Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 96 references

From Complexity to Parsimony: Integrating Latent Class Analysis to Uncover Multimodal Learning Patterns in Collaborative Learning

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that latent class analysis can compress 17 monomodal behavioral indicators into four interpretable multimodal classes that explain students' satisfaction with tasks and collaboration better than the original indicators.

desk verdict A useful LCA-based compression method for multimodal learning analytics, but the 'higher explanatory power' claim rests on a variance metric that is not comparable across code sets and is contradicted by the paper's own effect sizes. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15590 v1 pith:GXOVGIJA submitted 2024-11-23 cs.LG cs.HCstat.ME

Lixiang Yan , Dragan Gašević , Linxuan Zhao , Vanessa Echeverria , Yueqiao Jin , Roberto Martinez-Maldonado This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.HCstat.ME
keywords multimodallearninganalyticslatentclassanalysiscollaborativehealthcaresimulationepistemicnetworkbehavioralindicatorsdatafusionembodiedcollaboration
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

This paper proposes a methodology for compressing multimodal learning-analytics data: instead of analyzing many modality-specific behavior indicators separately, it uses latent class analysis to group the indicators into a small set of recurring multi-modality behavior types. In a high-fidelity healthcare simulation with 56 students, the authors derived 17 monomodal indicators from position, audio, and heart-rate data, and found that four latent classes—collaborative communication, embodied collaboration, distant interaction, and solitary engagement—capture the main patterns. Compared with the 17 original indicators, the four class-based indicators produced simpler epistemic networks and explained more variance in students' satisfaction with their task performance and team collaboration. The overarching claim is that latent class analysis offers a general route from confusingly many data streams to interpretable, theory-friendly multimodal indicators.

What carries the argument

The central object is a latent class model fitted to synchronized, binarized behavioral indicators. Each learner's 60-second interval is represented as a binary vector over the 17 monomodal indicators; latent class analysis estimates a small number of classes with distinct probability profiles across those indicators, and assigns each interval to its most probable class. This person-centered step converts a large variable-centered feature set into four multimodal codes. Epistemic network analysis then builds co-occurrence networks from these codes, and Means Rotation plus the Bayesian Information Criterion guide model comparison and group separation, making the parsimony claim quantitative.

What would settle it

Re-run the same pipeline with alternative window sizes (e.g., 30 or 120 seconds) or alternative binarization thresholds (e.g., 5 or 20 seconds of positioning, or 40% instead of 50% of the interval for physiology); if the number of latent classes changes or the four-class model no longer explains more variance than the 17 monomodal indicators in epistemic network analysis, the central claim of parsimony with higher explanatory power is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using ultra-wideband positioning, headset audio, and heart-rate data from a high-fidelity healthcare simulation, the paper derives 17 monomodal behavioral indicators and then applies latent class analysis to binarized 60-second intervals. The resulting four latent classes each show a distinctive combination of spatial, verbal, and physiological activity: Collaborative Communication (working near teammates while talking and showing arousal and physiological synchrony), Embodied Collaboration (same spatial and physiological pattern but without verbal communication), Distant Interaction (working alone on the primary task while still talking and staying physiologically synchronized), and Solitary Engagement (working alone on a secondary task, aroused but not synchronized). When used as codes in epistemic network analysis, the four classes separated satisfied from unsatisfied students with higher variance explained along the primary comparison axis (17.5% versus 9.3% for task satisfaction, and 15.6% versus 8.5% for collaboration satisfaction) than the 17 monomodal codes, while also being easier to interpret. The paper's central claim is that this demonstrates a methodology for mapping monomodal indicators to parsimonious multimodal ones that preserves granularity while increasing explanatory power.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes each 60-second interval from the same student is an independent observation, and uses researcher-chosen thresholds to decide whether a behavior was present in that interval; if intervals from one learner are correlated or the thresholds shift, the four classes and their explanatory advantage may not be stable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multimodal learning-analytics studies could replace dozens of raw behavioral indicators with a small number of interpretable multimodal classes, making dashboards and feedback legible to educators.
  • The method gives a concrete way to move from sensor streams to theory-relevant constructs, supporting person-centered analyses in line with survey-based learning research.
  • Because each 60-second interval is assigned a class, the approach yields a time series of collaboration modes, enabling studies of how teams transition between modes during an activity.
  • The fact that four codes explained more variance than 17 suggests that cross-modality co-occurrence, not any single modality, is the better signal for learner experience.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the outcome measures are self-reported satisfaction rather than directly measured task or collaboration performance; if the four classes also predict objective performance (e.g., clinical checklist scores or team outcomes), their practical value would be stronger.
  • Editorial inference: the classes were induced from a single healthcare-simulation context and may not transfer to other collaborative settings such as design studios or online groups; replicating with a pre-registered class structure in another context would test generality.
  • Editorial inference: the independence assumption on same-student intervals is a candidate weak point; fitting a hidden Markov model or a multilevel latent class analysis that allows within-student correlation would reveal whether the four classes are genuine behavioral states or artifacts of the chosen aggregation window.
  • Editorial inference: if the class structure is stable under different window sizes and binarization thresholds, the four classes could serve as compact inputs for real-time feedback systems, for instance flagging long spells of Solitary Engagement during a team task.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a methodology that applies latent class analysis (LCA) to 17 binarized monomodal behavioral indicators (spatial, verbal, and physiological) collected from 56 students in 14 healthcare simulation sessions, yielding four latent classes that are treated as four multimodal indicators. The authors then use epistemic network analysis (ENA) to compare networks built from the 17 monomodal codes with networks built from the four latent-class codes, and they claim that the four-code model is not only more parsimonious but also has higher explanatory power with respect to students' satisfaction with task and collaboration performance. The main evidence for this claim is the percentage of variance explained by the first ENA dimension after Means Rotation (9.3% versus 17.5% for task satisfaction; 8.5% versus 15.6% for collaboration satisfaction).

Significance. The proposed aim of reducing the complexity of multimodal data while retaining interpretable, cross-modality indicators addresses a genuine problem in multimodal learning analytics, and the high-fidelity healthcare simulation context is a realistic and appropriate testbed. The paper demonstrates a plausible and potentially reusable pipeline of synchronization, LCA, and ENA, and the four latent classes are interpretable. However, the central validation claim of superior explanatory power is not supported by the reported statistics: the comparison of variance explained across code sets of different sizes is not a valid measure of explanatory power, and the directly comparable effect sizes point in the opposite direction. The manuscript would be a useful methodological contribution if reframed as a compression and interpretability approach with an evaluation that does not overclaim predictive or explanatory superiority.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.2.1; Section 4.2.2] The central claim that the four multimodal indicators have 'more explanatory power' is not supported by the evidence. The comparison rests on MR1 variance explained (9.3% vs 17.5%; 8.5% vs 15.6%), but this quantity is computed within each ENA model after Means Rotation and is not comparable across code sets with 17 versus 4 nodes. The directly comparable statistics in the same sections show no improvement: for task satisfaction, monomodal r=0.39 versus multimodal r=0.31; for collaboration satisfaction, monomodal r=0.59 versus multimodal r=0.51 in magnitude; and the multimodal task-satisfaction medians are identical (Mdn=0.01 vs 0.01). The abstract and discussion should be revised to avoid claiming higher explanatory power, or the claim should be supported by a valid model comparison such as cross-validated prediction, permutation tests, or a metric that accounts for model dimensionality.
  2. [Section 3.2.3; Section 3.3] The LCA treats each 60-second interval as an independent observation even though intervals are nested within students and temporally ordered. This likely inflates the effective sample size and can lead to overconfident estimates of the class structure. Because the derived latent classes are the input to the ENA comparison, the main result depends on this assumption. The authors should assess robustness, for example by fitting LCA with cluster-robust standard errors, multilevel or dynamic latent class models, or by demonstrating stability on a subsample of one interval per student.
  3. [Section 3.2.2] The binarization thresholds (10 consecutive seconds for positioning, at least one occurrence for communication, more than half the interval for physiology, and the baseline definition for arousal) are hand-chosen, and no sensitivity analysis is reported. These thresholds determine the binary sequences that feed the LCA, so the identified four-class solution and the subsequent ENA comparison may not be robust to plausible alternative thresholds. At minimum, the authors should report how class enumeration and the ENA comparisons change under reasonable variations (e.g., 5 versus 15 seconds of positioning, or 40% versus 60% of the interval for physiology).
  4. [Section 3.1; Section 4.2] The outcome measures are single-item self-reported satisfaction with task performance and with collaboration, not measured task or collaboration performance. The text nevertheless repeatedly refers to 'task and collaboration performances' (e.g., Abstract and Section 4.2 headings). This conflates a subjective post hoc evaluation with performance. The authors should either use actual performance outcomes (e.g., clinical task scores) or consistently describe the outcomes as satisfaction and discuss the associated limitations.
  5. [Section 3.3] The Bonferroni correction is stated but not implemented in the reported results. With four Mann-Whitney U tests per satisfaction outcome (two axes, two models), the corrected alpha would be 0.0125, under which the monomodal task-satisfaction result (p=0.014) and the multimodal task-satisfaction result (p=0.045) would no longer be significant. The authors should report corrected thresholds or adjusted p-values and reinterpret the results accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.3] The code name 'SP.task.discussion' appears in this section, but Section 3.2.1 defines 'SP.task.distribution'; the code names should be unified.
  2. [Section 3.2.1] There is a typo in 'verbal acitivity'; it should read 'verbal activity'.
  3. [Section 3.3] The LCA model selection currently reports only that BIC and log-likelihood were used; the authors should report the fit indices for models with one through ten classes, along with entropy or average posterior probabilities, so that the choice of four classes can be assessed.
  4. [Section 4.2] The paper would benefit from reporting confidence intervals or effect-size uncertainty for the Mann-Whitney U tests, since the medians alone (e.g., identical medians in the multimodal task-satisfaction comparison) do not convey the distributional overlap.
  5. [References] References [89] and [90] appear to be the same work with identical titles; this duplicate reference should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LCA-derived multimodal indicators and the ENA comparison to satisfaction are independent by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Sensor data are transformed into 17 monomodal indicators using explicit thresholds and coding rules (Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2), and LCA is fit to those indicators only; the four latent classes are then used as codes in ENA. The outcome variables, self-reported satisfaction with task and collaboration, enter only at the ENA stage, after the latent classes have been estimated, so the association between classes and satisfaction is an external comparison rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a result. The "more explanatory power" claim rests on the percentage of MR1 variance explained in the two ENA models (17.5% vs 9.3%; 15.6% vs 8.5%). This comparison may be statistically questionable because variance-explained proportions across code sets of different sizes are not directly comparable, and the directly reported effect sizes are mixed (task satisfaction r=0.39 monomodal vs r=0.31 multimodal; collaboration satisfaction magnitude 0.59 vs 0.51). However, that is a validity and interpretation concern, not circularity: neither variance-explained value is defined in terms of the other, and the outcome was not used to construct the LCA classes. The self-citations in the paper support prior indicator definitions and context (e.g., [85], [87], [88], [92]), but no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-cited existence or uniqueness theorem. The paper also acknowledges subjective class-number choice and LCA's simplifying assumptions in its limitations, which further supports treating the findings as empirical rather than definitionally forced. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation or construction, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All free parameters are hand-chosen thresholds or splits, not numbers fitted to optimize the outcome claim. The LCA class probabilities are estimated from data, which is ordinary statistical estimation rather than tuning a free parameter. The main ad hoc assumption is the independence of repeated intervals; no new physical or conceptual entities are invented.

free parameters (5)
  • 60-second interval length = 60 s
    Chosen as the aggregation window to balance weights across modalities; Section 3.2.2.
  • Positioning presence threshold = 10 consecutive seconds
    Present (1) only if behavior lasted at least 10 seconds; Section 3.2.2.
  • Physiological presence threshold = more than half of the interval (30 s)
    Present if demonstrated for over 30 seconds; Section 3.2.2.
  • Satisfaction group split = Likert 4
    Satisfied if score four or above, unsatisfied otherwise; Section 3.3.
  • Arousal baseline = average heart rate during first phase
    Baseline defined as average HR in phase one; Section 3.1.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Each person belongs to exactly one latent class at each time point, with local independence of indicators within a class.
    Core LCA assumption invoked in Section 3.2.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Repeated 60-second intervals from the same student can be treated as independent observations in the LCA.
    The paper pools multiple intervals per learner without adjusting standard errors or using a repeated-measures LCA; Section 3.2.3 and Figure 2.
  • standard math The ENA Means Rotation projection optimizes group mean differences and can be interpreted as a variance-explained measure for comparing models.
    Used in Section 3.3 and results; the paper cites reference [5].
  • domain assumption Self-reported single-item satisfaction scales are valid proxies for task and collaboration performance.
    Section 3.1 calls the outcome satisfaction, while the abstract and discussion refer to task and collaboration performances; the paper cites reference [77].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Complexity to Parsimony: Integrating Latent Class Analysis to Uncover Multimodal Learning Patterns in Collaborative Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GXOVGIJA

@misc{pith2026241115590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Complexity to Parsimony: Integrating Latent Class Analysis to Uncover Multimodal Learning Patterns in Collaborative Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GXOVGIJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15590}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal Learning Analytics (MMLA) leverages advanced sensing technologies and artificial intelligence to capture complex learning processes, but integrating diverse data sources into cohesive insights remains challenging. This study introduces a novel methodology for integrating latent class analysis (LCA) within MMLA to map monomodal behavioural indicators into parsimonious multimodal ones. Using a high-fidelity healthcare simulation context, we collected positional, audio, and physiological data, deriving 17 monomodal indicators. LCA identified four distinct latent classes: Collaborative Communication, Embodied Collaboration, Distant Interaction, and Solitary Engagement, each capturing unique monomodal patterns. Epistemic network analysis compared these multimodal indicators with the original monomodal indicators and found that the multimodal approach was more parsimonious while offering higher explanatory power regarding students' task and collaboration performances. The findings highlight the potential of LCA in simplifying the analysis of complex multimodal data while capturing nuanced, cross-modality behaviours, offering actionable insights for educators and enhancing the design of collaborative learning interventions. This study proposes a pathway for advancing MMLA, making it more parsimonious and manageable, and aligning with the principles of learner-centred education.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15590 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mapping from sensory data to monomodal behavioural codes and then to multimodal behavioural codes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of A) synchronising positioning, audio, and physiological data into 60-second intervals and B) categorising each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Four latent classes of multimodal behaviours (1 - present; 0 - absent), including Collaborative Communication (top-left), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of epistemic networks generated from 17 monomodal (left) and four multimodal behavioural codes (right) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of epistemic networks generated from 17 monomodal (left) and four multimodal behavioural codes (right) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Haifa Alwahaby, Mutlu Cukurova, Zacharoula Papamitsiou, and Michail Giannakos. 2022. The evidence of impact and ethical considerations of Multimodal Learning Analytics: A Systematic Literature Review . Springer, 289–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08076-0_12

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08076-0_12 2022

  2. [2]

    Lawrence W Barsalou. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59 (2008), 617–645

    2008

  3. [3]

    Glenn Barton, Anne Bruce, and Rita Schreiber. 2018. Teaching nurses teamwork: Integrative review of competency-based team training in nursing education. Nurse Education in Practice 32 (2018), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.11.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2017.11.019 2018

  4. [4]

    Paulo Blikstein. 2013. Multimodal learning analytics. In LAK ’13. 102–106

    2013

  5. [5]

    Dale Bowman, Zachari Swiecki, Zhiqiang Cai, Yeyu Wang, Brendan Eagan, Jeff Linderoth, and David Williamson Shaffer. 2021. The mathematical foundations of epistemic network analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Quantitative Ethnography . Springer, 91–105

    2021

  6. [6]

    John Seely Brown, Allan Collins, and Paul Duguid. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18, 1 (1989), 32–42

    1989

  7. [7]

    Simon Buckingham Shum and Rebecca Ferguson. 2012. Social learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 15, 3 (2012), 3–26

    2012

  8. [8]

    Wilson Chango, Rebeca Cerezo, Miguel Sanchez-Santillan, Roger Azevedo, and Cristóbal Romero. 2021. Improving prediction of students’ performance in intelligent tutoring systems using attribute selection and ensembles of different multimodal data sources. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 33 (2021), 614–634

    2021

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Wilson Chango, Juan A Lara, Rebeca Cerezo, and Cristóbal Romero. 2022. A review on data fusion in multimodal learning analytics and educational data mining. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 12, 4 (2022), e1458

    2022

  2. [10]

    Pankaj Chejara, Luis P Prieto, Maria Jesus Rodriguez-Triana, Adolfo Ruiz-Calleja, and Mohammad Khalil. 2023. Impact of window size on the generalizability of collaboration quality estimation models developed using Multimodal Learning Analytics. In LAK23: 13th International Lea...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Edwin Chng, Mohamed Raouf Seyam, William Yao, and Bertrand Schneider. 2020. Using Motion Sensors to Understand Collaborative Interactions in Digital Fabrication Labs. In AIED 2020. Springer, 118–128

    2020

  4. [12]

    Yi Han Victoria Chua, Justin Dauwels, and Seng Chee Tan. 2019. Technologies for automated analysis of co-located, real-life, physical learning spaces: Where are we now?. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge . 11–20

    2019

  5. [13]

    Lucrezia Crescenzi-Lanna. 2020. Multimodal Learning Analytics research with young children: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology 51, 5 (2020), 1485–1504

    2020

  6. [14]

    Andras Csanadi, Brendan Eagan, Ingo Kollar, David Williamson Shaffer, and Frank Fischer. 2018. When coding-and-counting is not enough: Using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research. IJCSCL 13 (2018), 419–438

    2018

  7. [15]

    Mutlu Cukurova. 2019. Learning analytics as AI extenders in education: Multimodal machine learning versus multimodal learning analytics. In Artificial intelligence and adaptive education , Vol. 2019. AIAED

    2019

  8. [16]

    Mutlu Cukurova, Michail Giannakos, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2020. The promise and challenges of multimodal learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology 51, 5 (Sept. 2020), 1441–1449. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13015

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Muhterem Dindar, Sanna Järvelä, and Eetu Haataja. 2020. What does physiological synchrony reveal about metacognitive experiences and group performance? British Journal of Educational Technology 51, 5 (2020), 1577–1596

    2020

  10. [18]

    Federico Dominguez, Xavier Ochoa, Dick Zambrano, Katherine Camacho, and Jaime Castells. 2021. Scaling and Adopting a Multimodal Learning Analytics Application in an Institution-Wide Setting. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Vanessa Ivonne Echeverria Barzola. 2020. Designing feedback for collocated teams using multimodal learning analytics . Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Technology Sydney

    2020

  12. [20]

    Yizhou Fan, Yuanru Tan, Mladen Raković, Yeyu Wang, Zhiqiang Cai, David Williamson Shaffer, and Dragan Gašević. 2022. Dissecting Learning Tactics in MOOC using Ordered Network Analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2022), in press

    2022

  13. [21]

    Juliene Madureira Ferreira. 2021. What if we look at the body? An embodied perspective of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review 33, 4 (2021), 1455–1473. Manuscript submitted to ACM Integrating Latent Class Analysis to Uncover Multimodal Learning Patterns 15

    2021

  14. [22]

    Lani Florian and Kristine Black-Hawkins. 2011. Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal 37, 5 (2011), 813–828

    2011

  15. [23]

    Michail N Giannakos, Kshitij Sharma, Ilias O Pappas, Vassilis Kostakos, and Eduardo Velloso. 2019. Multimodal data as a means to understand the learning experience. International Journal of Information Management 48 (2019), 108–119

    2019

  16. [24]

    Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2005. Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think . Harvard University Press

    2005

  17. [25]

    Ilanit Gordon, Sebastian Wallot, and Yair Berson. 2021. Group-level physiological synchrony and individual-level anxiety predict positive affective behaviors during a group decision-making task. Psychophysiology 58, 9 (2021), e13857

    2021

  18. [26]

    Saul Greenberg, Sebastian Boring, Jo Vermeulen, and Jakub Dostal. 2014. Dark patterns in proxemic interactions: a critical perspective. InProceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems . 523–532

    2014

  19. [27]

    Bor Gregorcic, Gorazd Planinsic, and Eugenia Etkina. 2017. Doing science by waving hands: Talk, symbiotic gesture, and interaction with digital content as resources in student inquiry. Physical Review Physics Education Research 13, 2 (2017), 020104

    2017

  20. [28]

    Melissa Gresalfi and Sasha Barab. 2011. Learning for a reason: Supporting forms of engagement by designing tasks and orchestrating environments. Theory into Practice 50, 4 (2011), 300–310

    2011

  21. [29]

    Eetu Haataja, Jonna Malmberg, and Sanna Järvelä. 2018. Monitoring in collaborative learning: Co-occurrence of observed behavior and physiological synchrony explored. Computers in Human Behavior 87 (2018), 337–347

    2018

  22. [30]

    Jacques A Hagenaars and Allan L McCutcheon. 2002. Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge University Press

    2002

  23. [31]

    Edward T Hall. 1971. Proxemics and design. Design and Environment (1971)

    1971

  24. [32]

    Sendeyah Hantoobi, Ahlam Wahdan, Mostafa Al-Emran, and Khaled Shaalan. 2021. A review of learning analytics studies. Recent advances in technology acceptance models and theories (2021), 119–134

    2021

  25. [33]

    Marianna Ioannou, Yiannis Georgiou, Andri Ioannou, and Mina Johnson. 2019. On the understanding of students’ learning and perceptions of technology integration in low-and high-embodied group learning. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Co...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Sanna Järvelä, Muhterem Dindar, Marta Sobocinski, and Andy Nguyen. 2022. Multimodal research for studying collaborative learning in higher education. In Handbook of Digital Higher Education . Edward Elgar Publishing, 199–210

    2022

  27. [35]

    Aditya Johri and Barbara M Olds. 2011. Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education 100, 1 (2011), 151–185

    2011

  28. [36]

    In Gu Kang. 2020. Heterogeneity of learners’ behavioral patterns of watching videos and completing assessments in massive open online courses (MOOCs): A latent class analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 21, 4 (2020), 221–237

    2020

  29. [37]

    Reet Kasepalu, Pankaj Chejara, Luis P Prieto, and Tobias Ley. 2021. Do Teachers Find Dashboards Trustworthy, Actionable and Useful? A Vignette Study Using a Logs and Audio Dashboard. Technology, Knowledge and Learning (2021), 1–19

    2021

  30. [38]

    Simon Knight and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2017. Theory and learning analytics. Handbook of learning analytics (2017), 17–22

    2017

  31. [39]

    Simon Knight, Alyssa Friend Wise, and Bodong Chen. 2017. Time for change: Why learning analytics needs temporal analysis.JLA 4, 3 (2017), 7–17

    2017

  32. [40]

    Marjan Laal and Seyed Mohammad Ghodsi. 2012. Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 31 (2012), 486–490

    2012

  33. [41]

    Stephanie T Lanza and Brittany L Rhoades. 2013. Latent class analysis: an alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention science 14, 2 (2013), 157–168

    2013

  34. [42]

    Fatimah Lateef. 2010. Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma and Shock 3, 4 (2010), 348

    2010

  35. [43]

    Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge university press

    1991

  36. [44]

    Margaret M Luciano, John E Mathieu, Semin Park, and Scott I Tannenbaum. 2018. A fitting approach to construct and measurement alignment: The role of big data in advancing dynamic theories. Organizational Research Methods 21, 3 (2018), 592–632

    2018

  37. [45]

    Jonna Malmberg, Oliver Fincham, Héctor J Pijeira-Díaz, Sanna Järvelä, and Dragan Gašević. 2021. Revealing the hidden structure of physiological states during metacognitive monitoring in collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 37, 3 (2021), 861–874

    2021

  38. [46]

    CL Marquart, C Hinojosa, Z Swiecki, B Eagan, and DW Shaffer. 2018. Epistemic Network Analysis (Version 1.7. 0)[Software]. A vailable from app. epistemicnetwork. org (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Mary L McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica 22, 3 (2012), 276–282

    2012

  40. [48]

    Neil Mercer. 2004. Sociocultural discourse analysis. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1, 2 (2004), 137–168

    2004

  41. [49]

    Kristi Miller, William Riley, and Stanley Davis. 2009. Identifying key nursing and team behaviours to achieve high reliability. Journal of Nursing Management 17, 2 (2009), 247–255

    2009

  42. [50]

    Naomi Miyake. 2007. Computer supported collaborative learning. The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (2007), 248–265

    2007

  43. [51]

    Hamed Monkaresi, Nigel Bosch, Rafael A Calvo, and Sidney K D’Mello. 2016. Automated detection of engagement using video-based estimation of facial expressions and heart rate. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 8, 1 (2016), 15–28

    2016

  44. [52]

    Su Mu, Meng Cui, and Xiaodi Huang. 2020. Multimodal data fusion in learning analytics: A systematic review. Sensors 20, 23 (2020), 6856

    2020

  45. [53]

    Omid Noroozi, Iman Alikhani, Sanna Järvelä, Paul A Kirschner, Ilkka Juuso, and Tapio Seppänen. 2019. Multimodal data to design visual learning analytics for understanding regulation of learning. Computers in Human Behavior 100 (2019), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.019

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Xavier Ochoa. 2022. Multimodal Learning Analytics – Rationale, Process, Examples, and Direction . Society for Learning Analytics Research, 54–65

    2022

  47. [55]

    Xavier Ochoa and Marcelo Worsley. 2016. Augmenting learning analytics with multimodal sensory data. JLA 3, 2 (2016), 213–219

    2016

  48. [56]

    Héctor J Pijeira-Díaz, Hendrik Drachsler, Sanna Järvelä, and Paul A Kirschner. 2016. Investigating collaborative learning success with physiological coupling indices based on electrodermal activity. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Analytics and K...

    2016

  49. [57]

    Sambit Praharaj, Maren Scheffel, Marcel Schmitz, Marcus Specht, and Hendrik Drachsler. 2021. Towards automatic collaboration analytics for group speech data using learning analytics. Sensors 21, 9 (2021), 3156

    2021

  50. [58]

    Miguel A Ronda-Carracao, Olga C Santos, Gloria Fernandez-Nieto, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2021. Towards Exploring Stress Reactions in Teamwork using Multimodal Physiological Data. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Multimodal Artificial Intelligence in E...

    2021

  51. [59]

    Big Five

    Eduardo Salas, Dana E. Sims, and C. Shawn Burke. 2005. Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork? Small Group Research 36, 5 (2005), 555–599

    2005

  52. [60]

    Jeanette Samuelsen, Weiqin Chen, and Barbara Wasson. 2019. Integrating multiple data sources for learning analytics—review of literature. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 14, 1 (2019), 11

    2019

  53. [61]

    Nazmus Saquib, Ayesha Bose, Dwyane George, and Sepandar Kamvar. 2018. Sensei: Sensing Educational Interaction. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 4 (2018), 1–27

    2018

  54. [62]

    Nabila Sghir, Amina Adadi, and Mohammed Lahmer. 2023. Recent advances in Predictive Learning Analytics: A decade systematic review (2012–2022). Education and information technologies 28, 7 (2023), 8299–8333

    2023

  55. [63]

    David Williamson Shaffer, Wesley Collier, and Andrew R Ruis. 2016. A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. JLA 3, 3 (2016), 9–45

    2016

  56. [64]

    Kshitij Sharma and Michail Giannakos. 2020. Multimodal data capabilities for learning: What can multimodal data tell us about learning? British Journal of Educational Technology 51, 5 (2020), 1450–1484

    2020

  57. [65]

    Márta Sobocinski, Jonna Malmberg, and Sanna Järvelä. 2021. Exploring Adaptation in Socially-Shared Regulation of Learning Using Video and Heart Rate Data. Technology, Knowledge and Learning (2021), 1–20

    2021

  58. [66]

    Márta Sobocinski, Jonna Malmberg, and Sanna Järvelä. 2022. Exploring Adaptation in Socially-Shared Regulation of Learning Using Video and Heart Rate Data. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 27, 2 (2022), 385–404

    2022

  59. [67]

    Southwell, S

    R. Southwell, S. Pugh, E. M. Perkoff, C. Clevenger, J. B. Bush, R. Lieber, W. Ward, P. Foltz, and S. D’Mello. 2022. Challenges and Feasibility of Automatic Speech Recognition for Modeling Student Collaborative Discourse in Classrooms. In Proceedings of the 15th International C...

    2022

  60. [68]

    Daniel Spikol, Mutlu Cukurova, and Emanuele Ruffaldi. 2017. Using multimodal learning analytics to identify aspects of collaboration in project-based learning. In CSCL’17: The 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Philadelphia, PA (June 18...

    2017

  61. [69]

    Hanall Sung, Michael I Swart, and Mitchell J Nathan. 2022. Methods for analyzing temporally entangled multimodal data. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning-CSCL 2022, pp. 242-249 . International Society of the Learnin...

    2022

  62. [70]

    Iakovos Theodoulou, Marios Nicolaides, Thanos Athanasiou, Apostolos Papalois, and Michail Sideris. 2018. Simulation-based learning strategies to teach undergraduate students basic surgical skills: a systematic review. Journal of Surgical Education 75, 5 (2018), 1374–1388

    2018

  63. [71]

    Agnes Tiwari, Dave Lam, KH Yuen, Rose Chan, Tracy Fung, and Sophia Chan. 2005. Student learning in clinical nursing education: Perceptions of the relationship between assessment and learning. Nurse education today 25, 4 (2005), 299–308

    2005

  64. [72]

    Tim Urdan and Erin Schoenfelder. 2006. Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of school psychology 44, 5 (2006), 331–349

    2006

  65. [73]

    Elizabeth E Van Voorhees, Paul A Dennis, Lana L Watkins, Tapan A Patel, Patrick S Calhoun, Michelle F Dennis, and Jean C Beckham. 2022. Ambulatory Heart Rate Variability Monitoring: Comparisons Between the Empatica E4 Wristband and Holter ECG. Psychosomatic medicine 84, 2 (2022), 210

    2022

  66. [74]

    Olga Viberg, Linda Engström, Mohammed Saqr, and Stefan Hrastinski. 2022. Exploring students’ expectations of learning analytics: A person-centered approach. Education and Information Technologies 27, 6 (2022), 8561–8581

    2022

  67. [75]

    Lev Semenovich Vygotsky and Michael Cole. 1978. Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes . Harvard university press

    1978

  68. [76]

    Yuxuan Wang and Xiaoqing Gu. 2024. Data Fusion in Classroom-Based Multimodal Learning Analytics: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2024, pp. 951-954 . International Society of the Learning Sciences

    2024

  69. [77]

    John P Wanous, Arnon E Reichers, and Michael J Hudy. 1997. Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 2 (1997), 247

    1997

  70. [78]

    Alexander Whitelock-Wainwright, Yi-Shan Tsai, Hendrik Drachsler, Maren Scheffel, and Dragan Gašević. 2021. An exploratory latent class analysis of student expectations towards learning analytics services. The Internet and Higher Education 51 (2021), 100818

    2021

  71. [79]

    Margaret Wilson. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 4 (2002), 625–636

    2002

  72. [80]

    Alyssa Friend Wise, Simon Knight, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2021. Collaborative learning analytics. International handbook of computer- supported collaborative learning (2021), 425–443

    2021

  73. [81]

    Marcelo Worsley, Dor Abrahamson, Paulo Blikstein, Shuchi Grover, Bertrand Schneider, and Mike Tissenbaum. 2016. Situating multimodal learning analytics. In 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Transforming Learning, Empowering Learners, ICLS 2016 . Internati...

    2016

  74. [82]

    Marcelo Worsley and Paulo Blikstein. 2018. A multimodal analysis of making. IJAIED 28, 3 (2018), 385–419

    2018

  75. [83]

    Marcelo Worsley, Cynthia D’Angelo, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2021. A New Era in Multimodal Learning Analytics: sixteen core commitments to ground and grow MMLA. JLA (2021), in press. Manuscript submitted to ACM Integrating Latent Class Analysis to Uncover Multimodal Lear...

    2021

  76. [84]

    Weiqi Xu, Yajuan Wu, and Fan Ouyang. 2023. Multimodal learning analytics of collaborative patterns during pair programming in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20, 1 (2023), 8

    2023

  77. [85]

    Lixiang Yan, Vanessa Echeverria, Yueqiao Jin, Gloria Fernandez-Nieto, Linxuan Zhao, Xinyu Li, Riordan Alfredo, Zachari Swiecki, Dragan Gašević, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2024. Evidence-based multimodal learning analytics for feedback and reflection in collaborative learn...

    2024

  78. [86]

    Lixiang Yan, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Beatriz Gallo Cordoba, Joanne Deppeler, Deborah Corrigan, and Dragan Gašević. 2022. Mapping from proximity traces to socio-spatial behaviours and student progression at the school. British Journal of Educational Technology n/a, n/a (202...

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    Lixiang Yan, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Zachari Swiecki, Linxuan Zhao, Xinyu Li, and Dragan Gašević. 2024. Dissecting the temporal dynamics of embodied collaborative learning using multimodal learning analytics. Journal of Educational Psychology (2024)

    2024

  80. [88]

    Lixiang Yan, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Linxuan Zhao, Samantha Dix, Hollie Jaggard, Rosie Wotherspoon, Xinyu Li, and Dragan Gašević. 2023. The role of indoor positioning analytics in assessment of simulation-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 54, 1 (202...

    2023

  81. [90]

    Lixiang Yan, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Linxuan Zhao, Xinyu Li, and Dragan Gašević. 2023. Physiological Synchrony and Arousal as Indicators of Stress and Learning Performance in Embodied Collaborative Learning. In AIED 2023. Springer, 602–614

    2023

  82. [91]

    Lixiang Yan, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Linxuan Zhao, Xinyu Li, and Dragan Gašević. 2023. SeNA: Modelling Socio-spatial Analytics on Homophily by Integrating Social and Epistemic Network Analysis. In LAK ’23. 22–32

    2023

  83. [92]

    Lixiang Yan, Linxuan Zhao, Dragan Gašević, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2022. Scalability, Sustainability, and Ethicality of Multimodal Learning Analytics. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13–23

    2022

  84. [93]

    Jia Yue, Feng Tian, Kuo-Min Chao, Nazaraf Shah, Longzhuang Li, Yan Chen, and Qinghua Zheng. 2019. Recognizing multidimensional engagement of e-learners based on multi-channel data in e-learning environment. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 149554–149567

    2019

  85. [94]

    Linxuan Zhao, Vanessa Echeverria, Zachari Swiecki, Lixiang Yan, Riordan Alfredo, Xinyu Li, Dragan Gasevic, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado

  86. [95]

    Linxuan Zhao, Zachari Swiecki, Dragan Gašević, Lixiang Yan, Samantha Dix, Hollie Jaggard, Rosie Wotherspoon, Abra Osborne, Xinyu Li, Riordan Alfredo, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2023. METS: Multimodal Learning Analytics of Embodied Teamwork Learning. In LAK ’23 (Arlington,...

    2023

  87. [96]

    Linxuan Zhao, Lixiang Yan, Dragan Gašević, Samantha Dix, Hollie Jaggard, Rosie Wotherspoon, Riordan Alfredo, Xinyu Li, and Roberto Martinez- Maldonado. 2022. Modelling Co-located Team Communication from Voice Detection and Positioning Data in Healthcare Simulation. In Proceedi...

    2022

  88. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference

    Epistemic Network Analysis for End-users: Closing the Loop in the Context of Multimodal Analytics for Collaborative Team Learning. In Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference . 90–100

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.