arXiv preprint ·
Characterizing Questioning Patterns and Student Engagement Through Contextual Analysis of Real-Time Classroom Interactions
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Real-time classroom polling is now routine, yet the data it produces is usually read narrowly, as a correctness score or a headcount. Such readings say little about what a poll is doing within a lecture or how it shapes engagement. This is particularly relevant for short-response formats such as True/False, where the same question format can be used to test recall, check comprehension, or direct students' attention to a deliberately misleading statement. This study asks whether a poll's answer and instructional function can be determined by reading it against its lecture transcript, what cognitive levels of Bloom's taxonomy and instructional-function clusters the corpus contains, and how student engagement relates to answering correctly. We analyse a naturalistic corpus of 47 live sessions over 39 days, comprising 604 poll questions and 340,668 responses from 2,807 learners, most items True/False, read against time-aligned lecture transcripts and attendance. Reading each poll in context proves essential: the answer to 89% of polls is locatable in the lecture, and a recurring attention-checking device is visible only through context. Questioning is overwhelmingly lower-order and falls into seven instructional functions, and a poll's response follows its function rather than its wording. Engagement is broad but concentrated, and the class majority answers correctly 88.5% of the time, though a small set of high-consensus yet incorrect answers cannot be detected by agreement alone. An independent survey of 579 students agrees on what the polls are and on their participation, but reveals a gap between perception and reality: students cannot judge their own correctness, and the polls they find hardest are not those they answer worst.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Human-Computer Interaction
Whose Voice Survives the Summary? A Voice-Retention Audit of LLM Employee Listening
AuraForge: Scaling Security Supervision for Training Coding Agents
Correctness, Convergence, and AI-Generated Code Detection: A Longitudinal Study of Student and Large Language Model Code in Introductory Programming
Breaking News Out of the Filter Bubble: Generative AI Search Diversifies Collective Attention and Raises Shared Information Consumption
Scaling Peer Assessments: An Integrity Report from a Large Engineering Internship
Get the few papers worth your time in Human-Computer Interaction every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.