Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Breaking Barriers or Building Dependency? Exploring Team-LLM Collaboration in AI-infused Classroom Debate

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In fast-paced classroom debates, student teams working with ChatGPT develop distinct collaboration patterns and face a double-edged effect: the AI lowers social anxiety and scaffolds novices, but can cause information overload and…

desk verdict Solid qualitative study of team-LLM debate collaboration that overstates its role taxonomy, which is partly an artifact of the one-laptop rule, and leans too hard on self-reported benefits and risks. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09165 v2 pith:D66GFNEE submitted 2025-01-15 cs.HC

Zihan Zhang , Black Sun , Pengcheng An This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords DebateCollaborativelearningChatGPTHuman-AIinteractionClassroomTeamrolesCognitivedependencyQualitativestudy
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 aims to establish that when student teams use ChatGPT during real-time classroom debates, collaboration reorganizes around the AI in recognizable patterns: teams develop distinct ways of prompting it, distinct ways of using its output, and a division of labor that includes a dedicated 'AI user.' It argues these patterns cut both ways—AI support reduces social anxiety, breaks deadlocks, and scaffolds novices, but it also risks information overload, cognitive dependency, and low-quality or culturally biased content. The paper's contribution is an empirically grounded taxonomy of team-LLM collaboration plus design implications for future systems. A sympathetic reader would care because debate is a high-paced, time-sensitive learning activity where these trade-offs directly affect whether students leave with stronger skills or with a habit of leaning on the machine.

What carries the argument

The analytical machinery is thematic analysis of classroom recordings, chat transcripts, and 22 individual interviews, yielding 10 primary themes and 29 sub-themes. The central objects are the emergent team–LLM interaction patterns: three questioning approaches, four content-utilization modes, and four team roles. A design choice carries much of the argument—each five-member team had only one laptop running ChatGPT, which forced teams to coordinate around a single AI access point and made the division of labor visible.

What would settle it

Compare two otherwise identical debate classes, one with ChatGPT support and one without, and measure the proportion of near-verbatim AI phrasing in student speeches, the number of independent argumentative moves, and post-debate comprehension; if the assisted teams show no increase in verbatim reliance or no decrease in independent argumentation, the claimed cognitive-dependency risk would fail its first behavioral test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LLM support changes team-level debate behavior in systematic, observable ways. Learners ask questions in three modes—keying in keywords and letting the AI assemble an answer, supplying background or role context for more situated responses, and feeding opposing arguments to get rebuttal strategies. They then handle AI output in four modes: using it directly, filtering and reworking it, adding external examples, or asking the AI to explain further. Within teams, members drift into four roles—AI user, information gatherer, content evaluator, and ad-hoc tasker—and this division of labor is most effective when it is explicit. The paper further claims that these emerging patterns produce a double-edged learning outcome: lower social anxiety and entry barriers on one side, information overload and cognitive dependency on the other, with perceived low-quality or culturally biased AI responses adding a third risk.

Load-bearing premise

The causal claims about reduced anxiety and increased dependency rest on what students said in post-debate interviews, not on direct behavioral or learning-outcome measures, so they stand only if participants' retrospective accounts are accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Teams that settle into a clear division of labor, with a dedicated AI user, coordinate more smoothly under debate time pressure than teams that keep roles flexible.
  • AI support can bring novice debaters into the conversation by scaffolding argument structure and debate etiquette while lowering the social anxiety of asking questions.
  • The same affordances can undercut the learning objectives of debate: teams may read AI scripts instead of summarizing collectively, and the sheer volume of AI output can crowd out listening and reflection.
  • Current one-on-one LLM interfaces lack shared workspaces and persistent team memory, so teams improvise by copying outputs into chat groups and mind maps; future systems should support shared, role-aware, adjustable-detail interaction.
  • Letting users set answer length and letting the AI adopt explicit stances are two concrete design levers that could mitigate overload and dependency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single-laptop constraint may be part of what created the observed role structure; teams with per-member AI access might show less specialization, so the taxonomy should be re-tested under different access conditions.
  • Because the benefits and risks rest on retrospective self-report, the causal claims are testable hypotheses: future work could measure speaking time, verbatim AI reuse, and post-debate recall or comprehension to see whether dependency actually grows over time.
  • The same patterns may extend to other time-sensitive collaborative classroom activities such as peer review and Socratic seminars, where teams must quickly turn external information into shared arguments.
  • The paper implies that AI could dynamically adjust its role—tutor, sparring partner, or scribe—based on team confidence, which would be a concrete design experiment rather than a fixed-feature interface.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The paper reports a qualitative field study of 22 students in a Design History course who participated in three five-on-five classroom debates with ChatGPT 3.5 support. Through thematic analysis of debate recordings and individual semi-structured interviews, it identifies three questioning approaches, four content-utilization modes, four team roles, and several perceived advantages (reduced social anxiety, scaffolding for novices, deadlock-breaking) and risks (information overload, cognitive dependency, low-quality responses). The authors then propose design implications for future team-LLM collaboration systems and discuss limitations.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper offers a useful HCI contribution by documenting team-level interaction patterns with LLMs in a time-pressured educational setting, a context that is indeed underexplored. The study's strengths include the authentic classroom setting, the large transcript corpus (370,551 words), dual coding with third-reviewer consensus, and concrete usage statistics in Appendix B. The thematic structure is plausible and generally well supported by participant quotes. However, the central claims about emergent team roles and about benefits and risks are qualified by a single-device design constraint and by heavy reliance on retrospective self-report; as written, the contribution is more tentative than the framing suggests.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1, §4.4, §6.2] The single-laptop rule in §3.1 makes the four-role taxonomy in §4.4 partly an artifact of the setup. Since only one device can access ChatGPT, an 'AI user' role is structurally required: someone must operate the sole device. The paper's own §6.2 concedes the mechanism ('because only a few people can use ChatGPT, they developed a clear division of labor'), attributing the observed role differentiation to resource scarcity rather than to team-LLM collaboration per se. The RQ1 claim that these roles 'emerged' from team-AI interaction should therefore be re-scoped to single-device access, or supplemented with a condition in which every member has direct access, before the division-of-labor finding can be treated as a general property of team-LLM collaboration.
  2. [§3.3, §5.1–§5.4] The RQ2 advantages and risks rest almost entirely on retrospective, self-reported interview accounts collected after the debates. Section 3.3 describes semi-structured interviews, and Sections 5.1–5.4 quote participants' recollections of anxiety, dependency, and overload; no direct behavioral or learning-outcome measures are used to corroborate these states, and there is no non-AI baseline condition. Section 6.6 mentions the Hawthorne effect but does not address memory distortion or post-hoc rationalization. Consequently, causal claims such as 'AI's involvement significantly alleviates participants' social anxiety' are stronger than the evidence supports; the paper should reframe these as perceived or experienced effects, or triangulate them with direct observation, pre/post measures, or a comparison group.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] 'Sociol-cognitive Conflict' appears to be a typo for 'Socio-cognitive Conflict'; please correct it.
  2. [§3.1] The phrase 'with no additional restrictions' is ambiguous: it could mean that the single-laptop rule was the only restriction, or that the laptop's use was otherwise unrestricted; please clarify.
  3. [§5.5.1] The quote beginning 'Sometimes you ask AI for something very specific...' is introduced after P(18) but is followed by 'P(11) explained,' making the attribution unclear; please clarify which participant is quoted.
  4. [§6.2] 'For the later challenge' should read 'For the latter challenge.'
  5. [§6.6] 'ChatGPT-4 had just been released during the classroom debate experiments' is imprecise; if the authors mean GPT-4, the product name should be corrected and the timing relative to the study should be stated.
  6. [Appendix A] The self-rated LLM experience score (3.50, SD = 0.72) is reported in §3.1, but the appendix does not show how this numeric rating was derived from the survey questions; please provide the mapping or the relevant questionnaire item.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the taxonomy is produced by inductive thematic analysis, and the cited prior work by the authors is background only; the single-laptop rule is a validity confound, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal predictions and fits no parameters; its central findings are generated by iterative thematic coding of 370,551 words of transcript (Section 3.3: 'two coders independently coded the data’s initial coding... distilled 10 primary themes and 29 sub-themes'). The three questioning approaches, four content-utilization modes, four roles, and the advantages/risks are empirical categories drawn from participant interviews and classroom recordings, not consequences of an equation or of a prior author-defined construct. The only citations to work with overlapping authorship, [32] and [59], occur in the related-work survey (Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3) as examples of spatial classroom analytics and LLM agents in children's collaborative learning; neither supplies a uniqueness theorem, a model parameter, or a premise from which the debate findings are derived, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The most plausible circularity-adjacent concern is the single-laptop restriction in Section 3.1 ('only one laptop can be accessed and use ChatGPT 3.5 in a group'), which structurally guarantees that someone operates the device; Section 6.2 concedes this ('because only a few people can use ChatGPT, they developed a clear division of labor'). That makes the 'AI user' role in Section 4.4 partly a consequence of the experimental setup rather than a purely emergent property of team-LLM collaboration, and it is a legitimate generalizability threat. But it is not circular in the derivation sense: the paper does not define the setup in terms of the finding, does not use the finding to predict the setup, and the other roles and behavioral modes retain independent observational content. Similarly, the Section 5 benefits and risks rest largely on retrospective self-report, which Section 6.6 only partially addresses via the Hawthorne effect; this is an evidence-validity limitation, not a circularity. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the paper receives a low score reflecting only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study introduces no fitted constants or invented entities. Its claims rest on the interpretative validity of interview self-reports and on the assumption that the debate context with one shared ChatGPT laptop isolates AI-specific effects. These are domain assumptions typical of qualitative HCI research, but they are load-bearing for the benefits/risks claims.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Semi-structured interview self-reports accurately reflect participants' actual collaboration behaviors and cognitive states.
    The core findings (Section 4 and 5) are built on interview quotes and researcher coding; this assumes participants can accurately recall and report their experiences. Location: Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption The observed team-LLM interaction patterns are primarily shaped by AI infusion rather than by the debate format, course content, or the single-device rule.
    The discussion (Sections 6.1 and 6.2) attributes patterns to AI support without a non-AI control condition. Location: Section 6.2.
  • domain assumption The theoretical frameworks (Zone of Proximal Development, exploratory talk, intersubjectivity) are accepted as valid lenses for interpreting the data.
    Section 2.2 introduces these theories as the interpretive basis for the findings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Breaking Barriers or Building Dependency? Exploring Team-LLM Collaboration in AI-infused Classroom Debate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D66GFNEE

@misc{pith2026250109165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Breaking Barriers or Building Dependency? Exploring Team-LLM Collaboration in AI-infused Classroom Debate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D66GFNEE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09165}
}
read the original abstract

Classroom debates are a unique form of collaborative learning characterized by fast-paced, high-intensity interactions that foster critical thinking and teamwork. Despite the recognized importance of debates, the role of AI tools, particularly LLM-based systems, in supporting this dynamic learning environment has been under-explored in HCI. This study addresses this opportunity by investigating the integration of LLM-based AI into real-time classroom debates. Over four weeks, 22 students in a Design History course participated in three rounds of debates with support from ChatGPT. The findings reveal how learners prompted the AI to offer insights, collaboratively processed its outputs, and divided labor in team-AI interactions. The study also surfaces key advantages of AI usage, reducing social anxiety, breaking communication barriers, and providing scaffolding for novices, alongside risks, such as information overload and cognitive dependency, which could limit learners' autonomy. We thereby discuss a set of nuanced implications for future HCI exploration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09165 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (A) Human-AI Collaboration learning debate (B) Pictures taken at the debate (C) ChatGPT 3.5 assisted debate (D) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Information of Participants In the Classroom Debate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of Human-AI Collaboration Learning Debate Scene and Process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three Debate Processes and Debate Topics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results for Question (1): "(Before the debate) How frequently do you use LLMs?" [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results for Question (2): "In which scenarios do you primarily use LLMs? (Multiple choice)" [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results for Question (3): "Do you have experience in using LLMs and are capable of effectively using them to accomplish tasks?" [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Amplifying Minority Voices: AI-Mediated Devil's Advocate System for Inclusive Group Decision-Making

    cs.HC 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An LLM-powered devil's advocate that paraphrases minority members' private dissents as its own messages could reduce social pressure and increase opinion diversity in group decisions, but the paper provides no user st...

  2. Knowledge Augmented Complex Problem Solving with Large Language Models: A Survey

    cs.LG 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes LLM-based complex problem solving into three components, multi-step reasoning, domain knowledge, and result verification, and reviews methods and challenges across four application domains.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    John G Adair. 1984. The Hawthorne effect: a reconsideration of the method- ological artifact. Journal of applied psychology 69, 2 (1984), 334

    1984

  2. [2]

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, et al. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2019

  3. [3]

    Xuechunzi Bai, Angelina Wang, Ilia Sucholutsky, and Thomas L Griffiths. 2024. Measuring implicit bias in explicitly unbiased large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04105 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Myra Barrs and John Richmond. 2024. The Vygotsky Anthology: A Selection from His Key Writings. Routledge, 126

    2024

  5. [5]

    Rudy Berdine. 1987. Increasing student involvement in the learning process through debate on controversial topics. Journal of Marketing Education 9, 3 (1987), 6–8

    1987

  6. [6]

    1991.Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom

    Charles C Bonwell and James A Eison. 1991.Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. ERIC

    1991

  7. [7]

    Brandon M Booth, Jennifer Jacobs, Jeffrey B Bush, Brent Milne, Tom Fischaber, and Sidney K DMello. 2024. Human-tutor coaching technology (htct): Automated discourse analytics in a coached tutoring model. In Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference . 725–735

    2024

  8. [8]

    Conrad Borchers, Yinuo Xu, and Zachary A Pardos. 2024. Are You an Early Dropper or Late Shopper? Mining Enrollment Transaction Data to Study Pro- crastination in Higher Education. (2024)

    2024

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Conrad Borchers, Jiayi Zhang, Ryan S Baker, and Vincent Aleven. 2024. Using think-aloud data to understand relations between self-regulation cycle charac- teristics and student performance in intelligent tutoring systems. In Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowl...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. American Psycho- logical Association

    2012

  3. [11]

    Zeta Brown. 2015. The use of in-class debates as a teaching strategy in increasing students’ critical thinking and collaborative learning skills in higher education. (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Sebastian Buvari, Olga Viberg, Alessandro Iop, and Mario Romero. 2023. A Student-Centered Learning Analytics Dashboard Towards Course Goal Achieve- ment in STEM Education. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, 698–704

    2023

  5. [13]

    Arthur Caetano, Alyssa Lawson, Yimeng Liu, and Misha Sra. 2023. ARLang: An outdoor augmented reality application for portuguese vocabulary learning. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1224– 1235

    2023

  6. [14]

    Carrie J Cai, Emily Reif, Narayan Hegde, Jason Hipp, Been Kim, Daniel Smilkov, Martin Wattenberg, Fernanda Viegas, Greg S Corrado, Martin C Stumpe, et al

  7. [15]

    Periodic Fable Discovery

    Sandra Monica Camara Olim, Valentina Nisi, and Elisa Rubegni. 2023. “Periodic Fable Discovery” Using Tangible Interactions and Augmented Reality to Promote STEM Subjects. In Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction . 1–15

    2023

  8. [16]

    Mayara Simões de Oliveira Castro, Rafael Ferreira Mello, Giuseppe Fiorentino, Olga Viberg, Daniel Spikol, Martine Baars, and Dragan Gašević. 2023. Under- standing peer feedback contributions using natural language processing. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learn...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Eleni Chatzidaki, Sofia Papavlasopoulou, Hannie Gijlers, Tessa HS Eysink, and Michail Giannakos. 2024. Science Chaser app: A gamified learning journey into STEM activities. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference. 951–954

    2024

  10. [18]

    John Chen, Xi Lu, Yuzhou Du, Michael Rejtig, Ruth Bagley, Mike Horn, and Uri Wilensky. 2024. Learning agent-based modeling with LLM companions: Experi- ences of novices and experts using ChatGPT & NetLogo chat. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Liuqing Chen, Zhaojun Jiang, Duowei Xia, Zebin Cai, Lingyun Sun, Peter Childs, and Haoyu Zuo. 2024. BIDTrainer: An LLMs-driven Education Tool for Enhanc- ing the Understanding and Reasoning in Bio-inspired Design. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Alan Y Cheng, Meng Guo, Melissa Ran, Arpit Ranasaria, Arjun Sharma, Anthony Xie, Khuyen N Le, Bala Vinaithirthan, Shihe Luan, David Thomas Henry Wright, et al. 2024. Scientific and Fantastical: Creating Immersive, Culturally Relevant Learning Experiences with Augmented Reality...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Chun-Wei Chiang, Zhuoran Lu, Zhuoyan Li, and Ming Yin. 2024. Enhancing AI-Assisted Group Decision Making through LLM-Powered Devil’s Advocate. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 103–119

    2024

  14. [22]

    Clark A Chinn and Douglas B Clark. 2013. Learning through collaborative ar- gumentation. In The international handbook of collaborative learning . Routledge, 314–332

    2013

  15. [23]

    Seulgi Choi, Hyewon Lee, Yoonjoo Lee, and Juho Kim. 2024. VIVID: Human- AI Collaborative Authoring of Vicarious Dialogues from Lecture Videos. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–26

    2024

  16. [24]

    Leah Chong, Guanglu Zhang, Kosa Goucher-Lambert, Kenneth Kotovsky, and Jonathan Cagan. 2022. Human confidence in artificial intelligence and in them- selves: The evolution and impact of confidence on adoption of AI advice. Com- puters in Human Behavior 127 (2022), 107018

    2022

  17. [25]

    Philip R Cohen and Hector J Levesque. 1991. Teamwork. Nous 25, 4 (1991), 487–512

    1991

  18. [26]

    Belle Dang, Andy Nguyen, and Sanna Järvelä. 2024. The Unspoken Aspect of Socially Shared Regulation in Collaborative Learning: AI-Driven Learning Analytics Unveiling ‘Silent Pauses’. In Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. 231–240

    2024

  19. [27]

    W Doise. 1984. The Social Development of the Intellect

    1984

  20. [28]

    James E Driskell, Eduardo Salas, and Tripp Driskell. 2018. Foundations of teamwork and collaboration. American Psychologist 73, 4 (2018), 334

    2018

  21. [29]

    Vanessa Echeverria, Lixiang Yan, Linxuan Zhao, Sophie Abel, Riordan Alfredo, Samantha Dix, Hollie Jaggard, Rosie Wotherspoon, Abra Osborne, Simon Buck- ingham Shum, et al. 2024. Teamslides: a multimodal teamwork analytics dash- board for teacher-guided reflection in a physical...

    2024

  22. [30]

    David P Eisenberg, Michael J Lee, and Pias Sarkar Tanmoy. 2022. Increasing Engagement in Online Classrooms with Augmented Reality Filters. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 38, 3 (2022), 28–39

    2022

  23. [31]

    Houda Elmimouni, Selma Šabanović, and Jennifer A Rode. 2024. Navigating the Cyborg Classroom: Telepresence Robots, Accessibility Challenges, and Inclusivity in the Classroom. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 17, 2 (2024), 1–21

    2024

  24. [32]

    Gloria Fernandez-Nieto, Pengcheng An, Jian Zhao, Simon Buckingham Shum, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2022. Classroom dandelions: Visualising par- ticipant position, trajectory and body orientation augments teachers’ sensemak- ing. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference o...

    2022

  25. [33]

    Gloria Milena Fernandez-Nieto, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Vanessa Echev- erria, Kirsty Kitto, Dragan Gašević, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2024. Data storytelling editor: A teacher-centred tool for customising learning analytics dashboard narratives. In Proceedings of the 14th ...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Sean Follmer, Jeff Han, Jürgen Steimle, and Nathalie Henry Riche. 2023. Adjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM

    2023

  27. [35]

    Yue Fu, Mingrui Zhang, Lynn K Nguyen, Yifan Lin, Rebecca Michelson, Tala June Tayebi, and Alexis Hiniker. 2023. Self-Talk with Superhero Zip: Supporting Children’s Socioemotional Learning with Conversational Agents. InProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and C...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Andrea Gauthier, Manolis Mavrikis, Laura Benton, and Asimina Vasalou. 2022. Adoption and usage challenges of a Learning Analytics Dashboard for game- based learning: design and implementation implications. In Companion Proceed- ings 12th International Conference on Learning An...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Andreas Göldi, Thiemo Wambsganss, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, and Roman Rietsche

  30. [38]

    Marilyn Gregory and Margaret Holloway. 2005. The debate as a pedagogic tool in social policy for social work students. Social Work Education 24, 6 (2005), 617–637

    2005

  31. [39]

    Kai Guo, Yuchun Zhong, Danling Li, and Samuel Kai Wah Chu. 2023. Effects of chatbot-assisted in-class debates on students’ argumentation skills and task motivation. Computers & Education 203 (2023), 104862

    2023

  32. [40]

    Shashank Gupta, Vaishnavi Shrivastava, Ameet Deshpande, Ashwin Kalyan, Peter Clark, Ashish Sabharwal, and Tushar Khot. 2023. Bias runs deep: Implicit CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Z. Zhang, B. Sun & P. An reasoning biases in persona-assigned llms. arXiv prepri...

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Martin Hänel, Thiemo Wambsganss, and Matthias Söllner. 2024. Towards Effective AI-Driven Reading Assistants: A Design Science Exploration. (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Brandon Harwood. 2023. Chai-dt: A framework for prompting conversational generative ai agents to actively participate in co-creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03852 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Taichi Higasa, Keitaro Tanaka, Qi Feng, and Shigeo Morishima. 2024. Keep Eyes on the Sentence: An Interactive Sentence Simplification System for English Learners Based on Eye Tracking and Large Language Models. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al. 2023. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Transactions on Info...

    2023

  37. [45]

    Yi-Ching Huang, Yu-Ting Cheng, Lin-Lin Chen, and Jane Yung-jen Hsu. 2019. Human-AI Co-learning for data-driven AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.12544 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Md Saiful Islam, Srijita Das, Sai Krishna Gottipati, William Duguay, Clodéric Mars, Jalal Arabneydi, Antoine Fagette, Matthew Guzdial, et al. 2023. Human- AI Collaboration in Real-World Complex Environment with Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15160 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Maurice Jakesch, Advait Bhat, Daniel Buschek, Lior Zalmanson, and Mor Naa- man. 2023. Co-writing with opinionated language models affects users’ views. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–15

    2023

  40. [48]

    Qiao Jin, Yu Liu, Svetlana Yarosh, Bo Han, and Feng Qian. 2022. How will vr enter university classrooms? multi-stakeholders investigation of vr in higher ed- ucation. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–17

    2022

  41. [49]

    Qiao Jin, Danli Wang, Haoran Yun, and Svetlana Yarosh. 2023. Shape of Music: AR-based Tangible Programming Tool for Music Visualization. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference . 647–651

    2023

  42. [50]

    Onur Karademir, Atezaz Ahmad, Jan Schneider, Daniele Di Mitri, Ioana Jivet, and Hendrik Drachsler. 2022. Designing the learning analytics cockpit-a dashboard that enables interventions. In Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technol- ogy Enhanced Learning, 11th Internati...

    2022

  43. [51]

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Seßler, Stefan Küchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan Günnemann, Eyke Hüllermeier, et al. 2023. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning an...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Ruth R Kennedy. 2009. The power of in-class debates. Active learning in higher education 10, 3 (2009), 225–236

    2009

  45. [53]

    Han Kyul Kim, Shriniwas Nayak, Aleyeh Roknaldin, Xiaoci Zhang, Marlon Twyman, and Stephen Lu. 2024. Exploring the Impact of ChatGPT on Student Interactions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07082 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A Baki Kocaballi. 2023. Conversational ai-powered design: Chatgpt as designer, user, and product. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07406 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Yoonjoo Lee, Tae Soo Kim, Sungdong Kim, Yohan Yun, and Juho Kim. 2023. Dapie: Interactive step-by-step explanatory dialogues to answer children’s why and how questions. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–22

    2023

  48. [56]

    Serena Lee-Cultura, Kshitij Sharma, and Michail N Giannakos. 2023. Multimodal teacher dashboards: challenges and opportunities of enhancing teacher insights through a case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 17 (2023), 181–201

    2023

  49. [57]

    Joanne Leong, Pat Pataranutaporn, Valdemar Danry, Florian Perteneder, Yaoli Mao, and Pattie Maes. 2024. Putting Things into Context: Generative AI-Enabled Context Personalization for Vocabulary Learning Improves Learning Motivation. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Huma...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Ming Li, Jiuhai Chen, Lichang Chen, and Tianyi Zhou. 2024. Can llms speak for diverse people? tuning llms via debate to generate controllable controversial statements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10614 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Jiawen Liu, Yuanyuan Yao, Pengcheng An, and Qi Wang. 2024. PeerGPT: Probing the Roles of LLM-based Peer Agents as Team Moderators and Participants in Children’s Collaborative Learning. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–6

    2024

  52. [60]

    Ryan Liu, Howard Yen, Raja Marjieh, Thomas L Griffiths, and Ranjay Krishna

  53. [61]

    Yang Liu, Yuanshun Yao, Jean-Francois Ton, Xiaoying Zhang, Ruocheng Guo Hao Cheng, Yegor Klochkov, Muhammad Faaiz Taufiq, and Hang Li. 2023. Trustworthy LLMs: A survey and guideline for evaluating large language mod- els’ alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05374 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Ziyi Liu, Zhengzhe Zhu, Lijun Zhu, Enze Jiang, Xiyun Hu, Kylie A Peppler, and Karthik Ramani. 2024. ClassMeta: Designing Interactive Virtual Classmate to Promote VR Classroom Participation. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2024

  55. [63]

    Qianou Ma, Hua Shen, Kenneth Koedinger, and Sherry Tongshuang Wu. 2024. How to Teach Programming in the AI Era? Using LLMs as a Teachable Agent for Debugging. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education . Springer, 265–279

    2024

  56. [64]

    Qianou Ma, Tongshuang Wu, and Kenneth Koedinger. 2023. Is ai the better programming partner? human-human pair programming vs. human-ai pair programming. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05153 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Are You Really Sure?

    Shuai Ma, Xinru Wang, Ying Lei, Chuhan Shi, Ming Yin, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2024. " Are You Really Sure?" Understanding the Effects of Human Self-Confidence Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09552 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Mohsen Mahdavi. 2014. An overview: Metacognition in education. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and current research 2, 6 (2014), 529–535

    2014

  59. [67]

    Kate Mangelsdorf. 1992. Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT journal 46, 3 (1992), 274–284

    1992

  60. [68]

    Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Vanessa Echeverria, Katerina Mangaroska, An- tonette Shibani, Gloria Fernandez-Nieto, Jurgen Schulte, and Simon Bucking- ham Shum. 2022. Moodoo the tracker: Spatial classroom analytics for charac- terising teachers’ pedagogical approaches. Internati...

    2022

  61. [69]

    Doreen Massey and Richard Meegan. 2015. Introduction: the debate. In Politics and Method (Routledge Revivals) . Routledge, 1–12

    2015

  62. [70]

    Paola Mejia-Domenzain, Jibril Frej, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Luca Mouchel, Tanya Nazaretsky, Thiemo Wambsganss, Antoine Bosselut, and Tanja Käser. 2024. Enhancing Procedural Writing Through Personalized Example Retrieval: A Case Study on Cooking Recipes. International Journal of A...

    2024

  63. [71]

    Paola Mejia-Domenzain, Eva Laini, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Thiemo Wambsganss, and Tanja Käser. 2023. Visualizing Self-Regulated Learner Profiles in Dash- boards: Design Insights from Teachers. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 619–624

    2023

  64. [72]

    Neil Mercer. 2002. Words and minds: How we use language to think together . Routledge

    2002

  65. [73]

    N Mercer. 2007. Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A socio- cultural approach

    2007

  66. [74]

    Emiliana Murgia, Zahra Abbasiantaeb, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Theo Huibers, Monica Landoni, and Maria Soledad Pera. 2023. ChatGPT in the classroom: A preliminary exploration on the feasibility of adapting ChatGPT to support chil- dren’s information discovery. In Adjunct Proceedin...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Tanya Nazaretsky, Carmel Bar, Michal Walter, and Giora Alexandron. 2022. Empowering teachers with AI: Co-designing a learning analytics tool for per- sonalized instruction in the science classroom. In LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference . 1–12

    2022

  68. [76]

    Tricia J Ngoon, S Sushil, Angela EB Stewart, Ung-Sang Lee, Saranya Venkatra- man, Neil Thawani, Prasenjit Mitra, Sherice Clarke, John Zimmerman, and Amy Ogan. 2024. ClassInSight: Designing Conversation Support Tools to Visualize Classroom Discussion for Personalized Teacher Pr...

    2024

  69. [77]

    Ana-Gabriela Núñez, Vanessa Echeverria, Miguel Zuñiga-Prieto, Benito Auria, and Tinne De Laet. 2023. TMBQ-LT: A student-facing learning tool to support time management skills. In International Conference on Computer Supported Education 2023. Scitepress, 217–224

    2023

  70. [78]

    Hyanghee Park and Daehwan Ahn. 2024. The Promise and Peril of ChatGPT in Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Design Implications. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

    2024

  71. [79]

    Jeongeon Park and DaEun Choi. 2023. Audilens: Configurable llm-generated audiences for public speech practice. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–3

    2023

  72. [80]

    Pat Pataranutaporn, Valdemar Danry, Joanne Leong, Parinya Punpongsanon, Dan Novy, Pattie Maes, and Misha Sra. 2021. AI-generated characters for supporting personalized learning and well-being. Nature Machine Intelligence 3, 12 (2021), 1013–1022

    2021

  73. [81]

    Barbara Rogoff. 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context

    1990

  74. [82]

    Steven I Ross, Fernando Martinez, Stephanie Houde, Michael Muller, and Justin D Weisz. 2023. The programmer’s assistant: Conversational interaction with a large language model for software development. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Int...

    2023

  75. [83]

    Abhijit Roy and Bart Macchiette. 2005. Debating the issues: A tool for aug- menting critical thinking skills of marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education 27, 3 (2005), 264–276

    2005

  76. [84]

    Omar Shaikh, Valentino Emil Chai, Michele Gelfand, Diyi Yang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2024. Rehearsal: Simulating conflict to teach conflict resolution. In Breaking Barriers or Building Dependency? Exploring Team-LLM Collaboration in AI-infused Classroom Debate CHI ’25, April...

    2024

  77. [85]

    Robert E Slavin. 1996. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary educational psychology 21, 1 (1996), 43–69

    1996

  78. [86]

    Sumit Soman et al. 2023. Observations on LLMs for telecom domain: capabilities and limitations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13102 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Juhyung Son, Ahmad Yousef Alhilal, Reza Hadi Mogavi, Tristan Braud, and Pan Hui. 2024. Making Learning Engaging and Productive: SimLab, a VR Lab to Bridge Between Classroom Theory and Industrial Practice in Chemical Engi- neering Education. In Interacción. https://api.semantic...

    2024

  80. [88]

    Sarah Sterman, Molly Jane Nicholas, Janaki Vivrekar, Jessica R Mindel, and Eric Paulos. 2023. Kaleidoscope: A reflective documentation tool for a user interface design course. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–19

    2023

  81. [89]

    John Sweller. 2011. Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motiva- tion. Vol. 55. Elsevier, 37–76

    2011

  82. [90]

    Mei Tan and Hari Subramonyam. 2024. More than model documentation: uncov- ering teachers’ bespoke information needs for informed classroom integration of ChatGPT. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2024

  83. [91]

    Jingwan Tang, Xiaofei Zhou, Xiaoyu Wan, Michael Daley, and Zhen Bai. 2023. ML4STEM professional development program: Enriching K-12 STEM teaching with machine learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 33, 1 (2023), 185–224

    2023

  84. [92]

    Lynda Tredway. 1995. Socratic seminars: Engaging students in intellectual discourse. Educational leadership 53, 1 (1995), 26–29

    1995

  85. [93]

    Joseph Tu, Hilda Hadan, Derrick M Wang, Sabrina A Sgandurra, Reza Hadi Mogavi, and Lennart E Nacke. 2024. Augmenting the Author: Exploring the Po- tential of AI Collaboration in Academic Writing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16071 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Lorraine Underwood, Elizabeth Edwards, John Edward Vidler, Elisa Rubegni, and Joe Finney. 2023. Introducing Classroom Cloudlet: a mobile, tangible, and transparent approach to Internet of Things education. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children C...

    2023

  87. [95]

    Han X Vo and Richard L Morris. 2006. Debate as a tool in teaching economics: Rationale, technique, and some evidence. Journal of Education for Business 81, 6 (2006), 315–320

    2006

  88. [96]

    Lev S Vygotsky. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Vol. 86. Harvard university press

    1978

  89. [97]

    Weizhi Wang, Li Dong, Hao Cheng, Xiaodong Liu, Xifeng Yan, Jianfeng Gao, and Furu Wei. 2024. Augmenting language models with long-term memory. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  90. [98]

    Florian Weber, Thiemo Wambsganss, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, and Matthias Soellner

  91. [99]

    JV Wertsch. 1991. A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. Ameri- can Psychological Association (1991)

    1991

  92. [100]

    JV Wertsch. 1991. Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard UP (1991)

    1991

  93. [101]

    Diana F Wood. 2003. Problem based learning. Bmj 326, 7384 (2003), 328–330

    2003

  94. [102]

    In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    LegalWriter: An Intelligent Writing Support System for Structured and Persuasive Legal Case Writing for Novice Law Students. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–23

  95. [103]

    Chiu Yu-Han and Chen Chun-Ching. 2023. Investigating the impact of gen- erative artificial intelligence on brainstorming: A preliminary study. In 2023 International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Taiwan (ICCE-Taiwan). IEEE, 193–194

    2023

  96. [104]

    Andres Felipe Zambrano and Ryan S Baker. 2024. Long-Term Prediction from Topic-Level Knowledge and Engagement in Mathematics Learning. In Proceed- ings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference . 66–77

    2024

  97. [105]

    Chao Zhang, Xuechen Liu, Katherine Ziska, Soobin Jeon, Chi-Lin Yu, and Ying Xu. 2024. Mathemyths: leveraging large language models to teach mathematical language through Child-AI co-creative storytelling. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Syste...

    2024

  98. [106]

    Rosita Reads With My Family

    Ying Xu, Kunlei He, Valery Vigil, Santiago Ojeda-Ramirez, Xuechen Liu, Julian Levine, Kelsyann Cervera, and Mark Warschauer. 2023. “Rosita Reads With My Family”: Developing A Bilingual Conversational Agent to Support Parent-Child Shared Reading. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annu...

    2023

  99. [107]

    Rui Zhang, Wen Duan, Christopher Flathmann, Nathan McNeese, Guo Freeman, and Alyssa Williams. 2023. Investigating AI teammate communication strategies and their impact in human-AI teams for effective teamwork. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–31

    2023

  100. [108]

    Lanqin Zheng, Yunchao Fan, Bodong Chen, Zichen Huang, LeiGao, and Miaolang Long. 2024. An AI-enabled feedback-feedforward approach to pro- moting online collaborative learning. Education and Information Technologies 29, 9 (2024), 11385–11406

    2024

  101. [109]

    Guojing Zhou, Xi Yang, Hamoon Azizsoltani, Tiffany Barnes, and Min Chi. 2020. Improving student-system interaction through data-driven explanations of hierarchical reinforcement learning induced pedagogical policies. InProceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, A...

    2020

  102. [110]

    Feiran Zhang, Hanne Brynildsrud, Sofia Papavlasopoulou, Kshitij Sharma, and Michail Giannakos. 2023. Experiverse: Exploring an experiment-based gamifi- cation application for motivating children to science learning in an informal setting. In Proceedings of the 2023 Symposium o...

    2023

  103. [114]

    Bee and I need diversity!

    Xiaofei Zhou, Yushan Zhou, Yunfan Gong, Zhenyao Cai, Annie Qiu, Qinqin Xiao, Alissa N Antle, and Zhen Bai. 2024. " Bee and I need diversity!" Break Filter Bubbles in Recommendation Systems through Embodied AI Learning. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design a...

    2024

  104. [2019]

    In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems

    Human-centered tools for coping with imperfect algorithms during medical decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    2019

  105. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00687 (2023)

    Improving interpersonal communication by simulating audiences with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00687 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  106. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Intelligent Support Engages Writers Through Relevant Cognitive Pro- cesses. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.