Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

Explainable Collaborative Problem Solving Diagnosis with BERT using SHAP and its Implications for Teacher Adoption

Date
Publisher
arXiv
The use of Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model and its variants for classifying collaborative problem solving (CPS) has been extensively explored within the AI in Education community. However, limited attention has been given to understanding how individual tokenised words in the dataset contribute to the model's classification decisions. Enhancing the explainability of BERT-based CPS diagnostics is essential to better inform end users such as teachers, thereby fostering greater trust and facilitating wider adoption in education. This study undertook a preliminary step towards model transparency and explainability by using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to examine how different tokenised words in transcription data contributed to a BERT model's classification of CPS processes. The findings suggested that well-performing classifications did not necessarily equate to a reasonable explanation for the classification decisions. Particular tokenised words were used frequently to affect classifications. The analysis also identified a spurious word, which contributed positively to the classification but was not semantically meaningful to the class. While such model transparency is unlikely to be useful to an end user to improve their practice, it can help them not to overrely on LLM diagnostics and ignore their human expertise. We conclude the workshop paper by noting that the extent to which the model appropriately uses the tokens for its classification is associated with the number of classes involved. It calls for an investigation into the exploration of ensemble model architectures and the involvement of human-AI complementarity for CPS diagnosis, since considerable human reasoning is still required for fine-grained discrimination of CPS subskills.
Study at a glance
  • Question: How do individual words influence an AI model's decisions when identifying collaborative problem solving?
  • Setting and data: Transcription data (setting, participants, and sample size not stated in the abstract).
  • Method: Computational analysis of an AI model's classifications (SHapley Additive exPlanations, SHAP).
Why it matters

Little attention has been given to how individual words contribute to AI classifications of collaborative problem solving. Enhancing model explainability is essential to better inform teachers, foster greater trust, and facilitate wider adoption in education.

Key findings
  • An AI tool's accurate classification of collaborative problem solving did not necessarily mean it based its decisions on reasonable explanations.
  • The AI frequently relied on specific words to classify collaborative problem solving, including irrelevant words with no meaningful connection to the category.
  • The extent to which the AI appropriately used words for classification was associated with the total number of categories being evaluated.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

What is the application?
Who is the user?
Why use AI?