Speech Is Not Enough: Interpreting Nonverbal Indicators of Common Knowledge and Engagement

Carlos Mabrey; Derek Palmer; Hannah VanderHoeven; Ibrahim Khebour; Jack FitzGerald; James Pustejovsky; Kenneth Lai; Mariah Bradford; Martha Palmer; Nikhil Krishnaswamy

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Speech Is Not Enough: Interpreting Nonverbal Indicators of Common Knowledge and Engagement

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that automatically detected and tracked nonverbal behavior—gaze, posture, and pointing—can supply the common-ground and engagement signals an AI partner needs to help groups of students, and it demonstrates the capability…

desk verdict A clearly-labeled demo that assembles prior components into a plausible classroom aid, but the load-bearing gaze proxy is unvalidated and there is no quantitative evaluation, so the capability claim is unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05797 v1 pith:L36WHE7C submitted 2024-12-08 cs.CL cs.AI

Derek Palmer , Yifan Zhu , Kenneth Lai , Hannah VanderHoeven , Mariah Bradford , Ibrahim Khebour , Carlos Mabrey , Jack Fitzgerald

show 3 more authors

Nikhil Krishnaswamy Martha Palmer James Pustejovsky

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AI

keywords nonverbalbehaviorcommongroundengagementmultimodaldialogueAIpartnergazetrackingpointinggestureclassroomcollaboration

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Multiparty classroom dialogue is noisy, and automatic speech recognition degrades as rooms get more crowded, so an AI partner that wants to help groups solve problems cannot rely on words alone. This paper argues that nonverbal cues—where a student's nose points, how they lean, whether they point at an object, and whether the group visually attends to the same thing—carry the missing information about common ground and engagement. It demonstrates a pipeline that takes RGB-D video from a tabletop camera, tracks 32 body joints per person, and converts those joints into three signals: gaze targets, posture-based engagement, and objects selected by pointing gestures. The central claim is that these signals let an AI partner recognize states such as a dominated discussion in which other members are disengaging, and decide when an intervention is useful. The paper frames this as a demonstration of present capabilities rather than a full experimental evaluation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a set of three nonverbal detectors working off RGB-D body tracking, combined with an object detector and an AI-partner state module. Gaze is approximated by a nose-direction vector: the midpoint of the two ear joints is connected to the nose joint, and the vector is extended into 3D to determine which object or speaker is fixated. Posture detection takes each participant's flattened position and orientation, feeds it to a two-layer feedforward neural network, and trains one such model per seating position to capture leaning in or out. Gesture recognition uses a two-stage pipeline—stroke-phase detection following Kendon's gesture model, then shape classification from extracted video features—and the selected target is computed with a pointing frustum, a cone-shaped volume extending from the extended finger into 3D, with any object intersecting the frustum considered pointed at. Object detection uses a Faster R-CNN with a ResNet-50-FPN backbone trained on annotated bounding boxes. The output of these detectors is what lets the system attach nonverbal evidence to abstract states such as common ground and engagement.

What would settle it

Record a group session with an eye tracker on each student while the same pipeline logs nose-direction gaze; if the objects selected by the nose-vector frustum match the objects the eye tracker shows the students fixating no better than chance, the gaze-to-common-ground link in its current form is falsified. Similarly, a session where participants are instructed to produce long turns while others deliberately disengage would test whether posture classification predicts independently annotated engagement levels.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The claim, stated sympathetically, is that nonverbal behavior is not a supplement to speech but a necessary channel for tracking group cognition. In the paper's own terms, speech is not enough: joint visual attention, gesture, and posture are what contextualize common ground and engagement. The system tracks gaze by drawing a vector from the midpoint between a participant's ears to their nose and extending it into 3D to find the object or person being looked at; it classifies posture and leaning with a two-layer feedforward network trained separately for each seated position; and it identifies pointing gestures using a two-stage method that first detects the stroke phase and then classifies shape, projecting a pointing frustum from the extended finger to select intersected objects. These three streams feed an AI partner that maintains knowledge-support and social-cohesion states, for example recognizing a dominated discussion as one member talking for thirty seconds or more and then using posture and gaze to check whether the other members have disengaged. The demonstration has two scenarios: a Fibonacci weights task where object detection and joint attention support domain knowledge, and a simulated classroom project-planning lesson where posture and gaze distinguish engaged from disengaged participants.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a line from the midpoint of the ears through the nose is a good enough estimate of where a student is actually looking; if nose direction does not track true gaze, the gaze-based and pointing-related common-ground and engagement inferences degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An AI partner can intervene during group work based on nonverbal state, such as a participant leaning out during a dominated discussion, instead of waiting for speech that may not come.
Common ground can be tracked through deictic reference: when a student points, the system knows which object is being made salient, so knowledge support can be targeted at the right artifact.
The approach can transfer to new tasks with limited retraining, since new objects can be learned from small annotated datasets and the social-cohesion model can be applied to any working group of three or more once a task-specific engagement model is supplied.
Classroom video annotation for qualitative research can be partly automated, reducing the manual labor of coding gaze, gesture, and posture.
Multimodal analysis becomes the fallback and complement for speech recognition in noisy, multi-participant environments where ASR is unreliable.
An AI partner that tracks both knowledge and social dynamics can recognize the difference between a productive long turn and one that is causing disengagement, enabling less disruptive intervention timing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An implicit extension is that if true eye tracking were substituted for the nose-direction proxy, the same pointing-frustum geometry could be used to test how much of common-ground inference is lost by the proxy rather than by the frustum calculation.
A testable extension would be to log the system's object-selection and posture signals alongside human-coded joint attention, yielding a quantitative estimate of how much shared understanding is carried by nonverbal channels versus speech.
The paper's portability claim implies a practical caveat: the engagement classifier is position-conditioned, so moving to a different seating arrangement or a new cultural setting would require revalidation against that domain's behavioral norms.
A controlled study comparing group outcomes with and without AI-partner interventions driven by these multimodal signals would test the causal assumption that detecting disengagement leads to better intervention timing.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a demo, and it is honest about being one. It does not claim a new algorithm or a measured result; it claims to have integrated existing components (gesture recognition, object detection, posture classification, nose-as-gaze proxy) into a pipeline that tracks nonverbal behavior in classroom group work and connects it to common ground and engagement. That integration is real and the demo video presumably shows it working on the two scenarios. The authors also deserve credit for grounding their design in prior iSAT work and for being explicit about the gesture recognition source, the object detector architecture, and the gaze proxy. This is a useful existence proof for the larger project, and the paper is written clearly enough that a reader can see exactly what is and is not being claimed.

The soft spots are the same ones the reader flagged, and the stress-test note correctly identifies the load-bearing one. The gaze proxy — nose direction standing in for eye gaze — is not validated anywhere in the paper. In a multiparty tabletop setting, people routinely look at objects without pointing their nose at them, so the error is systematic and can flip the inferred target among nearby objects. Both scenarios lean on joint visual attention to make their points, so this is not a minor implementation detail; it is the core of the capability being demonstrated. There are also no reported numbers for any component: no accuracy for posture, no pointing-frustum hit rate, no object-detection precision/recall. For a demo paper that might be acceptable if the video makes the behavior vivid, but the conclusion overreaches when it says the approach will "port to any AI partner" in any working group. That portability claim is unsupported.

The circularity concern is not a real problem here: the system is a pipeline built from prior modules, and no fitted parameter is masquerading as a prediction. The citation pattern is appropriate for a demo that synthesizes prior work, including some self-citations, but those citations are to actual published components and datasets.

Who is this for? Researchers working on multimodal interaction in education, especially the iSAT community, and anyone building AI partners that need to track engagement in group settings. A serious referee should ask for at least a small validation of the gaze proxy and some numbers on the other components before the capability claim is taken at face value. I would not cite it in my own work because it offers no new result, but I would happily send it to a demo track for review as a system illustration.

Recommendation: worth a serious referee for a demo/workshop venue, not for a main conference paper as-is.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a demo of a multimodal AI-partner system for three-person student group work. It combines Azure Kinect skeletal tracking, a nose-vector proxy for gaze direction, a learned posture classifier, pointing detection via a frustum, and Faster R-CNN object detection. Two scenarios are described: a Fibonacci weights task (knowledge support) and a simulated classroom project planning task (engagement/social cohesion). The authors claim to illustrate capabilities for detecting and tracking nonverbal behavior and for tracking common ground and engagement, with a demo video as supporting evidence.

Significance. If the system's claims were backed by evaluation, this would be a useful contribution to multimodal dialogue and AI-in-education: it integrates several nonverbal channels for real-time group interaction and explicitly targets common ground and engagement. The choice of components is sensible and builds on prior work by the same group, including common-ground tracking and gesture-phase detection. The demo is honest about being a capability illustration, but as submitted it reports no quantitative results for any module, and the most load-bearing assumption (the nose-direction gaze proxy) is unvalidated. The potential significance is real, but the current manuscript does not yet establish the central capability claims.

major comments (4)

[Our Setup (Gaze)] The nose-vector proxy for gaze direction is load-bearing for both scenarios, yet it is never validated. The Setup section states: 'we take the average position of both ear joints, which results in a point roughly behind the nose, and use a vector connecting this point and the nose joint to indicate gaze direction.' In multiparty tabletop interaction, head orientation and true gaze can diverge substantially: participants frequently shift their eyes to objects or partners without turning the head. Because joint visual attention is the basis for the common-ground and engagement inferences in both scenarios, the paper must provide evidence that this proxy yields correct target inference (e.g., comparison against human gaze annotations, with accuracy or precision numbers) or explicitly reframe the claims from gaze to head orientation.
[Overall evaluation] The manuscript contains no evaluation section and reports no metrics for any system component. The first scenario says 'To better evaluate the accuracy and utility of object detection,' but no accuracy, precision, recall, or qualitative assessment follows; the Faster R-CNN description in 'Our Setup' gives only training hyperparameters. Similarly, the posture classifier and pointing detector have no reported performance, and the common-ground/engagement state recognition has no agreement data. A demo video is illustrative, but it cannot substitute for quantitative or systematically collected qualitative evaluation, especially for a journal submission. Please add per-module evaluation results or clearly label the paper as a system description and remove evaluative framing such as 'To better evaluate.'
[Our Setup (Posture)] The posture detection paragraph describes a two-layer feedforward neural network but omits the input dimensionality, the training data size, the class labels (e.g., lean in/lean out/neutral), and the classification performance. Since posture is the primary engagement signal in the simulated classroom scenario, a reader cannot assess whether the system reliably distinguishes engagement from disengagement. Please report at least class-wise accuracy or a confusion matrix and define the posture classes explicitly.
[Video Content (both scenarios)] The paper asserts that gaze, pointing, and posture 'contextualize' common ground and engagement but never specifies how the detected nonverbal events update a common-ground model or an engagement state. The references to Khebour et al. (2024b) and Zhang et al. (2024) are helpful, but the demo's own cue-to-state inference is only illustrated, not defined. For example, the Dominated Discussion state is described as 'a single group member talking for 30 seconds or more,' yet the multimodal evidence that distinguishes disengaged participants from engaged ones is not operationalized. Please provide state definitions, the cue-to-state mapping, and some evidence (annotated examples or inter-annotator agreement) that these states are recognized correctly.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The phrase 'an holistic' should be 'a holistic.'
[Our Setup (Object detection)] The model name 'FasterRCNN ResNet-50-FPN' should have a space or hyphen, and 'learning rate1e−3' should read 'learning rate 1e−3.'
[Scenario 1: Fibonacci Weights Task] The sentence 'The increases in weight adhere to the Fibonacci series' is unclear: does it mean the physical block weights follow a Fibonacci sequence, or that the task's inferential steps do? Please clarify.
[Scenario 2: Simulated Classroom Project Planning] The Dominated Discussion state is mentioned with a 30-second criterion, but it is not stated where the state definitions and the educational-researcher vetting process are described; adding the specific reference or a short table of states would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the demo is an integration of independently specified modules; no claimed result reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a systems/demo description rather than a derivation. Its pipeline consists of gaze direction approximated by a nose-to-ear-midpoint vector, posture classification via a feedforward network trained separately per seat, pointing detection via a previously published two-stage method, object detection via a Faster R-CNN trained on annotated bounding boxes, and common-ground/engagement labels imported from prior iSAT work. None of these components is defined in terms of the demo's final 'common ground' or 'engagement' outputs; the final output is an illustrated overlay of detected targets and posture states. The self-citations (Khebour et al. 2024b, Zhang et al. 2024, VanderHoeven et al. 2023/2024) are ordinary references to prior modules, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or fitted parameters renamed as predictions. No equation in the paper equates an output to an input by construction. The weakest point is the unvalidated nose-direction proxy, but an unvalidated assumption is a correctness/robustness risk, not circularity. There is no evaluation section, so no 'prediction' is statistically forced. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted and exhibited, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The inference chain relies on several unvalidated domain assumptions, particularly nose-as-gaze, pointing frustum target selection, posture-as-engagement, and joint attention as common ground. Two sets of trained model weights are central to the demo but are not released. No new physical entities or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (2)

posture classification network weights
A two-layer feedforward network is trained per participant position, but no architecture or weight details are provided. The central engagement classification depends on these trained weights.
Faster R-CNN object detector fine-tuned weights
The detector is initialized from TorchVision ResNet-50-FPN and fine-tuned on the authors' annotations. Object detection in the weights task depends on these weights, which are not released.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Nose direction is a reliable proxy for gaze direction.
Used in the Setup section to compute gaze targets. All joint visual attention inferences depend on this proxy, but no validation of its accuracy is provided.
domain assumption The pointing frustum identifies the intended target object.
Objects intersecting the pointing frustum are considered selected. This assumes the geometric cone method correctly resolves the referent of a deictic gesture.
domain assumption Posture changes such as leaning in or out and duration of speaking reflect engagement or dominated discussion.
Used in Scenario 2 to classify social cohesion states. The paper cites educational psychology literature but performs no direct validation of these posture-to-engagement mappings in this system.
domain assumption Joint visual attention is a valid indicator of common knowledge and engagement.
This is central to connecting gaze and pointing to common-ground tracking. It is assumed rather than empirically established in the demo.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Speech Is Not Enough: Interpreting Nonverbal Indicators of Common Knowledge and Engagement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L36WHE7C

@misc{pith2026241205797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Speech Is Not Enough: Interpreting Nonverbal Indicators of Common Knowledge and Engagement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L36WHE7C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05797}
}

read the original abstract

Our goal is to develop an AI Partner that can provide support for group problem solving and social dynamics. In multi-party working group environments, multimodal analytics is crucial for identifying non-verbal interactions of group members. In conjunction with their verbal participation, this creates an holistic understanding of collaboration and engagement that provides necessary context for the AI Partner. In this demo, we illustrate our present capabilities at detecting and tracking nonverbal behavior in student task-oriented interactions in the classroom, and the implications for tracking common ground and engagement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05797 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Object detection in Weights Task even, Blanchard, and Krishnaswamy (2023, 2024) with features extracted from the video using MediaPipe (Lugaresi et al. 2019). First we detect if a gesture is in the “stroke” phase (following Kendon (1997)) and then classify the gesture’s shape. As with gaze, to infer the target objects of a pointing gesture, we calculate a “pointing frustum” (Kranstedt et al. 2006) from the extend… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Contrasting engagement levels in simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Dynamic Epistemic Friction in Dialogue
cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A vector-based belief-update model, grounded in dynamic epistemic logic, predicts final block-weight beliefs in a collaborative task from dialogue friction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

R.; and Dancis, J

Adams-Wiggins, K. R.; and Dancis, J. S. 2022. Marginality in inquiry-based science learning contexts: the role of exclusion cascades. Mind, culture, and activity, 29(4): 356--373

work page 2022
[4]

Biddy, Q.; Gendreau Chakarov, A.; Bush, J.; Hennessy Elliott, C.; Jacobs, J.; Recker, M.; Sumner, T.; and Penuel, W. 2021. A Professional Development Model to Integrate Computational Thinking Into Middle School Science Through Codesigned Storylines. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 21(1)

work page 2021
[5]

B.; Roncone, A.; Hirshfield, L

Cao, J.; Dickler, R.; Grace, M.; Bush, J. B.; Roncone, A.; Hirshfield, L. M.; Walker, M. A.; and Palmer, M. S. 2023 a . Designing an AI Partner for Jigsaw classrooms. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Language-Based AI Agent Interaction with Children (AIAIC'2023)

work page 2023
[6]

M.; Regan, M.; Kann, K.; Martin, J

Cao, J.; Ganesh, A.; Cai, J.; Southwell, R.; Perkoff, E. M.; Regan, M.; Kann, K.; Martin, J. H.; Palmer, M.; and D'Mello, S. 2023 b . A Comparative Analysis of Automatic Speech Recognition Errors in Small Group Classroom Discourse. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. ACM

work page 2023
[7]

Dey, I.; and Puntambekar, S. 2023. Examining nonverbal interactions to better understand collaborative learning . In Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2023, 273--276. International Society of the Learning Sciences

work page 2023
[8]

K.; Biddy, Q.; Breideband, T.; Bush, J.; Chang, M.; Cortez, A.; Flanigan, J.; Foltz, P

D'Mello, S. K.; Biddy, Q.; Breideband, T.; Bush, J.; Chang, M.; Cortez, A.; Flanigan, J.; Foltz, P. W.; Gorman, J. C.; Hirshfield, L.; Ko, M.; Krishnaswamy, N.; Lieber, R.; Martin, J.; Palmer, M.; Penuel, W. R.; Philip, T.; Puntambekar, S.; Pustejovsky, J.; Reitman, J. G.; Sumner, T.; Tissenbaum, M.; Walker, L.; and Whitehill, J. 2024. From learning optim...

work page 2024

Show all 21 references

[9]

Kendon, A. 1997. Gesture. Annual review of anthropology, 26(1): 109--128

1997
[10]

M.; Puntambekar, S.; Blanchard, N.; James, P.; and Krishnaswamy, N

Khebour, I.; Brutti, R.; Dey, I.; Dickler, R.; Sikes, K.; Lai, K.; Bradford, M.; Cates, B.; Hansen, P.; Jung, C.; Wisniewski, B.; Terpstra, C.; Hirshfield, L. M.; Puntambekar, S.; Blanchard, N.; James, P.; and Krishnaswamy, N. 2024 a . When Text and Speech are Not Enough: A Mu...

2024
[11]

K.; Lai, K.; Bradford, M.; Zhu, Y.; Brutti, R

Khebour, I. K.; Lai, K.; Bradford, M.; Zhu, Y.; Brutti, R. A.; Tam, C.; Tu, J.; Ibarra, B. A.; Blanchard, N.; Krishnaswamy, N.; and Pustejovsky, J. 2024 b . Common Ground Tracking in Multimodal Dialogue. In Calzolari, N.; Kan, M.-Y.; Hoste, V.; Lenci, A.; Sakti, S.; and Xue, N...

2024
[12]

Kofod-Petersen, A.; Wegener, R.; and Cassens, J. 2009. Closed Doors -- Modelling Intention in Behavioural Interfaces. Tapir Akademisk Forlag, Trondheim, Norway

2009
[13]

Kranstedt, A.; L \"u cking, A.; Pfeiffer, T.; Rieser, H.; and Wachsmuth, I. 2006. Deixis: How to determine demonstrated objects using a pointing cone. In Gesture in Human-Computer Interaction and Simulation: 6th International Gesture Workshop, GW 2005, Berder Island, France, M...

2006
[14]

Lin, T.-Y.; Doll \'a r, P.; Girshick, R.; He, K.; Hariharan, B.; and Belongie, S. 2017. Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2117--2125

2017
[15]

Lugaresi, C.; Tang, J.; Nash, H.; McClanahan, C.; Uboweja, E.; Hays, M.; Zhang, F.; Chang, C.-L.; Yong, M.; Lee, J.; et al. 2019. Mediapipe: A framework for perceiving and processing reality. In Third workshop on computer vision for AR/VR at IEEE computer vision and pattern re...

2019
[16]

Moore, A. 2016. Lovers, wrestlers, surgeons: a contextually sensitive approach to modelling body alignment and interpersonal engagement in surgical teams., 257--285. ISBN 9781781790502

2016
[17]

G.; Duran, N

Moulder, R. G.; Duran, N. D.; and D'Mello, S. K. 2022. Assessing multimodal dynamics in multi-party collaborative interactions with multi-level vector autoregression. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, 615--625

2022
[18]

Tu, J.; Rim, K.; Ye, B.; Lai, K.; and Pustejovsky, J. 2024. Dense Paraphrasing for Multimodal Dialogue Interpretation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7

2024
[19]

VanderHoeven, H.; Blanchard, N.; and Krishnaswamy, N. 2023. Robust motion recognition using gesture phase annotation. In International conference on human-computer interaction, 592--608. Springer

2023
[20]

VanderHoeven, H.; Blanchard, N.; and Krishnaswamy, N. 2024. Point target detection for multimodal communication. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 356--373. Springer

2024
[21]

JIA Fueled My Ideas

Zhang, R.; Cao, J.; Dey, I.; Foltz, P.; Palmer, M.; Tissenbaum, M.; Biddy, Q.; Doherty, E.; Bodzianowski, M.; Palmer, D.; and Hirshfield, L. 2024. "JIA Fueled My Ideas": Designing an Interactive AI Partner for Assisting Small Group Collaborations among Students Aged 12-17. In ...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

R.; and Dancis, J

Adams-Wiggins, K. R.; and Dancis, J. S. 2022. Marginality in inquiry-based science learning contexts: the role of exclusion cascades. Mind, culture, and activity, 29(4): 356--373

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Biddy, Q.; Gendreau Chakarov, A.; Bush, J.; Hennessy Elliott, C.; Jacobs, J.; Recker, M.; Sumner, T.; and Penuel, W. 2021. A Professional Development Model to Integrate Computational Thinking Into Middle School Science Through Codesigned Storylines. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 21(1)

work page 2021

[5] [5]

B.; Roncone, A.; Hirshfield, L

Cao, J.; Dickler, R.; Grace, M.; Bush, J. B.; Roncone, A.; Hirshfield, L. M.; Walker, M. A.; and Palmer, M. S. 2023 a . Designing an AI Partner for Jigsaw classrooms. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Language-Based AI Agent Interaction with Children (AIAIC'2023)

work page 2023

[6] [6]

M.; Regan, M.; Kann, K.; Martin, J

Cao, J.; Ganesh, A.; Cai, J.; Southwell, R.; Perkoff, E. M.; Regan, M.; Kann, K.; Martin, J. H.; Palmer, M.; and D'Mello, S. 2023 b . A Comparative Analysis of Automatic Speech Recognition Errors in Small Group Classroom Discourse. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. ACM

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Dey, I.; and Puntambekar, S. 2023. Examining nonverbal interactions to better understand collaborative learning . In Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2023, 273--276. International Society of the Learning Sciences

work page 2023

[8] [8]

K.; Biddy, Q.; Breideband, T.; Bush, J.; Chang, M.; Cortez, A.; Flanigan, J.; Foltz, P

D'Mello, S. K.; Biddy, Q.; Breideband, T.; Bush, J.; Chang, M.; Cortez, A.; Flanigan, J.; Foltz, P. W.; Gorman, J. C.; Hirshfield, L.; Ko, M.; Krishnaswamy, N.; Lieber, R.; Martin, J.; Palmer, M.; Penuel, W. R.; Philip, T.; Puntambekar, S.; Pustejovsky, J.; Reitman, J. G.; Sumner, T.; Tissenbaum, M.; Walker, L.; and Whitehill, J. 2024. From learning optim...

work page 2024