Collaborative spatial classification

Interactive technologies have become an important part of teaching and learning. However, the data that these systems generate is increasingly unstructured, complex, and therefore difficult of which to make sense of. Current computationally driven methods (e.g., latent semantic analysis or learning based image classifiers) for classifying student contributions don't include the ability to function on multimodal artifacts (e.g., sketches, videos, or annotated images) that new technologies enable. We have developed and implemented a classifcation algorithm based on learners' interactions with the artifacts they create. This new form of semi-automated concept classification, coined Collaborative Spatial Classification, leverages the spatial arrangement of artifacts to provide a visualization that generates summary level data about about idea distribution. This approach has two benefits. First, students learn to identify and articulate patterns and connections among classmates ideas. Second, the teacher receives a high-level view of the distribution of ideas, enabling them to decide how to shift their instructional practices in real-time.

[1]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[2]  Charalampos Stergiopoulos,et al.  Comparison of oral examination and electronic examination using paired multiple-choice questions , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Ngss Lead States Next generation science standards : for states, by states , 2013 .

[4]  Eli Shechtman,et al.  In defense of Nearest-Neighbor based image classification , 2008, 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[5]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology , 2006 .

[6]  Charles T. Zahn,et al.  Graph-Theoretical Methods for Detecting and Describing Gestalt Clusters , 1971, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[7]  Christopher Teplovs,et al.  A visualization of group cognition: semantic network analysis of a CSCL community , 2010, ICLS.

[8]  R. Sawyer The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Introduction , 2014 .

[9]  Oded M. Flascher,et al.  Prospect theory analysis of guessing in multiple choice tests , 2002 .

[10]  Patrick F. Reidy An Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis , 2009 .

[11]  Dave S. Knowlton A Theoretical Framework for the Online Classroom: A Defense and Delineation of a Student-Centered Pedagogy , 2000 .

[12]  Swee-Ping Chia,et al.  AIP Conference Proceedings , 2008 .

[13]  E. Duval Attention please!: learning analytics for visualization and recommendation , 2011, LAK.

[14]  Ethan Danahy,et al.  InterLACE: interactive learning and collaboration environment , 2013, CSCW '13.

[15]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Representing shape with a spatial pyramid kernel , 2007, CIVR '07.

[16]  Miriam Gamoran Sherin,et al.  Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes , 2011 .

[17]  William M. Rand,et al.  Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods , 1971 .