Abstract
Recently, Artificial Intelligence (AI), seen as an engineering domain, has been introduced into school education, but its pedagogy remains unclear. In general, group learning has been applied as a primary form of instruction in hands-on engineering activities. This learning approach is more common in higher education. School students are less mature; therefore, the benefits of adopting group learning as a pedagogical approach remain unclear. Group learning quality can be reflected by student–student interactions and dialogue within a group, and is classified into four types: collective, cooperating-in-parallel, dominant/defensive, and expert/novice. Accordingly, this experimental study involved 37 middle school students, and explored how they interacted within groups when learning AI through hands-on activities in the four group learning types. The Teacher Scheme for Educational Dialogue Analysis (T-SEDA) was used to code student–student interactions and compute their frequencies, and Lag Sequential Analysis was used to analyze the behavioral interaction sequence characteristics of the four group interaction patterns. The results showed that the expert/novice group learning had higher frequency of interaction, and also produced the longest, richest, and most complex sequences. The results suggest that this is the optimal approach to learning for younger students in hands-on AI activities as it encourages group members to interact with each other and reach a consensus. The results contribute to the literature by suggesting effective practices and confirming the use of T-SEDA in a new engineering school subject.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching (4th ed.). Dialogos.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511527685
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139017343
Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: Introduction and review. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1047–1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0738-8
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R. M., Tamim, R. M., Schmid, R. F., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2016). Technology-supported student interaction in post-secondary education: A meta-analysis of designed versus contextual treatments. Computers & Education, 96, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.004
Bosman, A., & Schulze, S. (2018). Learning style preferences and mathematics achievement of secondary school learners. South African Journal of Education, 38(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n1a1440
Bridges, S., Chang, J. W. W., Chu, C. H., & Gardner, K. (2014). Blended learning in situated contexts: 3-year evaluation of an online peer review project. European Journal of Dental Education, 18(3), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12082
Cai, S., Niu, X., Wen, Y., & Li, J. (2021). Interaction analysis of teachers and students in inquiry class learning based on augmented reality by iFIAS and LSA. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2012808
Campbell, T. (2021). Examining how middle grade mathematics students seize learning opportunities through conflict in small groups. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2021.1949529
Chao, P. J., Hsu, T. H., Liu, T. P., & Cheng, Y. H. (2021). Knowledge of and competence in artificial intelligence: Perspectives of Vietnamese digital-native students. IEEE Access, 9, 75751–75760. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3081749
Chen, W. (2018). Patterns of pair interaction in communicative tasks: The transition process and effect on L2 teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 72(4), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy015
Cheng, L. C., & Chu, H. C. (2019). An innovative consensus map-embedded collaborative learning system for ER diagram learning: Sequential analysis of students’ learning achievements. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(3), 410–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1482357
Cheng, B., Wang, M., & Mercer, N. (2014). Effects of role assignment in concept mapping mediated small group learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 23(5), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.06.001
Chiang, V. C. L., Leung, S. S. K., Chui, C. Y. Y., Leung, A. Y. M., & Mak, Y. W. (2013). Building life-long learning capacity in undergraduate nursing freshmen within an integrative and small group learning context. Nurse Education Today, 33(10), 1184–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.05.009
Chiu, T. K. F. (2021). A holistic approach to artificial intelligence (AI) curriculum for K-12 schools. TechTrends, 65, 796–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00637-1
Chiu, T. K. F., & Chai, C. S. (2020). Sustainable curriculum planning for artificial intelligence education: A self-determination theory perspective. Sustainability, 12(14), 5568. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145568
Chiu, T. K. F., Meng, H., Chai, C. S., King, I., Wong, S. W. H., & Yam, Y. (2022). Creation and evaluation of a pre-tertiary artificial intelligence (AI) curriculum. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3085878
Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Jing, M., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2054–2067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.009
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-X
Dietrich, J., Dicke, A. L., Kracke, B., & Noack, P. (2015). Teacher support and its influence on students’ intrinsic value and effort: Dimensional comparison effects across subjects. Learning and Instruction, 39, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.007
Díez-Palomar, J., Chan, M. C. E., Clarke, D., & Padrós, M. (2021). How does dialogical talk promote student learning during small group work? An exploratory study. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 30(A), 100540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100540
Einarsdóttir, J. (2003). When the bell rings we have to go inside: Preschool children’s views on the primary school. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 11(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2003.12016704
Ericksen, J., & Dyer, L. (2004). Right from the start: Exploring the effects of early team events on subsequent project team development and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 438–471. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131442
Freiermuth, M. R., & Huang, H. C. (2012). Bringing Japan and Taiwan closer electronically: A look at an intercultural online synchronic chat task and its effect on motivation. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811423341
Fu, W., Liang, J., Wang, L., Xu, R., & Xiao, F. (2020). Teacher-student interaction in a special school for students with developmental disabilities in Chinese context. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 68(2), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2020.1729018
Furberg, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). Students’ meaning-making of socio-scientific issues in computer mediated settings: Exploring learning through interaction trajectories. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1775–1799. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701543617
Gijlers, H., Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W., De Jong, T., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 252–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00302.x
Goggins, S., & Xing, W. (2016). Building models explaining student participation behavior in asynchronous online discussion. Computers & Education, 94(C), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.002
Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (2016). Interaction analysis approaches to knowledge in use. In A. A. diSessa, M. Levin, & N. J. S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and Interaction: A Synthetic Agenda for the Learning Sciences (1st ed.). Routledge.
Hennessy, S., Rojas-Drummond, S., Higham, R., Márquez, A. M. B., Maine, F., Ríos, R. M., García-Carrión, R., Torreblanca, O., & Barrera, M. J. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 16–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.12.001
Hennessy, S., Kershner, R., Calcagni, E., & Ahmed, F. (2021). Supporting practitioner-led inquiry into classroom dialogue with a research-informed professional learning resource: A design-based approach. Review of Education, 9(3), e3269. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3269
Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2010). Applying lag sequential analysis to detect visual behavioural patterns of online learning activities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), E25–E27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00935.x
Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher-student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
Hsiao, J. C., Chen, S. K., Chen, W., & Lin, S. S. J. (2021). Developing a plugged-in class observation protocol in high-school blended STEM classes: Student engagement, teacher behaviors and student-teacher interaction patterns. Computers & Education, 178(C), 104403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104403
Hsu, H. C. (2020). The impact of task complexity on patterns of interaction during web-based asynchronous collaborative writing tasks. System, 93, 102328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102328
Huang, X. (2021). Aims for cultivating students’ key competencies based on artificial intelligence education in China. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5127–5147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10530-2
Huang, C. Q., Han, Z. M., Li, M. X., Jong, M. S. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2019). Investigating students’ interaction patterns and dynamic learning sentiments in online discussions. Computers & Education, 140, 103589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.015
Jaarsma, A. D. C., De Grave, W. S., Muijtjens, A. M. M., Scherpbier, A. J. J. A., & Van Beukelen, P. (2008). Perceptions of learning as a function of seminar group factors. Medical Education, 42(12), 1178–1184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03170.x
Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0636-4
Kim, M. K., Wang, Y., & Ketenci, T. (2020). Who are online learning leaders? Piloting a leader identification method (LIM). Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106205
Knain, E., Fredlund, T., & Furberg, A. (2021). Exploring student reasoning and representation construction in school science through the lenses of social semiotics and interaction analysis. Research in Science Education, 51(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09975-1
Lämsä, J., Hämäläinen, R., Koskinen, P., Viiri, J., & Mannonen, J. (2020). The potential of temporal analysis: Combining log data and lag sequential analysis to investigate temporal differences between scaffolded and non-scaffolded group inquiry-based learning processes. Computers & Education, 143, 103674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103674
Lancaster, L. (2008). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach by Neil Mercer, Karen Littleton. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 688–690.
Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017). Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between group interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.01.003
Li, M., Ma, H., & Gu, B. (2016). Improved teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm with group learning. Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 31(4), 2101–2108. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-169049
Lin, T. J., Duh, H. B. L., Li, N., Wang, H. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). An investigation of learners’ collaborative knowledge construction performances and behavior patterns in an augmented reality simulation system. Computers & Education, 68, 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.011
Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.002
Lockheed, M. (2002). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education by Robin Alexander: Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Comparative Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1086/344915
Lou, Y., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: A theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 141–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-8252-x
Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2016). Scaffolding through dialogic teaching in early school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.007
Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Rasku-Puttonen, H., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2020). Dialogue through the eyes: Exploring teachers’ focus of attention during educational dialogue. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101607
Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520500445425
Paul, R., & Fellow, E. L. (2022). Critical thinking: tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (4th ed.). The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Paulus, P. B., Levine, D. S., Brown, V., Minai, A. A., & Doboli, S. (2010). Modeling ideational creativity in groups: Connecting cognitive, neural, and computational approaches. Small Group Research, 41(6), 688–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410369561
Sackett, G. P., Holm, R., Crowley, C., & Henkins, A. (1979). A FORTRAN program for lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction data. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 11(3), 366–378. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205679
Sevian, H., Dori, Y. J., & Parchmann, I. (2018). How does STEM context-based learning work: What we know and what we still do not know. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1095–1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470346
Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch5
Simpson, A., Bannister, N., & Matthews, G. (2017). Cracking her codes: Understanding shared technology resources as positioning artifacts for power and status in CSCL environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(3), 221–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9261-y
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179
Su, J., & Zhong, Y. (2022). Artificial Intelligence (AI) in early childhood education: Curriculum design and future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100072
Sun, M., Wang, M., Wegerif, R., & Peng, J. (2022). How do students generate ideas together in scientific creativity tasks through computer-based mind mapping? Computers & Education, 176, 104359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104359
Touretzky, D., Gardner-McCune, C., Breazeal, C., Martin, F., & Seehorn, D. (2019). A year in K-12 AI education. AI Magazine, 40(4), 88–90. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v40i4.5289
Touretzky, D. S., Martin, F. G., Seehorn, D. W., Breazeal, C. L., & Posner, T. (2019b). Special session: AI for K-12 guidelines initiative. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287525
Vickers, C. H. (2010). Language competence and the construction of expert–novice in NS-NNS interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 116–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.010
Vrikki, M., Kershner, R., Calcagni, E., Hennessy, S., Lee, L., Hernández, F., & Ahmed, F. (2019). The teacher scheme for educational dialogue analysis (T-SEDA): Developing a research-based observation tool for supporting teacher inquiry into pupils’ participation in classroom dialogue. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.24161
Walls, L. C. (2018). The effect of dyad type on collaboration: Interactions among heritage and second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 51(3), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12356
Wang, Z., Pan, X., Miller, K. F., & Cortina, K. S. (2014). Automatic classification of activities in classroom discourse. Computers & Education, 78, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.010
Wu, S. Y., Chen, S. Y., & Hou, H. T. (2015). A study of users’ reactions to a mixed online discussion model: A lag sequential analysis approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction., 31(3), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2014.986637
Xia, Q., Chiu, T. K. F., Lee, M., Sanusi, T. I., Dai, Y., & Chai, C. S. (2022). A self-determination theory (SDT) design approach for inclusive and diverse artificial intelligence (AI) K-12 education. Computers & Education, 189, 104582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104582
Yang, X., Li, J., & Xing, B. (2018). Behavioral patterns of knowledge construction in online cooperative translation activities. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.08.003
Yau, K. W., Chai, C. S., Chiu, T. K. F., Meng, H., King, I., & Yam, Y. (2022). A phenomenographic approach on teacher conceptions of teaching Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 schools. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11161-x
Zamani-Miandashti, N., & Ataei, P. (2015). College students’ perceptions of short message service-supported collaborative learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(4), 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.900453
Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811426248
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
Not Applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hu, X., He, W., Chiu, T.K.F. et al. Using a teacher scheme for educational dialogue analysis to investigate student–student interaction patterns for optimal group activities in an artificial intelligence course. Educ Inf Technol 28, 8789–8813 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11556-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11556-w