Detecting Disruptive Talk in Student Chat-Based Discussion within Collaborative Game-Based Learning Environments

Abstract

Collaborative game-based learning environments offer significant promise for creating engaging group learning experiences. Online chat plays a pivotal role in these environments by providing students with a means to freely communicate during problem solving. These chat-based discussions and negotiations support the coordination of students’ in-game learning activities. However, this freedom of expression comes with the possibility that some students might engage in undesirable communicative behavior. A key challenge posed by collaborative game-based learning environments is how to reliably detect disruptive talk that purposefully disrupt team dynamics and problem-solving interactions. Detecting disruptive talk during collaborative game-based learning is particularly important because if it is allowed to persist, it can generate frustration and significantly impede the learning process for students. This paper analyzes disruptive talk in a collaborative game-based learning environment for middle school science education to investigate how such behaviors influence students’ learning outcomes and varies across gender and students’ prior knowledge. We present a disruptive talk detection framework that automatically detects disruptive talk in chat-based group conversations. We further investigate both classic machine learning and deep learning models for the framework utilizing a range of dialogue representations as well as supplementary information such as student gender. Findings show that long short-term memory network (LSTM)-based disruptive talk detection models outperform competitive baseline models, indicating that the LSTM-based disruptive talk detection framework offers significant potential for supporting effective collaborative game-based learning through the identification of disruptive talk.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.