Heterogeneous Interaction Network Analysis (HINA): A New Learning Analytics Approach for Modelling, Analyzing, and Visualizing Complex Interactions in Learning Processes

arxiv: 2601.06771 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-11 · 💻 cs.SI

Heterogeneous Interaction Network Analysis (HINA): A New Learning Analytics Approach for Modelling, Analyzing, and Visualizing Complex Interactions in Learning Processes

Shihui Feng , Baiyue He , Dragan Gasevic , Alec Kirkley This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 15:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SI

keywords learning analyticsheterogeneous networksinteraction modelingcollaborative learningAI in educationnetwork analysisclustering techniquesprocess data

0 comments p. Extension

The pith

HINA represents learning processes as heterogeneous interaction networks to analyze multi-level interactions among diverse entities like students and AI agents.

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

The paper introduces Heterogeneous Interaction Network Analysis (HINA) to overcome limitations of existing learning analytics that treat processes as simple sequences or uniform relationships. HINA models data as networks with varied node types for learners, behaviors, AI agents, and tasks, then applies summative measures, a novel non-parametric clustering method, statistical tests, and visualizations. This is demonstrated in a case study of AI-supported small group collaboration, where it uncovers distinct student interaction styles with peers compared to AI and specific behaviors like questioning or planning aimed at different targets. The framework aims to quantify how these elements mutually shape learning outcomes in complex environments.

Core claim

By converting learning process data into Heterogeneous Interaction Networks (HINs), HINA supplies original methods for summative measures and non-parametric clustering alongside statistical testing and interactive visualization, enabling individual, dyadic, and meso-level analyses that expose students' interaction profiles, engagement patterns, and behavior types directed toward AI versus peers in collaborative settings.

What carries the argument

Heterogeneous Interaction Networks (HINs) that connect diverse entity types through weighted edges, paired with a dedicated non-parametric clustering technique to identify patterns in multi-faceted interactions.

If this is right

HINA quantifies interactions across different entity types rather than limiting to one data form.
It visualizes how learners and AI agents co-influence educational dynamics.
The approach identifies distinct engagement patterns emerging from mixed interactions.
Analysis can be performed at multiple scales from individual to group levels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Extending HINA to other multi-agent learning systems could uncover similar hidden interaction structures.
Designers of AI educational tools might use these profiles to adapt responses based on observed behavior directions.
Combining HINA outputs with predictive models could forecast learning success from network metrics.

Load-bearing premise

That the chosen definitions of entity types and interaction edges in the heterogeneous networks faithfully represent real distributed interactions without introducing biases or artifacts.

What would settle it

Re-running the case study analysis with altered node type categorizations or edge weighting schemes that produce substantially different clustering of interaction profiles would falsify the claim that HINA reliably extracts meaningful patterns.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.06771 by Alec Kirkley, Baiyue He, Dragan Gasevic, Shihui Feng.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Individual interaction profiles of students within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Engagement clusters identified through mesoscale analysis of the student-(content code, partner) HIN. Student nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Aggregated interactions among content codes and partners within each cluster identified through the mesoscale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Existing learning analytics approaches, which often model learning processes as sequences of learner actions or homogeneous relationships, are limited in capturing the distributed, multi-faceted nature of interactions in contemporary learning environments. To address this, we propose Heterogeneous Interaction Network Analysis (HINA), a novel multi-level learning analytics framework for modeling complex learning processes across diverse entities (e.g., learners, behaviours, AI agents, and task designs). HINA integrates a set of original methods, including summative measures and a new non-parametric clustering technique, with established practices for statistical testing and interactive visualization to provide a flexible and powerful analytical toolkit. In this paper, we first detail the theoretical and mathematical foundations of HINA for individual, dyadic, and meso-level analysis. We then demonstrate HINA's utility through a case study on AI-mediated small-group collaborative learning, revealing students' interaction profiles with peers versus AI; distinct engagement patterns that emerge from these interactions; and specific types of learning behaviors (e.g., asking questions, planning) directed to AI versus peers. By transforming process data into Heterogeneous Interaction Networks (HINs), HINA introduces a new paradigm for modeling learning processes and provides the dedicated, multi-level analytical methods required to extract meaning from them. It thereby moves beyond a single process data type to quantify and visualize how different elements in a learning environment interact and co-influence each other, opening new avenues for understanding complex educational dynamics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

HINA turns learning process data into heterogeneous networks with some new measures and clustering, but the abstract leaves the actual math and validation thin.

read the letter

Hi, the core pitch is that standard sequence or homogeneous network models miss the mixed entities in modern learning setups, so HINA builds heterogeneous interaction networks and layers on summative measures plus a non-parametric clustering step for multi-level views. The case study on AI-mediated small groups then shows distinct peer versus AI interaction profiles and behavior differences like question-asking patterns. That part is the most concrete contribution and feels like it could help people designing collaborative tools. The new elements are the tailored summative measures and the clustering technique for mixed node types; if the full paper spells out the definitions and shows they recover interpretable groups without heavy dependence on edge choices, that is a modest but usable advance over plain SNA applied to education data. The integration with statistical testing and visualization is also straightforward and practical. The soft spots are the lack of reported metrics in the abstract, no error bars or sensitivity checks on network construction, and reliance on a single case study for the empirical claims. Without benchmarks against standard clustering or ablation on how entity types are defined, it is hard to judge how much the new components actually move the needle. This is for learning analytics researchers who already work with process logs and want network-style tools that handle AI agents alongside humans. A reader looking for ready-to-use methods in mixed human-AI settings would get value from the framework description. I would send it to peer review because the idea is timely and the structure is clear enough that referees can check the math and reproducibility directly.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Heterogeneous Interaction Network Analysis (HINA), a multi-level learning analytics framework that converts process data into Heterogeneous Interaction Networks (HINs) involving diverse entities such as learners, behaviors, AI agents, and task designs. It integrates original summative measures and a new non-parametric clustering technique with established statistical testing and interactive visualization. Theoretical and mathematical foundations are detailed for individual, dyadic, and meso-level analysis. Utility is shown via a case study on AI-mediated small-group collaborative learning that identifies distinct student interaction profiles with peers versus AI and differences in learning behaviors (e.g., questioning, planning) directed toward each.

Significance. If the network construction and clustering methods prove robust, HINA could meaningfully advance learning analytics by enabling analysis of distributed, multi-entity interactions in contemporary AI-augmented environments, moving beyond sequence-based or homogeneous-network models. The case-study findings on peer/AI profile differences suggest practical value for understanding engagement patterns, provided the methods are shown to avoid artifacts from modeling choices.

major comments (2)

[Theoretical and mathematical foundations] Theoretical foundations section: The rules for constructing HINs (node/edge definitions, entity-type assignments, and edge-weighting) are not specified with sufficient precision to evaluate whether the resulting networks faithfully encode interactions or are sensitive to arbitrary choices in type definitions and weights. This directly affects the central claim that HINs capture distributed multi-faceted processes without artifacts.
[Case study] Case study results: Claims of distinct peer-versus-AI profiles and behavior-type differences are presented without reported validation metrics (e.g., silhouette scores, stability across parameter settings, or cross-validation), sensitivity analysis, or explicit data-exclusion criteria. This weakens the empirical support for the multi-level analytical methods.

minor comments (2)

Notation for summative measures and the clustering algorithm should be introduced with explicit equations or pseudocode early in the methods section to improve reproducibility.
Figure captions for network visualizations could more clearly label entity types and edge meanings to aid interpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We sincerely thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which has identified key opportunities to strengthen the precision and empirical support in our manuscript on HINA. We address each major comment below with targeted revisions that enhance clarity and robustness while maintaining the paper's core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Theoretical foundations section: The rules for constructing HINs (node/edge definitions, entity-type assignments, and edge-weighting) are not specified with sufficient precision to evaluate whether the resulting networks faithfully encode interactions or are sensitive to arbitrary choices in type definitions and weights. This directly affects the central claim that HINs capture distributed multi-faceted processes without artifacts.

Authors: We appreciate this feedback on the need for greater precision. The theoretical foundations section defines nodes as distinct entity types (learners, behaviors, AI agents, task designs) and edges as typed interactions with weights derived from frequency and duration in the process data. To address the concern directly, the revised manuscript will add a formal specification table enumerating all node types, edge types, assignment rules, and weighting formulas, plus pseudocode for the construction algorithm. This will enable readers to evaluate fidelity and sensitivity, reinforcing rather than undermining the claim that HINs encode multi-entity processes without introducing arbitrary artifacts. revision: yes
Referee: Case study results: Claims of distinct peer-versus-AI profiles and behavior-type differences are presented without reported validation metrics (e.g., silhouette scores, stability across parameter settings, or cross-validation), sensitivity analysis, or explicit data-exclusion criteria. This weakens the empirical support for the multi-level analytical methods.

Authors: We agree that explicit validation metrics and sensitivity checks would strengthen the empirical claims. In the revised case study section, we will report silhouette scores and stability measures for the non-parametric clustering, include sensitivity analyses varying edge-weight thresholds and entity-type assignments, and explicitly document data-exclusion criteria (e.g., sessions with incomplete logs). These additions will provide quantitative support for the peer-versus-AI profile distinctions and behavior differences, directly mitigating concerns about modeling artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in HINA framework

full rationale

The paper introduces HINA as a modeling framework that converts process data into heterogeneous interaction networks and applies summative measures plus a new non-parametric clustering method alongside established statistical testing and visualization. No load-bearing equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-referential definitions appear in the described derivation chain. The central claims rest on empirical case-study outcomes (distinct interaction profiles) rather than mathematical identities that equate results to inputs by construction. Self-citations, if present, are not invoked to justify uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that would reduce the framework to prior author work. The approach is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and does not trigger any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that learning processes are best represented as heterogeneous networks rather than sequences or homogeneous graphs; no free parameters or invented physical entities are described.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Learning processes involve distributed interactions among heterogeneous entities that can be modeled as networks.
Stated in the abstract as the motivation for moving beyond sequences and homogeneous relationships.

invented entities (1)

Heterogeneous Interaction Network (HIN) no independent evidence
purpose: To represent complex learning processes across learners, behaviors, AI agents, and task designs.
Introduced as the core modeling object that enables the new multi-level analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5573 in / 1303 out tokens · 40300 ms · 2026-05-16T15:47:52.608925+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Formally, we can define a HIN as a graph G=(V1,V2,E,ω), where V1 and V2 are the two distinct node sets... ω assigns positive integer weight... quantity measure Qi=1/W ∑ w_ij ... diversity Di=−1/log N2 ∑ (w_ij/si) log(w_ij/si)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The MDL objective... L(G,b)=log N1 + log((N1−1)/(B−1)) + ... + ∑∑ log((nr + w(cn)_rj −1)/w(cn)_rj ) ... minimize over partitions b

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Comparing the Impact of Pedagogy-Informed Custom and General-Purpose GAI Chatbots on Students' Science Problem-Solving Processes and Performance Using Heterogeneous Interaction Network Analysis
cs.SI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Pedagogy-informed custom GAI chatbots using Socratic questioning increase students' cognitive engagement and interaction diversity during science problem-solving relative to general-purpose chatbots, without improving...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Ryan S Baker, Taylor Martin, and Lisa M Rossi. 2016. Educational data mining and learning analytics.The Wiley handbook of cognition and assessment: Frameworks, methodologies, and applications(2016), 379–396

work page 2016
[2]

1977.Social learning theory

Albert Bandura and Richard H Walters. 1977.Social learning theory. Vol. 1. Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ

work page 1977
[3]

Sanyam Bharara, Sai Sabitha, and Abhay Bansal. 2018. Application of learn- ing analytics using clustering data Mining for Students’ disposition analysis. Education and Information Technologies23, 2 (2018), 957–984

work page 2018
[4]

Michel Callon. 1999. Actor-network theory—the market test.The sociological review47, 1_suppl (1999), 181–195

work page 1999
[5]

Bodong Chen, Yu-Hui Chang, Fan Ouyang, and Wanying Zhou. 2018. Fostering student engagement in online discussion through social learning analytics.The internet and higher education37 (2018), 21–30

work page 2018
[6]

Bodong Chen and Oleksandra Poquet. 2022. Networks in learning analytics: Where theory, methodology, and practice intersect.Journal of learning analytics 9, 1 (2022), 1–12

work page 2022
[7]

Michelene TH Chi. 2009. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual frame- work for differentiating learning activities.Topics in cognitive science1, 1 (2009), 73–105

work page 2009
[8]

Doug Clow. 2012. The learning analytics cycle: closing the loop effectively. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. 134–138

work page 2012
[9]

Thomas M. Cover. 1999.Elements of Information Theory. John Wiley & Sons

work page 1999
[10]

Mutlu Cukurova. 2025. The interplay of learning, analytics and artificial intelli- gence in education: A vision for hybrid intelligence.British Journal of Educational Technology56, 2 (2025), 469–488

work page 2025
[11]

Belle Dang, Luna Huynh, Faaiz Gul, Carolyn Rosé, Sanna Järvelä, and Andy Nguyen. 2025. Human–AI collaborative learning in mixed reality: Examining the cognitive and socio-emotional interactions.British Journal of Educational Technology(2025)

work page 2025
[12]

Yizhou Fan, Luzhen Tang, Huixiao Le, Kejie Shen, Shufang Tan, Yueying Zhao, Yuan Shen, Xinyu Li, and Dragan Gašević. 2025. Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance.British Journal of Educational Technology56, 2 (2025), 489–530

work page 2025
[13]

Shihui Feng. 2025. Group interaction patterns in generative AI-supported collab- orative problem solving: Network analysis of the interactions among students and a GAI chatbot.British Journal of Educational Technology(2025)

work page 2025
[14]

Shihui Feng, David Gibson, and Dragan Gasevic. 2025. Analyzing Students’ Emerging Roles Based on Quantity and Heterogeneity of Individual Contribu- tions in Small Group Online Collaborative Learning Using Bipartite Network Analysis.Journal of Learning Analytics12, 1 (2025), 253–270

work page 2025
[15]

Shihui Feng, Baiyue He, and Alec Kirkley. 2025. HINA: A Learning Analytics Tool for Heterogenous Interaction Network Analysis in Python.Journal of Open Source Software10, 111 (2025), 8299

work page 2025
[16]

Shihui Feng and Ziyi Wei. 2025. The CoMPAS Framework for Modeling Indi- vidual Participation in Collaborative Learning Processes: a Systematic Review. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning(2025), 1–37

work page 2025
[17]

Shihui Feng, Lixiang Yan, Linxuan Zhao, Roberto Martinez Maldonado, and Dragan Gašević. 2024. Heterogenous network analytics of small group teamwork: Using multimodal data to uncover individual behavioral engagement strategies. InProceedings of the 14th learning analytics and knowledge conference. 587–597

work page 2024
[18]

Shihui Feng, Huilin Zhang, and Dragan Gašević. 2025. Mapping the Evolu- tion of AI in Education: Toward a Co-adaptive and Human-Centered Paradigm. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence(2025), 100513

work page 2025
[19]

Ryan J Gallagher, Jean-Gabriel Young, and Brooke Foucault Welles. 2021. A clarified typology of core-periphery structure in networks.Science advances7, 12 (2021), eabc9800

work page 2021
[20]

Dragan Gašević, Shane Dawson, and George Siemens. 2015. Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning.TechTrends59, 1 (2015), 64–71

work page 2015
[21]

Dragan Gašević, Srećko Joksimović, Brendan R Eagan, and David Williamson Shaffer. 2019. SENS: Network analytics to combine social and cognitive per- spectives of collaborative learning.Computers in Human Behavior92 (2019), 562–577

work page 2019
[22]

Dragan Gasevic, Yi-Shan Tsai, Shane Dawson, and Abelardo Pardo. 2019. How do we start? An approach to learning analytics adoption in higher education. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology36, 4 (2019), 342–353

work page 2019
[23]

Michail Giannakos, Roger Azevedo, Peter Brusilovsky, Mutlu Cukurova, Yan- nis Dimitriadis, Davinia Hernandez-Leo, Sanna Järvelä, Manolis Mavrikis, and Bart Rienties. 2025. The promise and challenges of generative AI in education. Behaviour & Information Technology44, 11 (2025), 2518–2544

work page 2025
[24]

David Gibson, Vitomir Kovanovic, Dirk Ifenthaler, Sara Dexter, and Shihui Feng

work page
[25]

British Journal of Educational Technology54, 5 (2023), 1125–1146

Learning theories for artificial intelligence promoting learning processes. British Journal of Educational Technology54, 5 (2023), 1125–1146

work page 2023
[26]

Michelle Girvan and Mark EJ Newman. 2002. Community structure in social and biological networks.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences99, 12 (2002), 7821–7826

work page 2002
[27]

Peter Goodyear and Lucila Carvalho. 2019. The analysis of complex learning environments. InRethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Routledge, 49–65

work page 2019
[28]

Olli-Pekka Heinimäki, Simone Volet, Cheryl Jones, Eero Laakkonen, and Marja Vauras. 2021. Student participatory role profiles in collaborative science learn- ing: Relation of within-group configurations of role profiles and achievement. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction30 (2021), 100539

work page 2021
[29]

Wonjoon Hong, Matthew L Bernacki, and Harsha N Perera. 2020. A latent profile analysis of undergraduates’ achievement motivations and metacognitive behaviors, and their relations to achievement in science.Journal of educational psychology112, 7 (2020), 1409

work page 2020
[30]

Sanna Järvelä, Andy Nguyen, and Allyson Hadwin. 2023. Human and artificial intelligence collaboration for socially shared regulation in learning.British Journal of Educational Technology54, 5 (2023), 1057–1076

work page 2023
[31]

Hogyeong Jeong, Gautam Biswas, Julie Johnson, and Larry Howard. 2010. Anal- ysis of productive learning behaviors in a structured inquiry cycle using hidden Markov models. InEducational Data Mining 2010

work page 2010
[32]

Jelena Jovanović, Dragan Gašević, Shane Dawson, Abelardo Pardo, and Negin Mirriahi. 2017. Learning analytics to unveil learning strategies in a flipped classroom.The Internet and Higher Education33 (2017), 74–85

work page 2017
[33]

Alec Kirkley. 2022. Spatial regionalization based on optimal information com- pression.Communications Physics5, 1 (2022), 249

work page 2022
[34]

Alec Kirkley. 2024. Identifying hubs in directed networks.Physical Review E109, 3 (2024), 034310

work page 2024
[35]

Alec Kirkley. 2024. Inference of dynamic hypergraph representations in temporal interaction data.Physical Review E109, 5 (2024), 054306

work page 2024
[36]

Alec Kirkley. 2025. Fast nonparametric inference of network backbones for weighted graph sparsification.Physical Review X15, 3 (2025), 031013

work page 2025
[37]

Alec Kirkley and Baiyue He. 2024. PANINIpy: Package of algorithms for non- parametric inference with networks in python.Journal of Open Source Software 9, 103 (2024), 7312

work page 2024
[38]

Alec Kirkley, Alexis Rojas, Martin Rosvall, and Jean-Gabriel Young. 2023. Com- pressing network populations with modal networks reveal structural diversity. Communications Physics6, 1 (2023), 148

work page 2023
[39]

Simon Knight, Andrew Gibson, and Antonette Shibani. 2020. Implementing learning analytics for learning impact: Taking tools to task.The Internet and Higher Education45 (2020), 100729

work page 2020
[40]

Trupti M Kodinariya, Prashant R Makwana, et al. 2013. Review on determining number of Cluster in K-Means Clustering.International Journal1, 6 (2013), 90–95

work page 2013
[41]

Joni Lämsä, Raija Hämäläinen, Pekka Koskinen, Jouni Viiri, and Joonas Man- nonen. 2020. The potential of temporal analysis: Combining log data and lag sequential analysis to investigate temporal differences between scaffolded and non-scaffolded group inquiry-based learning processes.Computers & Education 143 (2020), 103674

work page 2020
[42]

Bruno Latour. 1996. On actor-network theory: A few clarifications.Soziale welt (1996), 369–381

work page 1996
[43]

Derrick Norman Lawley and Albert Ernest Maxwell. 1962. Factor analysis as a statistical method.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician) 12, 3 (1962), 209–229. Heterogeneous Interaction Network Analysis (HINA)

work page 1962
[44]

Xin Li, Wanqing Hu, Yanyan Li, and Yafeng Zheng. 2024. Individuals in a group: Exploring engagement patterns via within-group configurations of role profiles and their impact on performance in collaborative problem solving.Interactive Learning Environments32, 9 (2024), 5836–5851

work page 2024
[45]

Bing Liu, Wynne Hsu, and Yiming Ma. 1998. Integrating classification and association rule mining. InProceedings of the fourth international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 80–86

work page 1998
[46]

Inge Molenaar. 2022. Towards hybrid human-AI learning technologies.European Journal of Education57, 4 (2022), 632–645

work page 2022
[47]

Sebastian Morel-Balbi and Alec Kirkley. 2024. Bayesian regionalization of urban mobility networks.Physical Review Research6, 3 (2024), 033307

work page 2024
[48]

Sebastian Morel-Balbi and Alec Kirkley. 2025. Estimation of partial rankings from sparse, noisy comparisons.Communications Physics(2025)

work page 2025
[49]

2018.Networks

Mark Newman. 2018.Networks. Oxford university press

work page 2018
[50]

Tiago P Peixoto. 2017. Nonparametric Bayesian inference of the microcanonical stochastic block model.Physical Review E95, 1 (2017), 012317

work page 2017
[51]

2013.The construction of reality in the child

Jean Piaget. 2013.The construction of reality in the child. Routledge

work page 2013
[52]

Jorma Rissanen. 1978. Modeling by shortest data description.Automatica14, 5 (1978), 465–471

work page 1978
[53]

Vitor Rolim, Rafael Ferreira, Rafael Dueire Lins, and Dragan Gˇasević. 2019. A network-based analytic approach to uncovering the relationship between social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry.The Internet and Higher Education42 (2019), 53–65

work page 2019
[54]

Cristobal Romero and Sebastian Ventura. 2020. Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Data mining and knowledge discovery10, 3 (2020), e1355

work page 2020
[55]

Mohammed Saqr and Ahmad Alamro. 2019. The role of social network analysis as a learning analytics tool in online problem based learning.BMC medical education19, 1 (2019), 160

work page 2019
[56]

Mohammed Saqr, Sonsoles López-Pernas, and Santtu Tikka. 2025. Mapping relational dynamics with transition network analysis: A primer and tutorial. InAdvanced learning analytics methods: AI, precision and complexity. Springer, 371–411

work page 2025
[57]

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.Journal of learning analytics3, 3 (2016), 9–45

work page 2016
[58]

Daniel Spurk, Andreas Hirschi, Mo Wang, Domingo Valero, and Simone Kauffeld

work page
[59]

Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research.Journal of vocational behavior120 (2020), 103445

work page 2020
[60]

Matthias Stadler, Maria Bannert, and Michael Sailer. 2024. Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry.Computers in Human Behavior160 (2024), 108386

work page 2024
[61]

Yuanru Tan, Andrew R Ruis, Cody Marquart, Zhiqiang Cai, Mariah A Knowles, and David Williamson Shaffer. 2022. Ordered network analysis. InInternational Conference on Quantitative Ethnography. Springer, 101–116

work page 2022
[62]

Megan Taylor, Abhinava Barthakur, Arslan Azad, Srecko Joksimovic, Xuwei Zhang, and George Siemens. 2024. Quantifying collaborative complex problem solving in classrooms using learning analytics. InProceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. 551–562

work page 2024
[63]

Wil Van Der Aalst. 2012. Process mining.Commun. ACM55, 8 (2012), 76–83

work page 2012
[64]

1978.Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes

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

work page 1978
[65]

Cixiao Wang and Jianjun Xiao. 2024. Who will participate in online collabo- rative problem solving? A longitudinal network analysis.Interactive Learning Environments32, 10 (2024), 6534–6551

work page 2024
[66]

Alexander Whitelock-Wainwright, Dragan Gašević, Ricardo Tejeiro, Yi-Shan Tsai, and Kate Bennett. 2019. The student expectations of learning analytics questionnaire.Journal of computer assisted learning35, 5 (2019), 633–666

work page 2019
[67]

Kester Wong, Feng Shihui, Sahan Bulathwela, and Mutlu Cukurova. 2025. Scaf- folding Reshapes Dialogic Engagement in Collaborative Problem Solving: Com- parative Analysis of Two Approaches.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08045(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[68]

Tzu-Chi Yen and Daniel B Larremore. 2020. Community detection in bipartite networks with stochastic block models.Physical Review E102, 3 (2020), 032309

work page 2020
[69]

Si Zhang, Qianqian Gao, Mengyu Sun, Zhihui Cai, Honghui Li, Yanling Tang, and Qingtang Liu. 2022. Understanding student teachers’ collaborative prob- lem solving: Insights from an epistemic network analysis (ENA).Computers & Education183 (2022), 104485

work page 2022
[70]

Wenting Zou, Xiao Hu, Zilong Pan, Chenglu Li, Ying Cai, and Min Liu. 2021. Exploring the relationship between social presence and learners’ prestige in MOOC discussion forums using automated content analysis and social network analysis.Computers in Human Behavior115 (2021), 106582

work page 2021

[1] [1]

Ryan S Baker, Taylor Martin, and Lisa M Rossi. 2016. Educational data mining and learning analytics.The Wiley handbook of cognition and assessment: Frameworks, methodologies, and applications(2016), 379–396

work page 2016

[2] [2]

1977.Social learning theory

Albert Bandura and Richard H Walters. 1977.Social learning theory. Vol. 1. Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ

work page 1977

[3] [3]

Sanyam Bharara, Sai Sabitha, and Abhay Bansal. 2018. Application of learn- ing analytics using clustering data Mining for Students’ disposition analysis. Education and Information Technologies23, 2 (2018), 957–984

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Michel Callon. 1999. Actor-network theory—the market test.The sociological review47, 1_suppl (1999), 181–195

work page 1999

[5] [5]

Bodong Chen, Yu-Hui Chang, Fan Ouyang, and Wanying Zhou. 2018. Fostering student engagement in online discussion through social learning analytics.The internet and higher education37 (2018), 21–30

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Bodong Chen and Oleksandra Poquet. 2022. Networks in learning analytics: Where theory, methodology, and practice intersect.Journal of learning analytics 9, 1 (2022), 1–12

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Michelene TH Chi. 2009. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual frame- work for differentiating learning activities.Topics in cognitive science1, 1 (2009), 73–105

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Doug Clow. 2012. The learning analytics cycle: closing the loop effectively. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. 134–138

work page 2012

[9] [9]

Thomas M. Cover. 1999.Elements of Information Theory. John Wiley & Sons

work page 1999

[10] [10]

Mutlu Cukurova. 2025. The interplay of learning, analytics and artificial intelli- gence in education: A vision for hybrid intelligence.British Journal of Educational Technology56, 2 (2025), 469–488

work page 2025

[11] [11]

Belle Dang, Luna Huynh, Faaiz Gul, Carolyn Rosé, Sanna Järvelä, and Andy Nguyen. 2025. Human–AI collaborative learning in mixed reality: Examining the cognitive and socio-emotional interactions.British Journal of Educational Technology(2025)

work page 2025

[12] [12]

Yizhou Fan, Luzhen Tang, Huixiao Le, Kejie Shen, Shufang Tan, Yueying Zhao, Yuan Shen, Xinyu Li, and Dragan Gašević. 2025. Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance.British Journal of Educational Technology56, 2 (2025), 489–530

work page 2025

[13] [13]

Shihui Feng. 2025. Group interaction patterns in generative AI-supported collab- orative problem solving: Network analysis of the interactions among students and a GAI chatbot.British Journal of Educational Technology(2025)

work page 2025

[14] [14]

Shihui Feng, David Gibson, and Dragan Gasevic. 2025. Analyzing Students’ Emerging Roles Based on Quantity and Heterogeneity of Individual Contribu- tions in Small Group Online Collaborative Learning Using Bipartite Network Analysis.Journal of Learning Analytics12, 1 (2025), 253–270

work page 2025

[15] [15]

Shihui Feng, Baiyue He, and Alec Kirkley. 2025. HINA: A Learning Analytics Tool for Heterogenous Interaction Network Analysis in Python.Journal of Open Source Software10, 111 (2025), 8299

work page 2025

[16] [16]

Shihui Feng and Ziyi Wei. 2025. The CoMPAS Framework for Modeling Indi- vidual Participation in Collaborative Learning Processes: a Systematic Review. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning(2025), 1–37

work page 2025

[17] [17]

Shihui Feng, Lixiang Yan, Linxuan Zhao, Roberto Martinez Maldonado, and Dragan Gašević. 2024. Heterogenous network analytics of small group teamwork: Using multimodal data to uncover individual behavioral engagement strategies. InProceedings of the 14th learning analytics and knowledge conference. 587–597

work page 2024

[18] [18]

Shihui Feng, Huilin Zhang, and Dragan Gašević. 2025. Mapping the Evolu- tion of AI in Education: Toward a Co-adaptive and Human-Centered Paradigm. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence(2025), 100513

work page 2025

[19] [19]

Ryan J Gallagher, Jean-Gabriel Young, and Brooke Foucault Welles. 2021. A clarified typology of core-periphery structure in networks.Science advances7, 12 (2021), eabc9800

work page 2021

[20] [20]

Dragan Gašević, Shane Dawson, and George Siemens. 2015. Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning.TechTrends59, 1 (2015), 64–71

work page 2015

[21] [21]

Dragan Gašević, Srećko Joksimović, Brendan R Eagan, and David Williamson Shaffer. 2019. SENS: Network analytics to combine social and cognitive per- spectives of collaborative learning.Computers in Human Behavior92 (2019), 562–577

work page 2019

[22] [22]

Dragan Gasevic, Yi-Shan Tsai, Shane Dawson, and Abelardo Pardo. 2019. How do we start? An approach to learning analytics adoption in higher education. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology36, 4 (2019), 342–353

work page 2019

[23] [23]

Michail Giannakos, Roger Azevedo, Peter Brusilovsky, Mutlu Cukurova, Yan- nis Dimitriadis, Davinia Hernandez-Leo, Sanna Järvelä, Manolis Mavrikis, and Bart Rienties. 2025. The promise and challenges of generative AI in education. Behaviour & Information Technology44, 11 (2025), 2518–2544

work page 2025

[24] [24]

David Gibson, Vitomir Kovanovic, Dirk Ifenthaler, Sara Dexter, and Shihui Feng

work page

[25] [25]

British Journal of Educational Technology54, 5 (2023), 1125–1146

Learning theories for artificial intelligence promoting learning processes. British Journal of Educational Technology54, 5 (2023), 1125–1146

work page 2023

[26] [26]

Michelle Girvan and Mark EJ Newman. 2002. Community structure in social and biological networks.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences99, 12 (2002), 7821–7826

work page 2002

[27] [27]

Peter Goodyear and Lucila Carvalho. 2019. The analysis of complex learning environments. InRethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Routledge, 49–65

work page 2019

[28] [28]

Olli-Pekka Heinimäki, Simone Volet, Cheryl Jones, Eero Laakkonen, and Marja Vauras. 2021. Student participatory role profiles in collaborative science learn- ing: Relation of within-group configurations of role profiles and achievement. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction30 (2021), 100539

work page 2021

[29] [29]

Wonjoon Hong, Matthew L Bernacki, and Harsha N Perera. 2020. A latent profile analysis of undergraduates’ achievement motivations and metacognitive behaviors, and their relations to achievement in science.Journal of educational psychology112, 7 (2020), 1409

work page 2020

[30] [30]

Sanna Järvelä, Andy Nguyen, and Allyson Hadwin. 2023. Human and artificial intelligence collaboration for socially shared regulation in learning.British Journal of Educational Technology54, 5 (2023), 1057–1076

work page 2023

[31] [31]

Hogyeong Jeong, Gautam Biswas, Julie Johnson, and Larry Howard. 2010. Anal- ysis of productive learning behaviors in a structured inquiry cycle using hidden Markov models. InEducational Data Mining 2010

work page 2010

[32] [32]

Jelena Jovanović, Dragan Gašević, Shane Dawson, Abelardo Pardo, and Negin Mirriahi. 2017. Learning analytics to unveil learning strategies in a flipped classroom.The Internet and Higher Education33 (2017), 74–85

work page 2017

[33] [33]

Alec Kirkley. 2022. Spatial regionalization based on optimal information com- pression.Communications Physics5, 1 (2022), 249

work page 2022

[34] [34]

Alec Kirkley. 2024. Identifying hubs in directed networks.Physical Review E109, 3 (2024), 034310

work page 2024

[35] [35]

Alec Kirkley. 2024. Inference of dynamic hypergraph representations in temporal interaction data.Physical Review E109, 5 (2024), 054306

work page 2024

[36] [36]

Alec Kirkley. 2025. Fast nonparametric inference of network backbones for weighted graph sparsification.Physical Review X15, 3 (2025), 031013

work page 2025

[37] [37]

Alec Kirkley and Baiyue He. 2024. PANINIpy: Package of algorithms for non- parametric inference with networks in python.Journal of Open Source Software 9, 103 (2024), 7312

work page 2024

[38] [38]

Alec Kirkley, Alexis Rojas, Martin Rosvall, and Jean-Gabriel Young. 2023. Com- pressing network populations with modal networks reveal structural diversity. Communications Physics6, 1 (2023), 148

work page 2023

[39] [39]

Simon Knight, Andrew Gibson, and Antonette Shibani. 2020. Implementing learning analytics for learning impact: Taking tools to task.The Internet and Higher Education45 (2020), 100729

work page 2020

[40] [40]

Trupti M Kodinariya, Prashant R Makwana, et al. 2013. Review on determining number of Cluster in K-Means Clustering.International Journal1, 6 (2013), 90–95

work page 2013

[41] [41]

Joni Lämsä, Raija Hämäläinen, Pekka Koskinen, Jouni Viiri, and Joonas Man- nonen. 2020. The potential of temporal analysis: Combining log data and lag sequential analysis to investigate temporal differences between scaffolded and non-scaffolded group inquiry-based learning processes.Computers & Education 143 (2020), 103674

work page 2020

[42] [42]

Bruno Latour. 1996. On actor-network theory: A few clarifications.Soziale welt (1996), 369–381

work page 1996

[43] [43]

Derrick Norman Lawley and Albert Ernest Maxwell. 1962. Factor analysis as a statistical method.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician) 12, 3 (1962), 209–229. Heterogeneous Interaction Network Analysis (HINA)

work page 1962

[44] [44]

Xin Li, Wanqing Hu, Yanyan Li, and Yafeng Zheng. 2024. Individuals in a group: Exploring engagement patterns via within-group configurations of role profiles and their impact on performance in collaborative problem solving.Interactive Learning Environments32, 9 (2024), 5836–5851

work page 2024

[45] [45]

Bing Liu, Wynne Hsu, and Yiming Ma. 1998. Integrating classification and association rule mining. InProceedings of the fourth international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 80–86

work page 1998

[46] [46]

Inge Molenaar. 2022. Towards hybrid human-AI learning technologies.European Journal of Education57, 4 (2022), 632–645

work page 2022

[47] [47]

Sebastian Morel-Balbi and Alec Kirkley. 2024. Bayesian regionalization of urban mobility networks.Physical Review Research6, 3 (2024), 033307

work page 2024

[48] [48]

Sebastian Morel-Balbi and Alec Kirkley. 2025. Estimation of partial rankings from sparse, noisy comparisons.Communications Physics(2025)

work page 2025

[49] [49]

2018.Networks

Mark Newman. 2018.Networks. Oxford university press

work page 2018

[50] [50]

Tiago P Peixoto. 2017. Nonparametric Bayesian inference of the microcanonical stochastic block model.Physical Review E95, 1 (2017), 012317

work page 2017

[51] [51]

2013.The construction of reality in the child

Jean Piaget. 2013.The construction of reality in the child. Routledge

work page 2013

[52] [52]

Jorma Rissanen. 1978. Modeling by shortest data description.Automatica14, 5 (1978), 465–471

work page 1978

[53] [53]

Vitor Rolim, Rafael Ferreira, Rafael Dueire Lins, and Dragan Gˇasević. 2019. A network-based analytic approach to uncovering the relationship between social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry.The Internet and Higher Education42 (2019), 53–65

work page 2019

[54] [54]

Cristobal Romero and Sebastian Ventura. 2020. Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Data mining and knowledge discovery10, 3 (2020), e1355

work page 2020

[55] [55]

Mohammed Saqr and Ahmad Alamro. 2019. The role of social network analysis as a learning analytics tool in online problem based learning.BMC medical education19, 1 (2019), 160

work page 2019

[56] [56]

Mohammed Saqr, Sonsoles López-Pernas, and Santtu Tikka. 2025. Mapping relational dynamics with transition network analysis: A primer and tutorial. InAdvanced learning analytics methods: AI, precision and complexity. Springer, 371–411

work page 2025

[57] [57]

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.Journal of learning analytics3, 3 (2016), 9–45

work page 2016

[58] [58]

Daniel Spurk, Andreas Hirschi, Mo Wang, Domingo Valero, and Simone Kauffeld

work page

[59] [59]

Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research.Journal of vocational behavior120 (2020), 103445

work page 2020

[60] [60]

Matthias Stadler, Maria Bannert, and Michael Sailer. 2024. Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry.Computers in Human Behavior160 (2024), 108386

work page 2024

[61] [61]

Yuanru Tan, Andrew R Ruis, Cody Marquart, Zhiqiang Cai, Mariah A Knowles, and David Williamson Shaffer. 2022. Ordered network analysis. InInternational Conference on Quantitative Ethnography. Springer, 101–116

work page 2022

[62] [62]

Megan Taylor, Abhinava Barthakur, Arslan Azad, Srecko Joksimovic, Xuwei Zhang, and George Siemens. 2024. Quantifying collaborative complex problem solving in classrooms using learning analytics. InProceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. 551–562

work page 2024

[63] [63]

Wil Van Der Aalst. 2012. Process mining.Commun. ACM55, 8 (2012), 76–83

work page 2012

[64] [64]

1978.Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes

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

work page 1978

[65] [65]

Cixiao Wang and Jianjun Xiao. 2024. Who will participate in online collabo- rative problem solving? A longitudinal network analysis.Interactive Learning Environments32, 10 (2024), 6534–6551

work page 2024

[66] [66]

Alexander Whitelock-Wainwright, Dragan Gašević, Ricardo Tejeiro, Yi-Shan Tsai, and Kate Bennett. 2019. The student expectations of learning analytics questionnaire.Journal of computer assisted learning35, 5 (2019), 633–666

work page 2019

[67] [67]

Kester Wong, Feng Shihui, Sahan Bulathwela, and Mutlu Cukurova. 2025. Scaf- folding Reshapes Dialogic Engagement in Collaborative Problem Solving: Com- parative Analysis of Two Approaches.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08045(2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[68] [68]

Tzu-Chi Yen and Daniel B Larremore. 2020. Community detection in bipartite networks with stochastic block models.Physical Review E102, 3 (2020), 032309

work page 2020

[69] [69]

Si Zhang, Qianqian Gao, Mengyu Sun, Zhihui Cai, Honghui Li, Yanling Tang, and Qingtang Liu. 2022. Understanding student teachers’ collaborative prob- lem solving: Insights from an epistemic network analysis (ENA).Computers & Education183 (2022), 104485

work page 2022

[70] [70]

Wenting Zou, Xiao Hu, Zilong Pan, Chenglu Li, Ying Cai, and Min Liu. 2021. Exploring the relationship between social presence and learners’ prestige in MOOC discussion forums using automated content analysis and social network analysis.Computers in Human Behavior115 (2021), 106582

work page 2021