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

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 defi ciencies 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 signifi cant implications on the design and implementation of future learning analytics systems.Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech. Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) y el Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), TIN2016-80774-R

Analyzing groups’ problem-solving process to characterize collaboration within groups

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Artificial Intelligence and Education. Guidance for Policy-makers

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to address some of the biggest challenges in education today, innovate teaching and learning practices, and ultimately accelerate the progress towards SDG 4. However, these rapid technological developments inevitably bring multiple risks and challenges, which have so far outpaced policy debates and regulatory frameworks. This publication offers guidance for policy-makers on how best to leverage the opportunities and address the risks, presented by the growing connection between AI and education. It starts with the essentials of AI: definitions, techniques and technologies. It continues with a detailed analysis of the emerging trends and implications of AI for teaching and learning, including how we can ensure the ethical, inclusive and equitable use of AI in education, how education can prepare humans to live and work with AI, and how AI can be applied to enhance education. It finally introduces the challenges of harnessing AI to achieve SDG 4 and offers concrete actionable recommendations for policy-makers to plan policies and programmes for local contexts