Many online content portals allow users to ask questions to supplement their understanding (e.g., of lectures). While information retrieval (IR) systems may provide answers for such user queries, they do not directly assist content creators—such as lecturers who want to improve their content—identify segments that caused a user to ask those questions.We introduce the task of backtracing, in which systems retrieve the text segment that most likely caused a user query.We formalize three real-world domains for which backtracing is important in improving content delivery and communication: understanding the cause of (a) student confusion in the Lecture domain, (b) reader curiosity in the News Article domain, and (c) user emotion in the Conversation domain.We evaluate the zero-shot performance of popular information retrieval methods and language modeling methods, including bi-encoder, re-ranking and likelihood-based methods and ChatGPT.While traditional IR systems retrieve semantically relevant information (e.g., details on “projection matrices” for a query “does projecting multiple times still lead to the same point?”), they often miss the causally relevant context (e.g., the lecturer states “projecting twice gets me the same answer as one projection”). Our results show that there is room for improvement on backtracing and it requires new retrieval approaches.We hope our benchmark serves to improve future retrieval systems for backtracing, spawning systems that refine content generation and identify linguistic triggers influencing user queries.

Teachers’ growth mindset supportive language (GMSL)—rhetoric emphasizing that one’s skills can be improved over time—has been shown to significantly reduce disparities in academic achievement and enhance students’ learning outcomes. Although teachers espouse growth mindset principles, most find it difficult to adopt GMSL in their practice due the lack of effective coaching in this area. We explore whether large language models (LLMs) can provide automated, personalized coaching to support teachers’ use of GMSL. We establish an effective coaching tool to reframe unsupportive utterances to GMSL by developing (i) a parallel dataset containing GMSL-trained teacher reframings of unsupportive statements with an accompanying annotation guide, (ii) a GMSL prompt framework to revise teachers’ unsupportive language, and (iii) an evaluation framework grounded in psychological theory for evaluating GMSL with the help of students and teachers. We conduct a large-scale evaluation involving 174 teachers and 1,006 students, finding that both teachers and students perceive GMSL-trained teacher and model reframings as more effective in fostering a growth mindset and promoting challenge-seeking behavior, among other benefits. We also find that model-generated reframings outperform those from the GMSL-trained teachers. These results show promise for harnessing LLMs to provide automated GMSL feedback for teachers and, more broadly, LLMs’ potentiality for supporting students’ learning in the classroom. Our findings also demonstrate the benefit of large-scale human evaluations when applying LLMs in educational domains.

Lectures are a learning experience for both students and teachers. Students learn from teachers about the subject material, while teachers learn from students about how to refine their instruction. Unfortunately, online student feedback is unstructured and abundant, making it challenging for teachers to learn and improve. We take a step towards tackling this challenge. First, we contribute a dataset for studying this problem: SIGHT is a large dataset of 288 math lecture transcripts and 15,784 comments collected from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) YouTube channel. Second, we develop a rubric for categorizing feedback types using qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis methods are powerful in uncovering domain-specific insights, however they are costly to apply to large data sources. To overcome this challenge, we propose a set of best practices for using large language models (LLMs) to cheaply classify the comments at scale. We observe a striking correlation between the model’s and humans’ annotation: Categories with consistent human annotations (0.9 inter-rater reliability, IRR) also display higher human-model agreement (0.7), while categories with less consistent human annotations (0.7-0.8 IRR) correspondingly demonstrate lower human-model agreement (0.3-0.5). These techniques uncover useful student feedback from thousands of comments, costing around $0.002 per comment. We conclude by discussing exciting future directions on using online student feedback and improving automated annotation techniques for qualitative research.

Coaching, which involves classroom observation and expert feedback, is a widespread and fundamental part of teacher training. However, the majority of teachers do not have access to consistent, high quality coaching due to limited resources and access to expertise. We explore whether generative AI could become a cost-effective complement to expert feedback by serving as an automated teacher coach. In doing so, we propose three teacher coaching tasks for generative AI: (A) scoring transcript segments based on classroom observation instruments, (B)identifying highlights and missed opportunities for good instructional strategies, and (C) providing actionable suggestions for eliciting more student reasoning. We recruit expert math teachers to evaluate the zero-shot performance of ChatGPT on each of these tasks for elementary math classroom transcripts. Our results reveal that ChatGPT generates responses that are relevant to improving instruction, but they are often not novel or insightful. For example, 82% of the model’s suggestions point to places in the transcript where the teacher is already implementing that suggestion. Our work highlights the challenges of producing insightful, novel and truthful feedback for teachers while paving the way for future research to address these obstacles and improve the capacity of generative AI to coach teachers.

To be good conversational partners, natural language processing (NLP) systems should be trained to produce contextually useful utterances. Prior work has investigated training NLP systems with communication-based objectives, where a neural listener stands in as a communication partner. However, these systems commonly suffer from semantic drift where the learned language diverges radically from natural language. We propose a method that uses a population of neural listeners to regularize speaker training. We first show that language drift originates from the poor uncertainty calibration of a neural listener, which makes high-certainty predictions on novel sentences. We explore ensemble- and dropout-based populations of listeners and find that the former results in better uncertainty quantification. We evaluate both population-based objectives on reference games, and show that the ensemble method with better calibration enables the speaker to generate pragmatic utterances while scaling to a large vocabulary and generalizing to new games and listeners.