Machine and Human Observable Differences in Groups' Collaborative Problem-Solving Behaviours

This paper contributes to our understanding of how to design learning analytics to capture and analyse collaborative problem-solving (CPS) in practice-based learning activities. Most research in learning analytics focuses on student interaction in digital learning environments, yet still most learning and teaching in schools occurs in physical environments. Investigation of student interaction in physical environments can be used to generate observable differences among students, which can then be used in the design and implementation of Learning Analytics. Here, we present several original methods for identifying such differences in groups CPS behaviours. Our data set is based on human observation, hand position (fiducial marker) and heads direction (face recognition) data from eighteen students working in six groups of three. The results show that the high competent CPS groups spend an equal distribution of time on their problem-solving and collaboration stages. Whereas, the low competent CPS groups spend most of their time in identifying knowledge and skill deficiencies only. Moreover, as machine observable data shows, high competent CPS groups present symmetrical contributions to the physical tasks and present high synchrony and individual accountability values. The findings have significant implications on the design and implementation of future learning analytics systems.

[1]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[2]  Milena K. Nigam,et al.  The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction: Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning , 2022 .

[3]  Kristy Elizabeth Boyer,et al.  Discovering Individual and Collaborative Problem-Solving Modes with Hidden Markov Models , 2015, AIED.

[4]  Rosemary Luckin,et al.  An analysis framework for collaborative problem solving in practice-based learning activities: a mixed-method approach , 2016, LAK.

[5]  W. Damon,et al.  Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education , 1989 .

[6]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality , 2013, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.

[7]  R. Slavin Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning. , 1981 .

[8]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[9]  Mutlu Cukurova,et al.  Using Multimodal Learning Analytics to Identify Aspects of Collaboration in Project-Based Learning , 2017, CSCL.

[10]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Unraveling Students’ Interaction Around a Tangible Interface using Multimodal Learning Analytics , 2015, EDM 2015.

[11]  D. Lakens,et al.  If They Move in Sync, They Must Feel in Sync: Movement Synchrony Leads to Attributions of Rapport and Entitativity , 2011 .

[12]  Marcelo Worsley,et al.  Multimodal Learning Analytics and Education Data Mining: using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks , 2016, J. Learn. Anal..

[13]  Frank Banks,et al.  Teaching STEM in the Secondary School: Helping teachers meet the challenge , 2014 .

[14]  Mutlu Cukurova,et al.  Solved! Making the case for collaborative problem-solving , 2017 .

[15]  Patrick Jermann,et al.  Designing Integrative Scripts , 2007 .

[16]  Judy Kay,et al.  An Automatic Approach for Mining Patterns of Collaboration around an Interactive Tabletop , 2013, AIED.

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

[18]  Emanuele Ruffaldi,et al.  Data collection and processing for a multimodal learning analytic system , 2016, 2016 SAI Computing Conference (SAI).