This project has multiple focus points: using the help of Multimodal Learning Analytics to understand how co-located collaboration takes place, what are the indicators of collaboration (such as pointing at peer, looking at peer, making constructive interruptions, etc.); then we try to form a Collaboration Framework (CF) which defines the aspects of successful collaboration and forms a model. These insights help us to build the support framework to enable efficient real-time feedback during a group activity to facilitate collaboration.

1. MULTIFOCUS: MULTImodal learning
analytics FOr Collaborative learning
Understanding and Support
Sambit Praharaj
with: Maren Scheffel, Hendrik Drachsler and Marcus Specht
PhD Overview

2. What is collaboration?
• Occurs when two or more persons work towards a common goal (Martinez-
Moyano, 2006)
• Can be in different settings:
– Online (or remote)
– Co-located (or face-to-face)
• Can be for different purposes:
– Programming (Grover et al., 2016)
– Meetings (Terken & Strum, 2010)
– Problem solving (Cukurova et al., 2018)
– Brainstorming (Tausch et al., 2014), etc.
Pagina 2

3. MMLA in CC
Pagina 3
Co-located Collaboration

4. Related work (MI of CC)
• Non-verbal signals using NISPI framework (Cukurova et al., 2018)
• Joint Visual Attention (JVA) (Richardson & Dale, 2005; Jermann et al.,
2011; Schneider et al., 2015)
• Hand movements, head movement and physical engagement (Spikol et al.,
2017)
• Audio cues (Bassiou et al., 2016)
Pagina 4

5. Related work (Dimensions of CC)
• Mutual regulation (Blaye, 1988), Conflict resolution (Doise et al., 1976)
• IVA, IA, Synchrony, Equality (Spikol et al., 2017; Cukurova et al., 2017,
2018)
• 9 dimensions (Meier et al. , 2007) and other dimensions (Johnson &
Johnson, 2009)
Pagina 5

6. Related work (Feedback)
• Reflect table (Bachour et al., 2010)
• Conversation Clocks (Bergstrom & Karahalios, 2007a, 2007b)
• Groupgarden (Tausch et al., 2014)
• JVA (Schneider et al., 2015)
Pagina 6

7. Related work (Feedback)
Pagina 7

8. Current problems
• Huge gap between the theory and practicality of the dimensions of
collaboration
• Most of the feedback systems provide a post-hoc feedback or a real-
time reflective feedback
• Dearth of studies on automated multimodal analysis in non-computer
supported environments (Worsley & Blikstein, 2015)
Pagina 8

9. Research Questions
• RQ1 – What multimodal indicators give evidences of collaboration quality
in a co-located setting?
• RQ2 – How can we measure multimodal indicators of collaboration quality
with sensor technology and build efficient multimodal data models to
enable real-time data aggregation and analysis?
• RQ3 – How can we enable efficient real-time (or near to real-time) direct or
indirect interventions supported by MMLA to facilitate (or improve)
collaboration?
Pagina 9

10. Research Challenges
Pagina 10
Designing the collaboration task and it’s
outcomes or decide the collaboration
situation
Architectural design to integrate
multiple sensors and DNN to enable
real-time prediction
Annotating the huge dataset
collected

11. Research Tasks
Pagina 11
• T1 – Literature Survey: MMLA in CC
• T2 – Formative Study: Prototype design, pilot study, collection of data
• T3 – Accuracy Study: Classifier accuracy calculation and adjustments to
the prototype
• T4 – Summative Study: Evaluation and modification of the feedback
strategy

12. Rough conceptual framework
Pagina 12

13. Expected Outcomes
Pagina 13
Theoretical
indexes of CC
Practically
detected
indexes of CC
Post-hoc Real-time
(Soller et al., 2005)

14. 1st Use-Case study
Pagina 14
(Praharaj et al., 2018)

15. Thank you!
“The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.” – Michelangelo
Pagina 15

16. Questions/ Comments
Pagina 16

17. References
Bachour, K., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). An interactive table for supporting participation
balance in face-to-face collaborative learning.IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,3(3), 203–213.
Baker, M. J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. Foundations of argumentative text
processing, 5, 179–202.
Bassiou, N., Tsiartas, A., Smith, J., Bratt, H., Richey, C., Shriberg, E., ... & Alozie, N. (2016, September).
Privacy-Preserving Speech Analytics for Automatic Assessment of Student Collaboration. In INTERSPEECH
(pp. 888-892).
Bergstrom, T., & Karahalios, K. (2007a). Conversation clock: Visualizing audio patterns in co-located
groups. In System sciences, 2007. hicss 2007. 40th annual hawaii international conference on(pp.
78–78).
Bergstrom, T., & Karahalios, K. (2007b). Seeing more: visualizing audio cues. Human-Computer
Interaction–INTERACT 2007, 29–42.
Blaye, A. (1988). Confrontation socio-cognitive et r ́esolution de probl`eme (`a propos du produit de deux
ensembles)(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Blikstein, P. (2013). Multimodal learning analytics. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Learning Analytics and Knowledge - LAK ’13 , 102. http://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460316
Chikersal, P. (2017). Deep structures of collaboration(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie
Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA.
Pagina 17

18. References
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.Review of
educational research,64(1), 1–35.
Craig, S. D., D’Mello, S., Witherspoon, A., & Graesser, A. (2008). Emote aloud during learning with
autotutor:Applying the facial action coding system to cognitive–affective states during learning.
Cognition and Emotion,22(5), 777–788.
Cukurova, M., Luckin, R., Mavrikis, M., & Mill ́an, E. (2017). Machine and human observable differences
in groups’ collaborative problem-solving behaviours. In European conference on technology enhanced
learning(pp. 17–29).
Cukurova, M., Luckin, R., Mill ́an, E., & Mavrikis, M. (2018). The nispi framework: Analysing
collaborative problem-solving from students’ physical interactions. Computers & Education,116, 93–109.
Davidsen, J., & Ryberg, T. (2017). “This is the size of one meter”: Children’s bodily-material collaboration.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 65-90.
Dede, C.: Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. 21st century skills: Rethinking how students
learn 20, 51-76 (2010)
Di Mitri, D., Klemke, R., Drachsler, H., & Specht, M. Towards a real-time feedback system based on
analysis of multimodal data.
Pagina 18

19. References
Dillenbourg, P.: What do you mean by collaborative learning? (1999)
D’mello, S. K., Craig, S. D., Witherspoon, A., Mcdaniel, B., & Graesser, A. (2008). Automatic detection of
learner’s affect from conversational cues.User modeling and user-adapted interaction,18(1), 45–80.
Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1976). Social interaction and cognitive development:
Further evidence.European Journal of Social Psychology,6(2), 245–247.
Grover, S., Bienkowski, M., Tamrakar, A., Siddiquie, B., Salter, D., & Divakaran, A. (2016). Multimodal
analytics to study collaborative problem solving in pair programming. In Proceedings of the sixth
international conference on learning analytics & knowledge(pp. 516–517).
Jermann, P., Mullins, D., N ̈ussli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Collaborative gaze footprints:
correlates of interaction quality. In Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy
and practice: Cscl 2011 conference proceedings.(Vol. 1, pp. 184–191).
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational researcher, 38(5), 365-379.
Kulyk, O., Wang, J., & Terken, J. (2005, July). Real-time feedback on nonverbal behaviour to enhance
social dynamics in small group meetings. In International Workshop on Machine Learning for Multimodal
Interaction (pp. 150-161). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Lubold, N., & Pon-Barry, H. (2014, November). Acoustic-prosodic entrainment and rapport in
collaborative learning dialogues. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM workshop on Multimodal Learning
Analytics Workshop and Grand Challenge (pp. 5-12). ACM.
Pagina 19

20. References
Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of
computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 2(1), 63-86.
Praharaj S., Scheffel M., Drachsler H., Specht M. (2018) Multimodal Analytics for Real-Time Feedback in Co-located Collaboration.
In: Pammer-Schindler V., Pérez-Sanagustín M., Drachsler H., Elferink R., Scheffel M. (eds) Lifelong Technology-Enhanced
Learning. EC-TEL 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11082. Springer, Cham
Richardson, D. C., & Dale, R. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and
listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive science,29(6),
1045–1060.
Schneider, B., & Blikstein, P. (2015). Unraveling students’ interaction around a tangible interface
using multimodal learning analytics.Journal of Educational Data Mining,7(3), 89–116.
Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2013). Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and
collaboration quality.International Journal of Computer-supported collaborative learning,8(4), 375–397.
Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2014). Toward collaboration sensing. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,9(4), 371–395.
Schneider, B., Abu-El-Haija, S., Reesman, J., & Pea, R. (2013). Toward collaboration sensing: applying
network analysis techniques to collaborative eye-tracking data. In Proceedings of the third international
conference on learning analytics and knowledge(pp. 107–111)
Soller, A., Martínez, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology
for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261-290.
Pagina 20

21. References
Schneider, B., Sharma, K., Cuendet, S., Zufferey, G., Dillenbourg, P., & Pea, R. D. (2015). 3d
tangibles facilitate joint visual attention in dyads. InProceedings of 11th international conference
of computer supported collaborative learning(Vol. 1, pp. 156–165).
Spikol, D., Ruffaldi, E., & Cukurova, M. (2017). Using multimodal learning analytics to identify aspects
of collaboration in project-based learning. Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning
Sciences.
Tausch, S., Hausen, D., Kosan, I., Raltchev, A., & Hussmann, H. (2014, October). Groupgarden:
supporting brainstorming through a metaphorical group mirror on table or wall. In Proceedings of the 8th
Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (pp. 541-550). ACM.
Worsley, M., & Blikstein, P. (2015). Using learning analytics to study cognitive disequilibrium in
a complex learning environment. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics
and knowledge(pp. 426–427).
Worsley, M., & Blikstein, P. (2015, March). Leveraging multimodal learning analytics to differentiate
student learning strategies. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics
And Knowledge (pp. 360-367). ACM.
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjns7DgqIrdAhWEsaQKHdK
LAGQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lee.k12.nc.us%2Fdomain%2F2133&psig=AOvVaw0_B95fIztW5tzAu2-
ckRwX&ust=1535359089801605
Pagina 21