The automatic assessment of knowledge integration processes in project teams

Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL 2011 Conference Proceedings - Long Papers, 9th International Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference

Volumn 1, Issue , 2011, Pages 462-469

  Gweon, Gahgene ^a   Agrawal, Pulkit ^b   Udani, Mikesh ^c   Raj, Bhiksha ^a   Rose, Carolyn ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR   (India)

^c INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUDIO SIGNAL; AUTOMATIC ASSESSMENT; CO-CONSTRUCTION; COLLABORATIVE GROUPS; COLLABORATIVE PROCESS; COLLABORATIVE WORK; COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING; EDUCATIONAL DATA MINING; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN ANALYSIS; KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION PROCESS; MACHINE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY; PROJECT TEAM;

SIGNAL PROCESSING;

DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS;

EID: 84858386471     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Ai, H., Kumar, R., Nguyen, D., Nagasunder, A., & Rosé, C. P. (2010). Exploring the Effectiveness of Social Capabilities and Goal Alignment in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Proc. ITS. 134-143.
2. Ang, et. al. (2002). Prosody based automatic detection of annoyance and frustration. In Proc. International conference spoken language processing, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2002, pp. 2037- 2039.
3. Berkowitz, M., & Gibbs, J. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 399-410.
4. Chen, M. (2003). Visualizing the pulse of a classroom. In Proc. MM', ACM Press, 555-561.
5. CMUSphinx Wiki. (2010). http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/wiki/
6. Coupland, N. (2009). Style: Language Variation and Identity: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics, Cambridge University Press.
7. De Cheveigné, A., & Kawahara, H. (2002). "YIN, a fundamental frequency estimator for speech and music," The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 111(4), 1917-1930. (Pubitemid 34297247)
8. De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. (1999). Implications of Piagetian Theory for Peer Learning, A. O'Donnell & Alison King (Eds.) Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
9. DiMicco, J., et. al. . (2004). Influencing group participation with a shared display. Proc. CSCW, 614-623.
10. Eckert, P., & Rickford. J. (2001). Style and Sociolingusitic Variation, Cambridge University Press.
11. Faidley, J., et. al. (2000). How are we doing? Methods of assessing group processing in a problem-based learning context. In Evensen, D. H., and Hmelo, C. E. (eds.), Problem-Based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions, Erlbaum, NJ, 109-135.
12. Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1995). A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. European Conference on Computational Learning Theory. 23-37.
13. Fina, A., Schiffrin, D., & Bamberg, M. (2006). Discourse and Identity, Cambridge University Press
14. Forbes-Riley, K., & Litman, D. (2009). Adapting to Student Uncertainty Improves Tutoring Dialogues. In Proc AIED 2009: 33-40.
15. Giles, H. (1984). The Dynamics of Speech Accommodation, Amsterdam: Mouton.
16. Gweon, G., Kumar, R. Rosé, C. (2009). GRASP: The Group Assessment Platform, In Proc CSCL.
17. Gweon, G., et. al. (2011). A Framework for Assessment of Student Project Groups Online and Offline. Puntambekar & Hmelo-Silver (Eds.) Analyzing Interactions in CSCL, Springer. 293-317.
18. Jaffe, A. (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, Oxford University Press.
19. Joshi, M., & Rosé, C. P. (2007). Using Transactivity in Conversation Summarization in Educational Dialog. Proceedings of the SLaTE Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education
20. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K., (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. In Proc, CSCL 2009. 4: 21-46.
21. Kay, J.,et al. (2006). Wattle Tree: What'll It Tell Us?, University of Sydney Technical Report 582, January 06'.
22. Kim, T. Chang, et. al. (2008). Meeting Mediator: Enhancing Group Collaboration with Sociometric Feedback, In Proc. of CSCW, San Diego, CA, 457-466.
23. Kumar, R., Rosé, C. P., & Litman, D. (2006). Identification of Confusion and Surprise in Spoken Dialogusing Prosodic Features , Proceedings of Interspeech 2006.
24. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City, Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
25. Liscombe, J. Venditti, J, & Hirschberg, J. (2005). Detecting certainness in spoken tutorial dialogues. In Proc. Interspeech 2005. 1837-1840. (Pubitemid 43908442)
26. Pianesi, F., et al. (2008). Multimodal support to group dynamics. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 12(3), 181-195. (Pubitemid 351176343)
27. Pon-Barry., et al. (2006). Responding to Student Uncertainty in Spoken Tutorial Dialogue Systems. IJAIED 16(2)
28. Ranganath, R., Jurafsky, D., & McFarland, D. (2009). It's Not You, it's Me: Detecting Flirting and its Misperception in Speed-Dates. Proceedings of EMNLP 2009. 334-342.
29. Rosé, C. P., et al. (2008). Analyzing Collaborative Learning Processes Automatically: Exploiting the Advances of Computational Linguistics in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , IJCSCL. 237-271
30. Soller, A., & Lesgold, A. (2003). A computational approach to analyzing online knowledge sharing interaction.In Proc. AIED, 253-260.
31. Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition, 361-384.
32. Voicebox (2010). http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/hp/staff/dmb/voicebox/voicebox. html
33. Weinberger A., & Fischer F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education; 46, 71-95. (Pubitemid 41562938)