ArticleScientific reports2026
Exploring teacher-student interaction through multimodal large language models: an empirical investigation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Teacher–student interaction is central to classroom learning, yet traditional observation and machine-learning approaches often remain inefficient and subjective. This study explores the use of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for systematic analysis of classroom dynamics. We fine-tuned VisualGLM-6B on 2,380 annotated images from 30 classroom videos, covering five interaction types: guided, collaborative, questioning, independent, and exhibitive. LoRA-based fine-tuning combined with prompt engineering was employed to enhance interpretability and domain-specific accuracy. Model performance was assessed through confusion matrices, BERTScore, and expert comparisons. The fine-tuned model achieved 82% overall accuracy, performing best on guided, independent, and exhibitive interactions, while collaborative and questioning types remained challenging. Compared with expert annotation, the model provided more structured and interpretable outputs, though occasional misclassifications and hallucinations persisted. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of applying MLLMs for efficient, objective analysis of teacher–student interactions and highlight future directions such as incorporating audio inputs and larger datasets to further advance educational research methodologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.