When Optimal Team Formation Is a Choice - Self-selection Versus Intelligent Team Formation Strategies in a Large Online Project-Based Course

  • Sreecharan SankaranarayananEmail author
  • Cameron Dashti
  • Chris Bogart
  • Xu Wang
  • Majd Sakr
  • Carolyn Penstein Rosé
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10947)


Prior research in Team-Based Massive Open Online Project courses (TB-MOOPs) has demonstrated both the importance of effective group composition and the potential for using automated methods for forming effective teams. Past work on automated team assignment has produced both spectacular failures and spectacular successes. In either case, different contexts pose particular challenges that may interfere with the applicability of approaches that have succeeded in other contexts. This paper reports on a case study investigating the applicability of an automated team assignment approach that has succeeded spectacularly in TB-MOOP contexts to a large online project-based course. The analysis offers both evidence of partial success of the paradigm as well as insights into areas for growth.


Automated team formation Transactivity Team-Based Massive Open Online Project Course TB-MOOP Peer learning 



This work was funded in part by the NIH grant 5R01HL122639-03 and NSF grants IIS-1546393 and ACI-1443068. The research reported here was further enriched by being conducted in the context of the Program in Interdisciplinary Education Research (PIER), a training grant to Carnegie Mellon University funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (R305B150008). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Institute, the U.S. Department of Education or other funding organizations that supported this work.


  1. 1.
    Ahuja, R.K., Orlin, J.B.: A fast and simple algorithm for the maximum flow problem. Oper. Res. 37(5), 748–759 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ai, H., Kumar, R., Nguyen, D., Nagasunder, A., Rosé, C.P.: Exploring the effectiveness of social capabilities and goal alignment in computer supported collaborative learning. In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6095, pp. 134–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azmitia, M., Montgomery, R.: Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Soc. Dev. 2(3), 202–221 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berkowitz, M.W., Gibbs, J.C.: Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Q. 29, 399–410 (1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coetzee, D., Fox, A., Hearst, M.A., Hartmann, B.: Chatrooms in MOOCs: all talk and no action. In: Proceedings of the first ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale Conference, pp. 127–136. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Decker, R.: Management team formation for large scale simulations. Dev. Bus. Simul. Exp. Learn. 22, 128–129 (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferschke, O., Yang, D., Tomar, G., Rosé, C.P.: Positive impact of collaborative chat participation in an edX MOOC. In: Conati, C., Heffernan, N., Mitrovic, A., Verdejo, M.F. (eds.) AIED 2015. LNCS, vol. 9112, pp. 115–124. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghadiri, K., Qayoumi, M.H., Junn, E., Hsu, P., Sujitparapitaya, S.: The transformative potential of blended learning using MIT edXs 6.002 X online MOOC content combined with student team-based learning in class. Environment 8(14), 14–29 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graf, S., Bekele, R.: Forming heterogeneous groups for intelligent collaborative learning systems with ant colony optimization. In: Ikeda, M., Ashley, K.D., Chan, T.-W. (eds.) ITS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4053, pp. 217–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gweon, G.: Assessment and support of the idea co-construction process that influences collaboration. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gweon, G., Jain, M., McDonough, J., Raj, B., Rosé, C.P.: Measuring prevalence of other-oriented transactive contributions using an automated measure of speech style accommodation. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collaborative Learn. 8(2), 245–265 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ikeda, M., Go, S., Mizoguchi, R.: Opportunistic group formation. In: Artificial Intelligence and Education, Proceedings of AIED, vol. 97, pp. 167–174 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joshi, M., Rosé, C.P.: Using transactivity in conversation for summarization of educational dialogue. In: Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P.A.: A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: united brains for complex tasks. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 21(1), 31–42 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kizilcec, R.F., Schneider, E.: Motivation as a lens to understand online learners: toward data-driven design with the OLEI scale. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interac. (TOCHI) 22(2), 6 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kotturi, Y., Kulkarni, C.E., Bernstein, M.S., Klemmer, S.: Structure and messaging techniques for online peer learning systems that increase stickiness. In: Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, pp. 31–38. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacNeil, S., Latulipe, C., Long, B., Yadav, A.: Exploring lightweight teams in a distributed learning environment. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, pp. 193–198. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oakley, B., Felder, R.M., Brent, R., Elhajj, I.: Turning student groups into effective teams. J. Stud. Centered Learn. 2(1), 9–34 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ounnas, A., Davis, H., Millard, D.: A framework for semantic group formation. In: Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2008, pp. 34–38. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paredes, P., Ortigosa, A., Rodriguez, P.: A method for supporting heterogeneous-group formation through heuristics and visualization. J. UCS 16(19), 2882–2901 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, M.K., Wood, W.B., Adams, W.K., Wieman, C., Knight, J.K., Guild, N., Su, T.T.: Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323(5910), 122–124 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Staubitz, T., Renz, J., Willems, C., Meinel, C.: Supporting social interaction and collaboration on an xMOOC platform. In: Proceedings of EDULEARN 2014, pp. 6667–6677 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teasley, S.D., Fischer, F., Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Dillenbourg, P., Kapur, M., Chi, M.: Cognitive convergence in collaborative learning. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on International Conference for the Learning Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 360–367. International Society of the Learning Sciences (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, X., Wen, M., Rosé, C.: Contrasting Explicit and Implicit Support for Transactive Exchange in Team Oriented Project Based Learning. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Philadelphia (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang, X., Wen, M., Rosé, C.P.: Towards triggering higher-order thinking behaviors in MOOCS. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, LAK 2016, pp. 398–407. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Webb, N.M., Palincsar, A.S.: Group Processes in the Classroom. Prentice Hall International, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wen, M.: Investigating virtual teams in massive open online courses: deliberation-based virtual team formation, discussion mining and support. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wen, M., Maki, K., Wang, X., Dow, S., Herbsleb, J.D., Rosé, C.P.: Transactivity as a predictor of future collaborative knowledge integration in team-based learning in online courses. In: EDM, pp. 533–538 (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhan, Z., Fong, P.S., Mei, H., Liang, T.: Effects of gender grouping on students group performance, individual achievements and attitudes in computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 587–596 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zheng, Z., Vogelsang, T., Pinkwart, N.: The impact of small learning group composition on student engagement and success in a MOOC. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Educational Data Mining, pp. 500–503 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sreecharan Sankaranarayanan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cameron Dashti
    • 1
  • Chris Bogart
    • 1
  • Xu Wang
    • 1
  • Majd Sakr
    • 1
  • Carolyn Penstein Rosé
    • 1
  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations