2017
DOI: 10.1002/ets2.12184
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CPS‐Rater: Automated Sequential Annotation for Conversations in Collaborative Problem‐Solving Activities

Abstract: Conversations in collaborative problem‐solving activities can be used to probe the collaboration skills of the team members. Annotating the conversations into different collaboration skills by human raters is laborious and time consuming. In this report, we report our work on developing an automated annotation system, CPS‐rater, for conversational data from collaborative activities. The linear chain conditional random field method is used to model the sequential dependencies between the turns of the conversati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
(23 reference statements)
1
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In future studies, we plan to automate the coding of verbal indicators. Researchers have begun investigating best practices for automated assessment using the PISA and ICAP frameworks (e.g., Hao, Chen, Flor, Liu, & von Davier, 2017;von Davier et al, 2017). Such automated coding could also be used as the basis to provide timely feedback to support students and teachers (Awwal, Scoular, & Alom, 2017).…”
Section: Limitations and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In future studies, we plan to automate the coding of verbal indicators. Researchers have begun investigating best practices for automated assessment using the PISA and ICAP frameworks (e.g., Hao, Chen, Flor, Liu, & von Davier, 2017;von Davier et al, 2017). Such automated coding could also be used as the basis to provide timely feedback to support students and teachers (Awwal, Scoular, & Alom, 2017).…”
Section: Limitations and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are numerous theory-based rubrics for coding chat or other aspects of small-group interactions (e.g., Adams et al, 2015;Andrews-Todd & Forsyth, 2020;Liu, Hao, von Davier, Kyllonen, & Zapata-Rivera, 2015;Hao, Chen, Flor, Liu, & von Davier, 2017). In many cases, though certainly not all, these codes are based on a single turn in a sequence of actions, i.e., they are defined in reference to one action performed by one group member.…”
Section: Group Processes Versus Code and Countmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is worth noting that we consider only the most immediate turns of discourses and ignore longer range dependency, though the extension to longer range dependency is straightforward. The reason for doing this is that the majority of short online conversations do not display long range dependency (some empirical evidence of this can be found in Hao et al, 2017a). The elements of a CTP are defined as follows,…”
Section: Conditional Transition Profilementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, a number of coding frameworks have been developed to analyze different aspects of the communications among team members, such as the coding framework for collaborative problem solving (CPS) skills (Liu et al, 2015), for the interactive patterns in collaboration (Andrews et al, 2017), for cohesion and language (Graesser et al, 2004; Dowell et al, 2016), and for dialog acts (Allen and Core, 1997). Based on human-coded discourse, natural language processing (NLP) techniques can be employed to automate the annotation to an accuracy level that is close to human coding (Rosé et al, 2008; Rus et al, 2015; Flor et al, 2016; Hao et al, 2017a).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%