI Institute focuses on AI‐driven narrative‐centered learning environments that create engaging story‐based problem‐solving experiences to support collaborative learning. The institute's research has three complementary strands. First, the institute creates narrative‐centered learning environments that generate interactive story‐based problem scenarios to elicit rich communication, encourage coordination, and spark collaborative creativity. Second, the institute creates virtual embodied conversational agent technologies with multiple modalities for communication (speech, facial expression, gesture, gaze, and posture) to support student learning. Embodied conversational agents are driven by advances in natural language understanding, natural language generation, and computer vision. Third, the institute is creating an innovative multimodal learning analytics framework that analyzes parallel streams of multimodal data derived from students’ conversations, gaze, facial expressions, gesture, and posture as they interact with each other, with teachers, and with embodied conversational agents. Woven throughout the institute's activities is a strong focus on ethics, with an emphasis on creating AI‐augmented learning that is deeply informed by considerations of fairness, accountability, transparency, trust, and privacy. The institute emphasizes broad participation and diverse perspectives to ensure that advances in AI‐augmented learning address inequities in STEM. The institute brings together a multistate network of universities, diverse K‐12 school systems, science museums, and nonprofit partners. Key to all of these endeavors is an emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

Abstract This paper provides an experience report on a co‐design approach with teachers to co‐create learning analytics‐based technology to support problem‐based learning in middle school science classrooms. We have mapped out a workflow for such applications and developed design narratives to investigate the implementation, modifications and temporal roles of the participants in the design process. Our results provide precedent knowledge on co‐designing with experienced and novice teachers and co‐constructing actionable insight that can help teachers engage more effectively with their students' learning and problem‐solving processes during classroom PBL implementations. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicSuccess of educational technology depends in large part on the technology's alignment with teachers' goals for their students, teaching strategies and classroom context.Teacher and researcher co‐design of educational technology and supporting curricula has proven to be an effective way for integrating teacher insight and supporting their implementation needs.Co‐designing learning analytics and support technologies with teachers is difficult due to differences in design and development goals, workplace norms, and AI‐literacy and learning analytics background of teachers.What this paper addsWe provide a co‐design workflow for middle school teachers that centres on co‐designing and developing actionable insights to support problem‐based learning (PBL) by systematic development of responsive teaching practices using AI‐generated learning analytics.We adapt established human‐computer interaction (HCI) methods to tackle the complex task of classroom PBL implementation, working with experienced and novice teachers to create a learning analytics dashboard for a PBL curriculum.We demonstrate researcher and teacher roles and needs in ensuring co‐design collaboration and the co‐construction of actionable insight to support middle school PBL.Implications for practice and/or policyLearning analytics researchers will be able to use the workflow as a tool to support their PBL co‐design processes.Learning analytics researchers will be able to apply adapted HCI methods for effective co‐design processes.Co‐design teams will be able to pre‐emptively prepare for the difficulties and needs of teachers when integrating middle school teacher feedback during the co‐design process in support of PBL technologies. 

This design case explores how an AI-supported, narrative-centered science learning game (SciStory: Pollinators) was designed over multiple iterations to support middle schoolers’ socioscientific learning, engagement, and persuasive writing. The case highlights how AI-driven conversational agents were designed to support student-led socioscientific inquiry, and the tensions our team explored as we integrated agents into a story game about community food systems, pollinators, and neighborhood land use. 

Recently, there has been a surge in developing curricula and tools that integrate computing (C) into Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs. These environments foster authentic problem-solving while facilitating students’ concurrent learning of STEM+C content. In our study, we analyzed students’ behaviors as they worked in pairs to create computational kinematics models of object motion. We derived a domain-specific metric from students’ collaborative dialogue that measured how they integrated science and computing concepts into their problem-solving tasks. Additionally, we computed social metrics such as equity and turn-taking based on the students’ dialogue. We identified and characterized students’ planning, enacting, monitoring, and reflecting behaviors as they worked together on their model construction tasks. This study in-vestigates the impact of students’ collaborative behaviors on their performance in STEM+C computational modeling tasks. By analyzing the relationships between group synergy, turn-taking, and equity measures with task performance, we provide insights into how these collaborative behaviors influence students’ ability to construct accurate models. Our findings underscore the importance of synergistic discourse for overall task success, particularly during the enactment, monitoring, and reflection phases. Conversely, variations in equity and turn-taking have a minimal impact on segment-level task performance.