Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Enhancing Talk Moves Analysis in Mathematics Tutoring through Classroom Teaching Discourse

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 This paper claims that supplementary pretraining on classroom mathematics discourse, combined with longer dialogue context and speaker prefixes, substantially improves automatic talk-move classification in mathematics tutoring.

desk verdict A genuinely useful new tutoring dataset and a transfer-learning result that mostly survives scrutiny, but the best student model's headline number rests on an undisclosed train/test split. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13395 v1 pith:G4HYJTRO submitted 2024-12-18 cs.CL cs.AIcs.HCcs.LG

Jie Cao , Abhijit Suresh , Jennifer Jacobs , Charis Clevenger , Amanda Howard , Chelsea Brown , Brent Milne , Tom Fischaber
show 2 more authors
Tamara Sumner James H. Martin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.HCcs.LG
keywords talkmovesmathematicstutoringclassroomdiscoursetransferlearningdialogueactclassificationSAGA22datasetspeakerinformationcontext
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

Automatic analysis of tutoring dialogue usually requires expensive, tutoring-specific annotated data. This paper asks whether models trained to recognize 'talk moves' in mathematics classrooms can be transferred to one-on-one and small-group tutoring, and introduces SAGA22, a new corpus of 121 high-school math tutoring sessions, to test that. The central result is that supplementary pretraining on two classroom datasets, combined with a longer dialogue context (seven utterances before and after the target) and speaker prefixes, lifts macro F1 to 82.4 for tutor moves and 76.5 for student moves, versus 70.6 and 63.6 for models trained only on the tutoring data. If the transfer result holds, tutoring-discourse analysis can ride on existing classroom resources instead of requiring large new annotation campaigns.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a supervised pretrain-finetune pipeline whose input representation controls transfer. Each target utterance is classified into Accountable Talk move categories: 7 teacher/tutor moves and 5 student moves. Three variables matter most: a ±7 utterance context window (previous and subsequent utterances concatenated with sentence-boundary tokens), speaker prefixes ('T:' and 'S:') prepended to every utterance, and the choice of supplementary pretraining corpus. The paper argues that longer context only helps when enough pretraining data is available, and that speaker prefixes make that context usable by disambiguating who said what; ablations show each ingredient contributes positive, additive gains.

What would settle it

Rerun the best student configuration with a session-level split in which the test sessions are provably excluded from all pretraining and fine-tuning data; if the 76.5 macro F1 drops substantially, the headline transfer gain is partly leakage rather than classroom-to-tutoring transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the gap between classroom and tutoring discourse is bridgeable by transfer learning. Using RoBERTa-base as the backbone, a pretrained transformer language model, it defines a model search over context window (-1 vs ±7 utterances), speaker prefixes ('T:'/'S:'), supplementary pretraining on TALK MOVES and NCTE-119, and optional fine-tuning on SAGA22. The best tutor model, pretrained on both teaching datasets with ±7 context and speaker prefixes then fine-tuned on SAGA22, reaches 82.4 macro F1 on the SAGA22 test set, and the best student model, which additionally includes SAGA22 in pretraining, reaches 76.5. These numbers compare with 70.6 and 63.6 for the strongest from-scratch models, and zero-shot evaluation with teaching pretraining alone reaches 81.8 and 74.4. The paper concludes that classroom talk-move resources are reusable for tutoring, provided the input representation includes speaker identity and a sufficiently long dialogue window.

Load-bearing premise

The paper never states how the 121 SAGA22 sessions were split into training, validation, and test sets, and the best student model was pretrained on SAGA22 itself; if any test transcripts appeared in that pretraining, the reported student-model gain is inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tutoring talk-move classifiers can be built from existing classroom corpora plus a small tutoring adaptation set, reducing the annotation burden for new tutoring programs.
  • Adding speaker prefixes and a seven-utterance context window matters more than scaling pretraining data once a classroom corpus is available.
  • Zero-shot transfer from teaching data alone reaches near-best performance on tutor moves, so some tutoring applications may not need tutoring-specific fine-tuning at all.
  • Tutor and student move classifiers have different optimal pretraining mixtures, so practical systems should tune them separately.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's emphasis on bi-party speaker prefixes suggests a testable extension: distinguishing individual students ('Student-1' vs 'Student-2') in SAGA22 could specifically recover the rare RELTO and ASKMI moves that the unified 'S:' prefix loses.
  • Because the best label-level F1 scores come from different pretraining mixtures, a weighted mixture or multi-task objective tuned per talk-move label could outperform any single corpus combination.
  • If classroom-to-tutoring transfer works this well, the same recipe may transfer talk-move models across subjects or grade bands, but that remains untested since all datasets here are U.S. English-only mathematics discourse.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces SAGA22, a dataset of 121 annotated high-school mathematics tutoring sessions labeled with 7 teacher/tutor and 5 student talk moves, and studies whether models trained for classroom discourse transfer to tutoring under a pretrain-fine-tune framework. Using RoBERTa-base, the authors vary dialogue context (previous-one vs ±7 utterances), speaker prefixes, supplementary pretraining datasets (∅, TALK MOVES, +NCTE-119, +SAGA22), and whether to further fine-tune on SAGA22. They report a best tutor model T{t+n,1}_{±7,spk} reaching 82.4 macro F1 and a best student model S{t+n+s,1}_{±7,spk} reaching 76.5, compared with 70.6 and 63.6 for from-scratch baselines, plus extensive ablations on context, speaker information, pretraining, and fine-tuning.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper is a useful empirical contribution: it adds a real-world tutoring corpus aligned with an existing talk-move annotation scheme, and it gives evidence that supplementary pretraining on classroom teaching data (TALK MOVES, NCTE-119) can improve tutoring talk-move classification, especially with ±7 context and speaker prefixes. The cleanest transfer comparisons—T{t,1} vs T{∅,1}, T{t+n,1} vs T{∅,1}, and the no-target-fine-tuning rows {t,0}/{t+n,0}—support this conclusion and are a strength, as are the explicit TALK MOVES re-split description and the confusion-matrix analyses. The main caveat is that the SAGA22 split is never defined, and the headline student model and several Table 4 rows include SAGA22 in supplementary pretraining; without proof that test transcripts were excluded, the student-side number is at risk of measuring memorization rather than transfer. The lack of variance reporting also weakens the small-difference ablation claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3, §5; Tables 3–4] The SAGA22 train/validation/test split is never defined. Section 3.3 describes the TALK MOVES split (441/63/63), but for SAGA22 the paper only states that models are selected by validation macro F1 and reported on 'held-out test sets' (§5). This matters because §4.3 allows SAGA22 ('s') in supplementary pretraining, and Table 4 includes the rows {s,0}, {t+s,0}, {t+n+s,0}, and {t+n+s,1}; the headline student model S{t+n+s,1}_{±7,spk} is pretrained on TALK MOVES + NCTE-119 + SAGA22 and then fine-tuned on SAGA22. If the 121 sessions were not split before the pretraining stage, or if the split was performed at utterance rather than session level, the reported 76.5 student macro F1 and the 's' rows of Table 4 partly reflect memorization of test transcripts rather than transfer. Please specify the split protocol (session-level vs utterance-level, sizes, random seed), state explicitly that test transcripts were excluded from all stages including supplementary pretraining, and if they were not, rerun the affected experiments with a clean split. The tutor-side result T{t+n,1}_{±7,spk} is unaffected because it does not include SAGA22 in pretraining, but the student-side headline and the table rows involving 's' cannot be interpreted without this documentation.
  2. [§5; Tables 2–6] All reported numbers appear to come from a single run; no variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests are presented. Statements such as 'significantly outperforms all the existing talk move models' (Section 5, Best Student Model) and the ablation conclusions in §6.3 and §6.4 are therefore not statistically grounded. The model differences in Table 4 are often small enough that seed variation could change the conclusions; for example, the tutor F1 difference between {t,0} and {t+n,0} is 78.9 vs 81.8, while the student difference between {t+s,0} and {t+n+s,0} is 77.1 vs 76.2. Please report the number of seeds, mean and standard deviation for the key comparisons, or a paired significance test across sessions, so the reader can distinguish robust effects from noise.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2] Please provide per-label Cohen's kappa for the 10-video IAA subset, the number of annotators per video, and the adjudication procedure; the current summary ('more than 80 Cohen's kappa on most labels, with 75 on one') is too coarse for a new annotation dataset.
  2. [Reproducibility] No code or data release link is given; footnote 5 says to contact the first author. Please provide a public repository with the SAGA22 split indices, preprocessing scripts, and training configuration, or explain in the paper why this is not possible.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and informal expressions, including 'Summerization' and 'Tutotring' in Table 1, 'whiling' in Section 5, 'pertaining' in Section 4.4, 'coorelated' in Section 5, and 'premilinary' in the Limitations section.
  4. [§6.3] The use of 'zero-shot' for rows with F=0 is misleading; those models were supervised on TALK MOVES and optionally NCTE-119 during supplementary pretraining. Please call this 'no target fine-tuning' instead.
  5. [Table 4] The asterisk and the footnote about 'highlighted numbers' are unexplained; please clarify which numbers are highlighted and why the selected best model is not the one with the highest validation F1.
  6. [§4.1] Please clarify how utterances are truncated or padded when the dialogue has fewer than 7 previous or subsequent utterances; the statement about empty utterances being prepended and padded is not precise about boundary handling.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The classroom-to-tutoring transfer claim has independent support, but the best student model is pretrained on SAGA22 itself and the paper never specifies the SAGA22 split, so the headline 76.5 F1 is not verifiably held out.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Section 4.4, Section 5, Table 3, Table 4]
    "we use the lower-cased first letter of each dataset name to indicate the pretraining datasets ... All the best-effort models are selected by the best macro F1 score on validation set, and the table here only shows the performance on final evaluation on the held-out test sets ... Our best student model S^{t+n+s,1}_{±7,spk} is firstly pretrained on all three datasets ... then further finetuned on SAGA22."

    In this model's name, superscript 't+n+s' means supplementary pretraining includes SAGA22 ('s') and superscript '1' means further fine-tuning on SAGA22. The paper never defines the SAGA22 train/validation/test split and never states that held-out test sessions were excluded from the 's' pretraining corpus. If test sessions were included, the best student model was trained on the same transcripts and labels it is later scored on, so 76.5 macro F1 reflects memorization rather than independent prediction. The tutor-side best model T^{t+n,1} avoids 's' and supports the transfer claim, but the headline student number and all Table 4 rows containing 's' carry an unresolved circularity burden.

full rationale

The paper's main claim is not circular: classroom-to-tutoring transfer is demonstrated by models whose supplementary pretraining excludes SAGA22. T^{t+n,1}_{±7,spk} (82.4 F1) pretrains only on TALK MOVES and NCTE-119 before SAGA22 fine-tuning, improving over the from-scratch 70.6; the zero-shot rows {t,0} and {t+n,0} similarly exclude 's' and exceed from-scratch. Those comparisons are independent of the target-test-set leakage concern. The only circularity-adjacent issue is the best student model S^{t+n+s,1}_{±7,spk}, which is pretrained on SAGA22 itself and further fine-tuned on SAGA22, while the paper omits the train/validation/test split for the 121 sessions. This makes the 76.5 headline student number unverifiable as a held-out result; if the test transcripts appeared in the 's' pretraining component, the number is partly fitted rather than predicted. Self-citations to Suresh et al. (2022a,b) are data and baseline references, not load-bearing justifications, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via citation. Because the central transfer claim has independent support and the flagged issue is conditional on an undocumented split, the score is 3 rather than higher.

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

The paper adds no invented entities. Its central claim rests on an unstated train/test split assumption for SAGA22, on the transferability of classroom talk-move categories, and on annotation reliability measured on only 10 videos. Two numeric modeling choices (context window and unreported hyperparameters) are the main hand-set parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • Dialogue context window (±7) = 7 previous + 7 subsequent utterances
    Chosen to reproduce Suresh et al. (2022b); only -1 and ±7 are compared.
  • Fine-tuning hyperparameters (learning rate, epochs, batch size, seed) = not reported
    Model selection uses validation macro F1, but no hyperparameter values or random seeds are given, so the exact results cannot be reproduced.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Talk move categories from classroom Accountable Talk theory transfer to math tutoring without modification.
    Section 3.1 and 3.2 reuse the 7 teacher and 5 student moves for annotating SAGA22; no validation of category fit for tutoring is reported.
  • domain assumption The 121 SAGA22 sessions' annotations are reliable despite IAA being measured on only 10 videos.
    Section 3.2 reports >80 Cohen's kappa on most labels on 10 videos; the remaining 111 sessions are single-annotated.
  • ad hoc to paper The SAGA22 test set is disjoint from the SAGA22 data used in supplementary pretraining.
    Required for validity of 's' rows in Table 4 but never stated; Section 4.3 lists SAGA22 as a pretraining dataset.
  • domain assumption RoBERTa-base (and RoBERTa-large) pretrained weights provide suitable representations for talk move classification.
    Section 4 chooses RoBERTa-base as backbone without justification; standard practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Talk Moves Analysis in Mathematics Tutoring through Classroom Teaching Discourse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4HYJTRO

@misc{pith2026241213395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Talk Moves Analysis in Mathematics Tutoring through Classroom Teaching Discourse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4HYJTRO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13395}
}
read the original abstract

Human tutoring interventions play a crucial role in supporting student learning, improving academic performance, and promoting personal growth. This paper focuses on analyzing mathematics tutoring discourse using talk moves - a framework of dialogue acts grounded in Accountable Talk theory. However, scaling the collection, annotation, and analysis of extensive tutoring dialogues to develop machine learning models is a challenging and resource-intensive task. To address this, we present SAGA22, a compact dataset, and explore various modeling strategies, including dialogue context, speaker information, pretraining datasets, and further fine-tuning. By leveraging existing datasets and models designed for classroom teaching, our results demonstrate that supplementary pretraining on classroom data enhances model performance in tutoring settings, particularly when incorporating longer context and speaker information. Additionally, we conduct extensive ablation studies to underscore the challenges in talk move modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison on Teacher/Tutor Talk Moves exploring latent factors such as class information, grade level, tutor/teacher background, and addi￾tional dialogue and discourse analyses (Jurafsky, 1997; Mann and Thompson, 1988; Asher and Las￾carides, 2003; Cai et al., 2022). 4 Models Existing models on talk moves analysis could be categorized into two paradigms: pretrain￾finetuning (e.g., Suresh et al., 2018, 2022b), and in… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Confusion matrix for the best student model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Ablation studies on longer context and speaker information. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press

    2003

  2. [2]

    King, Margaret Perkoff, Shiran Dudy, Jie Cao, Marie Grace, Natalia Wojarnik, Ganesh Ananya, James Martin, Martha Palmer, Marilyn Walker, and Jeffrey Flanigan

    Jon Cai, Brendan D. King, Margaret Perkoff, Shiran Dudy, Jie Cao, Marie Grace, Natalia Wojarnik, Ganesh Ananya, James Martin, Martha Palmer, Marilyn Walker, and Jeffrey Flanigan. 2022. Dependency dialogue acts — annotation scheme and case study. The 13th International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems Technology

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Andrew Caines, Helen Yannakoudakis, Helen Allen, Pascual P \'e rez-Paredes, Bill Byrne, and Paula Buttery. 2022. The teacher-student chatroom corpus version 2: more lessons, new annotation, automatic detection of sequence shifts. In Swedish Language Technology Conference and NLP4CALL, pages 23--35

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Jie Cao, Ananya Ganesh, Jon Cai, Rosy Southwell, E Margaret Perkoff, Michael Regan, Katharina Kann, James H Martin, Martha Palmer, and Sidney D'Mello. 2023. 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, pages 250--262

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Le, and Christopher D

    Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=r1xMH1BtvB ELECTRA : Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators . In ICLR

    2020

  6. [6]

    Richard Correnti, Mary Kay Stein, Margaret S Smith, James Scherrer, Margaret McKeown, James Greeno, and Kevin Ashley. 2015. Improving teaching at scale: Design for the scientific measurement and learning of discourse practice. Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue. AERA, 284

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Dorottya Demszky and Heather Hill. 2022. The ncte transcripts: A dataset of elementary math classroom transcripts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11772

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Dorottya Demszky, Jing Liu, Zid Mancenido, Julie Cohen, Heather Hill, Dan Jurafsky, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2021. Measuring conversational uptake: A case study on student-teacher interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.03873

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Per Engzell, Arun Frey, and Mark D Verhagen. 2021. Learning loss due to school closures during the covid-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17):e2022376118

    2021

  3. [11]

    Aaron Gokaslan, Vanya Cohen, Ellie Pavlick, and Stefanie Tellex. 2019. Openwebtext corpus. http://Skylion007.github.io/OpenWebTextCorpus

    2019

  4. [12]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Jennifer Jacobs, Karla Scornavacco, Charis Harty, Abhijit Suresh, Vivian Lai, and Tamara Sumner. 2022. Promoting rich discussions in mathematics classrooms: Using personalized, automated feedback to support reflection and instructional change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Emily Jensen, Meghan Dale, Patrick J Donnelly, Cathlyn Stone, Sean Kelly, Amanda Godley, and Sidney K D'Mello. 2020. Toward automated feedback on teacher discourse to enhance teacher learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1--13

    2020

  7. [15]

    Dan Jurafsky. 1997. Switchboard swbd-damsl shallow-discourse-function annotation coders manual. Institute of Cognitive Science Technical Report

    1997

  8. [16]

    Sean Kelly, Andrew M Olney, Patrick Donnelly, Martin Nystrand, and Sidney K D’Mello. 2018. Automatically measuring question authenticity in real-world classrooms. Educational Researcher, 47(7):451--464

    2018

  9. [17]

    James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Sean Lewis, Victoria Locke, and Chalie Patarapichayatham. 2021. Research brief: student engagement in online learning during covid school closures predicts lower learning loss in fall 2020

    2021

  11. [19]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Jakub Macina, Nico Daheim, Sankalan Pal Chowdhury, Tanmay Sinha, Manu Kapur, Iryna Gurevych, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2023. Mathdial: A dialogue tutoring dataset with rich pedagogical properties grounded in math reasoning problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14536

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    William C Mann and Sandra A Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(3):243--281

    1988

  14. [22]

    Sarah Michaels and Catherine O’Connor. 2015. Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion. Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue, pages 347--362

    2015

  15. [23]

    Sarah Michaels, Catherine O’Connor, and Lauren B Resnick. 2008. Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in philosophy and education, 27(4):283--297

    2008

  16. [24]

    Baptiste Moreau-Pernet, Yu Tian, Sandra Sawaya, Peter Foltz, Jie Cao, Brent Milne, and Thomas Christie. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3657604.3664664 Classifying tutor discursive moves at scale in mathematics classrooms with large language models . In Proceedings of the Eleven...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Heli Muhonen, Eija Pakarinen, Helena Rasku-Puttonen, Anna-Maija Poikkeus, Martti Siekkinen, and Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen. 2024. Investigating educational dialogue: Variations of dialogue amount and quality among different subjects between early primary and secondary school cl...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Catherine O’Connor and Sarah Michaels. 2019. Supporting teachers in taking up productive talk moves: The long road to professional learning at scale. International Journal of Educational Research, 97:166--175

    2019

  19. [27]

    Catherine O’Connor, Sarah Michaels, and Suzanne Chapin. 2015. Scaling down” to explore the role of talk in learning: From district intervention to controlled classroom study. Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue, pages 111--126

    2015

  20. [28]

    Chalie Patarapichayatham, Victoria N Locke, and Sean Lewis. 2021. Covid-19 learning loss in texas. Istation: Dallas, TX, USA

    2021

  21. [29]

    Lauren B Resnick, Christa SC Asterhan, and Sherice N Clarke. 2018. Accountable talk: Instructional dialogue that builds the mind. Geneva, Switzerland: The International Academy of Education (IAE) and the International Bureau of Education (IBE) of the United Nations Educational...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Lauren B Resnick, Sarah Michaels, and Catherine O’Connor. 2010. How (well structured) talk builds the mind. Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development, pages 163--194

    2010

  23. [31]

    Carly D Robinson and Susanna Loeb. 2021. High-impact tutoring: State of the research and priorities for future learning. National Student Support Accelerator, 21(284):1--53

    2021

  24. [32]

    Karla Scornavacco, Jennifer Jacobs, and Charis Harty. 2021. Automated feedback on discourse moves teachers’ perceived utility of a big data tool. Annual conference of the American Educational Research Association

    2021

  25. [33]

    Yu Song, Shunwei Lei, Tianyong Hao, Zixin Lan, and Ying Ding. 2020. Automatic classification of semantic content of classroom dialogue. Journal of Educational Computing Research, page 0735633120968554

    2020

  26. [34]

    Katherine Stasaski, Kimberly Kao, and Marti A. Hearst. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.bea-1.5 CIMA : A large open access dialogue dataset for tutoring . In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages 52--6...

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Abhijit Suresh, Jennifer Jacobs, Charis Harty, Margaret Perkoff, James H Martin, and Tamara Sumner. 2022 a . The talkmoves dataset: K-12 mathematics lesson transcripts annotated for teacher and student discursive moves. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and E...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Abhijit Suresh, Jennifer Jacobs, Margaret Perkoff, James H Martin, and Tamara Sumner. 2022 b . Fine-tuning transformers with additional context to classify discursive moves in mathematics classrooms. In Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Edu...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Abhijit Suresh, Tamara Sumner, Isabella Huang, Jennifer Jacobs, Bill Foland, and Wayne Ward. 2018. Using deep learning to automatically detect talk moves in teachers' mathematics lessons. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pages 5445--5447. IEEE

    2018

  30. [38]

    Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13756489 Attention is all you need . In Neural Information Processing Systems

    2017

  31. [39]

    Margaret Walshaw and Glenda Anthony. 2008. The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of educational research, 78(3):516--551

    2008

  32. [40]

    Deliang Wang, Dapeng Shan, Yaqian Zheng, Kai Guo, Gaowei Chen, and Yu Lu. 2023. Can chatgpt detect student talk moves in classroom discourse? a preliminary comparison with bert

    2023

  33. [41]

    Noreen M Webb, Megan L Franke, Marsha Ing, Angela C Turrou, Nicholas C Johnson, and Joy Zimmerman. 2019. Teacher practices that promote productive dialogue and learning in mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 97:176--186

    2019

  34. [42]

    Mikyung Kim Wolf, Amy C Crosson, and Lauren B Resnick. 2005. Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology, 26(1):27--53

    2005

  35. [43]

    Tiffany Zhou, Tomas Molfino, and Jonathan Travers. 2021. The cost of covid: Understanding the full financial impact of covid-19 on districts and schools. Education Resource Strategies

    2021

  36. [44]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  37. [45]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

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