Bridging learning sciences, machine learning and affective computing for understanding cognition and affect in collaborative learning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Collaborative learning (CL) can be a powerful method for sharing understanding between learners. To this end, strategic regulation of processes, such as cognition and affect (including metacognition, emotion and motivation) is key. Decades of research on self‐regulated learning has advanced our understanding about the need for and complexity of those mediating processes in learning. Recent research has shown that it is not only the individual's but also the group's shared processes that matter and, thus, that regulation at the group level is critical for learning success. A problem here is that the “shared” processes in CL are invisible, which makes it almost impossible for researchers to study and understand them, for learners to recognize them and for teachers to support them. Traditionally, research has not been able to make these processes visible nor has it been able to collect data about them. With the aid of advanced technologies, signal processing and machine learning, we are on the verge of “seeing” these complex phenomena and understanding how they interact. We posit that technological solutions and digital tools available today and in the future will help advance the theory underlying the cognitive, metacognitive, emotional and social components of individual, peer and group learning when seen through a multidisciplinary lens. The aim of this paper is to discuss and demonstrate how multidisciplinary collaboration among the learning sciences, affective computing and machine learning is applied for understanding and facilitating CL. Practitioner Notes What is already known about this topic Collaborative learning occurs when team members systematically activate, sustain and regulate their cognition, motivation, emotions and behaviors towards the attainment of their goals. Socially shared regulation in learning contributes to success in collaborative learning. What this paper adds “Shared” processes in collaborative learning are hard for researchers to study and understand them, for learners to recognize them and for teachers to support them. Multimodal data collection provides opportunities to study multiple aspects of student behaviors and regulation processes. With the aid of advanced technologies multidisciplinary collaboration between the learning sciences, affective computing and machine learning can help to study these complex phenomena. Implications for practice and/or policy The case examples demonstrate how multidisciplinary collaboration can meet the challenges in understanding and facilitating collaborative learning. Multidisciplinary efforts with multimodal data will contribute to collaborative learning practice by providing theoretically informed feedback and personalized support.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».