Project-based learning improves student engagement and learning outcomes, yet allocating students to appropriately challenging projects while forming cognitively diverse teams remains difficult at scale. Traditional allocation methods (manual spreadsheets, preference surveys) can't construct the cognitively diverse teams that that collaborate cognitively. This mismatch perpetuates equity issues: high-performing students self-select visible projects while under-represented students face reduced access to opportunity. We propose TeamUp, a lightweight, embedding-based team-forming system designed to improve learning outcomes and equity in large-scale project-based courses. TeamUp uses semantic embeddings from pretrained language models to match students to projects aligned with their skill level. The system employs a hybrid ranking algorithm combining cosine similarity with pedagogical constraints (difficulty alignment, domain preferences, and demand balancing) to generate personalised and transparent recommendations. Beyond individual matching, TeamUp constructs cognitively diverse teams by modelling skill complementarity through embedding variance, ensuring teams possess well-distributed capabilities rather than homogeneous strengths. We evaluated TeamUp through a virtual experiment using 250 student profiles and 60 project descriptions. Results show: (1) substantially higher match quality (mean cosine similarity of 0.74 vs. 0.43); (2) better difficulty alignment (83% placed within one level vs. 34%); (3) more diverse teams (82% covering three or more technical areas vs. 41%); and (4) sub-second recommendation latency at operational costs under $0.10 per student.
In open-ended domains, teams must reconcile diverse viewpoints to produce strong deliverables. Answer aggregation approaches commonly used in closed domains are ill-suited to this setting, as they tend to suppress minority perspectives rather than resolve underlying disagreements. We present TeamFusion, a multi-agent system designed to support teamwork in open-ended domains by: 1. Instantiating a proxy agent for each team member conditioned on their expressed preferences; 2. Conducting a structured discussion to surface agreements and disagreements; and 3. Synthesizing more consensus-oriented deliverables that feed into new iterations of discussion and refinement. We evaluate TeamFusion on two teamwork tasks where team members can assess how well their individual views are represented in team decisions and how consensually strong the final deliverables are, finding that it outperforms direct aggregation baselines across metrics, tasks, and team configurations.
This full paper in the research-to-practice track presents methods for assessing student teams in tabletop exercises (TTXs). TTXs enable learner teams to prepare for workplace tasks and practice crisis responses, such as resolving cybersecurity incidents. While assessment is essential for determining how well teams achieve learning objectives, the complex, open-ended nature of TTXs often leads to delayed or incomplete feedback. TTX learning platforms can record teams' actions and communication; yet, leveraging these data to assess performance is underexplored. To address this gap, we compared two post-TTX team assessment methods -- clustering and large language models (LLMs) -- using an original dataset from 81 participants across two countries. We evaluated these methods against instructor-assigned scores based on standardized rubrics. Clustering grouped teams that approached TTX tasks similarly, enabling instructors to deliver faster, targeted feedback to teams within a cluster. This method was valid and reliable, with low computational requirements. LLMs used the standardized rubrics to assess teams' communication. While GPT-4o frequently disagreed with instructor scores, GPT-5.2 demonstrated considerably lower error. The researched methods have been integrated into INJECT, an open-source TTX learning platform, to support scalability and teaching practice. To encourage community adoption, we publicly share all datasets, software tools, and a full-fledged TTX scenario.
Valdemar Švábenský, Jan Vykopal, Sukrit Leelaluk +3
Agent systems often decompose a task across multiple roles, but these roles are typically specified by prompts rather than enforced by access controls. Without enforcement, a team pass rate can mask whether agents actually coordinated or whether one role effectively did another role's work. We present TeamBench, a benchmark with 851 task templates and 931 seeded instances for evaluating agent coordination under operating system-enforced role separation. TeamBench separates specification access, workspace editing, and final certification across Planner, Executor, and Verifier roles, so that no role can read the full requirements, modify the workspace, and certify the final answer. Prompt-only and sandbox-enforced teams reach statistically indistinguishable pass rates, but prompt-only runs produce 3.6 times more cases where the verifier attempts to edit the executor's code. Verifiers approve 49% of submissions that fail the deterministic grader, and removing the verifier improves mean partial score in the ablation. Team value is also conditional. Teams benefit when single agents struggle, but hurt when single agents already perform well. A 40-session human study under the same role separation shows that our benchmark exposes interaction patterns that pass rate misses. Solo participants work through the task directly, human participants paired with agents often collapse into quick approval, and human teams spend more effort coordinating missing information across roles.