Group Assignments for Project-Based Learning Using Natural Language Processing—A Feasibility Study
Source abstract
Abstract
Group learning is commonly used in a wide range of classes. However, effective methods used to form groups are not thoroughly understood. In this study, we explore a quantitative method for creating project teams based on student knowledge and interests expressed in project proposals. The proposals are encoded to vector representations, ensuring that closely related proposals yield similar vectors. During this step, two widely used natural language processing algorithms are used. The first algorithm is based solely on the frequency of words used in the text, while the other considers context information using a deep neural network. The similarity scores for the proposals generated by the two algorithms are compared with those generated by human evaluators. The proposed method was applied to a group of senior students in a capstone design course in South Korea based on their project proposals on autonomous cars written in Korean. The results indicate that the contextualized encoding scheme produces more human-like text similarity vectors compared to the word frequency-based encoding scheme. This discrepancy is discussed from a context information standpoint in this study.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Design Education and Practice · Software Engineering Techniques and Practices · Speech and dialogue systems
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Special Education, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea
Department of Electronics Engineering, Incheon National University, Incheon 22012, Korea
Funding
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Newell, C., and Bain, A. (2018). Team-Based Collaboration in Higher Education Learning and Teaching: A Review of the Literature, Springer.10.1007/978-981-13-1855-9 ↗
2. Team learning: A potential solution to the problem of large classes
3. New work systems and skill requirements
4. Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups
5. Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning10.1080/87567550309596434 ↗
6. Groups that work: Student achievement in group research projects and effects on individual learning10.1177/0092055X17697772 ↗
7. Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement
8. Krajcik, J.S., and Czerniak, C.M. (2018). Teaching Science in Elementary and Middle School: A Project-Based Learning Approach, Routledge.10.4324/9781315205014 ↗
9. A review of literature on teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00260.x ↗
10. The 2015 Capstone Design Survey Results: Current Practices and Changes over Time
11. Characterizing capstone design teaching: A functional taxonomy10.1002/jee.20259 ↗
12. Teaching communication in capstone design: The role of the instructor in situated learning10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00995.x ↗
13. The right answer is communication when capstone engineering courses drive the questions
14. Elements of an optimal capstone design experience10.1002/j.2168-9830.1999.tb00405.x ↗
15. Meyer, D.G. (2005, January 19–22). Capstone design outcome assessment: Instruments for quantitative evaluation. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference, Indianopolis, IN, USA.
16. A quantitative analysis of the effects of a multidisciplinary engineering capstone design course10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01122.x ↗
17. Gregg, L., and Steinberg, E. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. Cognitive Processes in Writing, Erlbaum.
18. Levy, M., and Ransdell, S. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications, Erlbaum.
19. MacArthur, C., Graham, S., and Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. Handbook of Writing Research, Guilford Press.
20. An information-theoretic perspective of tf–idf measures10.1016/S0306-4573(02)00021-3 ↗
21. Cer, D., Yang, Y., Kong, S., Hua, N., Limtiaco, N., St. John, R., Constant, N., Guajardo-Cespedes, M., Yuan, S., and Tar, C. (November, January 31). Universal Sentence Encoder for English. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, Brussels, Belgium.10.18653/v1/D18-2029 ↗
22. Yang, Y., Cer, D., Ahmad, A., Guo, M., Law, J., Constant, N., Abrego, G.H., Yuan, S., Tar, C., and Sung, Y. (2000, January 5). Multilingual Universal Sentence Encoder for Semantic Retrieval. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, Online.
23. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 ↗
24. (2022, May 12). Open-Source Korean Text Processor. Available online: https://github.com/open-korean-text/open-korean-text.
25. Choi, M., Hur, J., and Jang, M.-G. (2004, January 2–6). Constructing Korean lexical concept network for encyclopedia question-answering system. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Busan, Korea.
26. Yun, H., Sim, G., and Seok, J. (2019, January 11–12). Stock Prices Prediction using the Title of Newspaper Articles with Korean Natural Language Processing. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Information and Communication, Okinawa, Japan.10.1109/ICAIIC.2019.8668996 ↗
27. Kudo, T., and Richardson, J. (November, January 31). SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processing. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, Association for Computational Linguistics, Brussels, Belgium.10.18653/v1/D18-2012 ↗
28. Attention is all you need
29. (2022, April 19). TensorFlow Hub. Available online: https://tfhub.dev/google/universal-sentence-encoder-multilingual-large/3.
30. Bowman, S.R., Angeli, G., Potts, C., and Manning, C.D. (2015, January 17–21). A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Lisbon, Portugal.10.18653/v1/D15-1075 ↗
31. Mechanisms of sentence context effects in reading: Automatic activation and conscious attention10.3758/BF03197588 ↗
32. Michael, H., and Frank, K. (2016, January 1–4). Modeling Human Reading with Neural Attention. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Austin, TX, USA.
33. Zheng, Y., Mao, J., Liu, Y., Ye, Z., Zhang, M., and Ma, S. (2019, January 21–25). Human behavior inspired machine reading comprehension. Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Paris, France.10.1145/3331184.3331231 ↗
34. Quality at a glance: An audit of web-crawled multilingual datasets10.1162/tacl_a_00447 ↗
35. Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., and Zhu, W.J. (2002, January 7–12). BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, PA, USA.10.3115/1073083.1073135 ↗
36. Marie, B., Fujita, A., and Rubino, R. (2021, January 1–6). Scientific Credibility of Machine Translation Research: A Meta-Evaluation of 769 Papers. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, Bangkok, Thailand.10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.566 ↗