A Framework for Assessment of Student Project Groups On-Line and Off-Line

Assessment of difficulties within group processes, especially through automatic means, is a problem of great interest to the broader CSCL community. Group difficulties can be revealed through interaction processes that occur during group work. Whether these patterns are encoded in speech recorded from face-to-face interactions or in text from on-line interactions, the language communication that flows between group members is an important key to understanding how better to support group functions and therefore be in a better position to design effective group learning environments. With the capability of monitoring and then influencing group processes when problems are detected, it is possible to intervene in order to facilitate the accomplishment of a higher quality product. In this chapter we address this research problem of monitoring group work processes in a context where project course instructors are making assessments of student group work. Thus, our purpose is to support those instructors in their task. We describe the mixed methods approach that we took, which combines both an interview study and a classroom study. Three research questions are answered: (1) What do instructors want to know about their student groups? (2) Is the desired information observable, and can it be reliably tracked by human annotators? (3) Can the desired information be automatically tracked using machine learning techniques to produce a summary report that instructors can use? Based on interviews with nine instructors, we identified five process assessment categories with subcategories at the group and individual level: namely, goal setting, group and individual progress, knowledge contribution, participation, and teamwork. We verified that these assessment categories can be reliably coded during group meetings with a reliability of r = 0.80 at the group level and r = 0.64 at the individual level using carefully constructed human assessment instruments. We present work in progress towards automation of this assessment framework.

[1]  Vincent Rousseau,et al.  Teamwork Behaviors , 2006 .

[2]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Problem-based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions , 2000 .

[3]  D. L. Gladstein Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[4]  R. Pea Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education , 1993 .

[5]  Jonathan J. Cadiz,et al.  Coordination, overload and team performance: effects of team communication strategies , 1998, CSCW '98.

[6]  Jonas Beskow,et al.  Wavesurfer - an open source speech tool , 2000, INTERSPEECH.

[7]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  PROCESSES Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration , 2022 .

[8]  C. Hmelo‐Silver Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? , 2004 .

[9]  F. Fischer,et al.  A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[10]  J. McGrath Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[11]  Johan F. Hoorn,et al.  Distributed cognition , 2005, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[12]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning , 1999 .

[13]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[14]  R. Golembiewski Handbook of Organizational Behavior , 2001 .

[15]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  A Document Analysis Method for Characterizing Design Team Performance , 2004 .

[16]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2008, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[17]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology , 2005, CSCL.

[18]  Marc A. Smith,et al.  Visualization components for persistent conversations , 2001, CHI.

[19]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  The effect of roles on computer-supported collaborative learning. , 2004 .

[20]  Anit Somech,et al.  Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. , 2001 .

[21]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice , 2003 .

[22]  I. Steiner Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[23]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques, 3rd Edition , 1999 .

[24]  Milton Chen Visualizing the pulse of a classroom , 2003, MULTIMEDIA '03.

[25]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[26]  Michael S. Meloth,et al.  The role of the teacher in promoting cognitive processing during collaborative learning. , 1999 .

[27]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Using Machine Learning Techniques to Analyze and Support Mediation of Student E-Discussions , 2007, AIED.

[28]  Daniel Gatica-Perez,et al.  Detection and application of influence rankings in small group meetings , 2006, ICMI '06.

[29]  J. Hackman,et al.  The design of work teams , 1987 .

[30]  Alex Pentland,et al.  GroupMedia: distributed multi-modal interfaces , 2004, ICMI '04.

[31]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environment , 2002, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[32]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Tree visualization with tree-maps: 2-d space-filling approach , 1992, TOGS.

[33]  Spencer P. Magleby,et al.  A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design Through Project‐Oriented Capstone Courses , 1997 .

[34]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Towards an Interactive Assessment Framework for Engineering Design Learning , 2007 .