Physiological and Semantic Patterns in Medical Teams Using an Intelligent Tutoring System

Research shows that dialogue, the interactive process through which participants articulate their thinking, plays a central role in constructing shared understanding, coordinating action, and shaping learning outcomes in teams. Analysing dialogue content has been central to advancing team learning theory and informing the design of computer-supported collaborative learning environments, yet this progress has depended on labour-intensive qualitative coding. LLMs offer new possibilities for automating and enhancing the dialogue layer within emerging multimodal learning analytics approaches, with recent studies showing that they can approximate human coding through few-shot prompting. However, prior work has focused on replicating human coding accuracy for research purposes, rather than addressing a more educationally consequential question: how can we design prompts that allow an LLM to label team dialogue accurately and fast enough to be useful in real settings, such as in-person healthcare simulations, where results must be returned quickly and computational cost and sustainability also matter? This paper investigates how prompt design and batching strategies can be optimised to balance coding accuracy, processing time, and environmental impact in team-based healthcare simulation debriefing. Using a dataset of 11,647 utterances coded across 6 dialogue constructs, we compared 4 prompt designs across varying batch sizes, evaluating coding performance, processing time, and energy consumption, as well as the trade-offs between these metrics. Results indicate that increasing batch size improves speed and reduces energy use, but negatively impacts coding performance. Beyond demonstrating the feasibility of LLM-based qualitative analysis, this study offers practical guidance for scaling dialogue analytics in contexts where timeliness, privacy, and sustainability are critical.

We introduce Rationalize, a role-pair framework for shared semantic reasoning between humans and AI models in data-driven sensemaking. Building on ideas in human-machine teaming and critical thinking, we conceptualize human-AI interaction as a series of complementary role pairs (Explorer-Guide, Investigator-Informant, Teacher-Student, Judge-Advocate) operating in a shared reasoning space. In this space, human analysts and AI models (such as LLMs) make purposes, questions, assumptions, evidence, inferences, and implications explicit, facilitating alignment not only at the output level but at the level of rationalization of intent and action by each side. We relate these role pairs to the bidirectional human-AI alignment framework, illustrating how "aligning AI to humans" and "aligning humans to AI" differ by role, and sketch a collaborative research agenda for alignment design and assessment using element-level and role-specific approaches.

Automated AI agents are increasingly capable, yet many scientific and professional tasks require human judgment and contextual expertise. We use simulated shared-workspace human-AI teams as a controlled testbed for studying how collaboration structure shapes team behavior. Using the Collaborative Gym environment with tasks from DiscoveryBench, we vary team compositions and collaboration structures across 1,482 sessions. We find that adding additional collaborators can lower performance when coordination structure is absent. We then evaluate collaboration scaffolding that combines shared group memory with simulated human-in-the-loop (HITL) gates, where selected actions require approval from a designated simulated participant. This scaffolding improves performance, most clearly in three-person teams, with clearer responsibility signals and stronger routing of expertise to team actions. Overall, our results suggest that coordination structure is central to whether available capability improves team outcomes.