Bridging learning sciences, machine learning and affective computing for understanding cognition and affect in collaborative learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it