TeamUp: Semantic Project Matching and Team Formation for Learning at Scale

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.

Automated Analysis of Learning Outcomes and Exam Questions Based on Bloom's Taxonomy

This paper explores the automatic classification of exam questions and learning outcomes according to Bloom's Taxonomy. A small dataset of 600 sentences labeled with six cognitive categories - Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation - was processed using traditional machine learning (ML) models (Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machines), recurrent neural network architectures (LSTM, BiLSTM, GRU, BiGRU), transformer-based models (BERT and RoBERTa), and large language models (OpenAI, Gemini, Ollama, Anthropic). Each model was evaluated under different preprocessing and augmentation strategies (for example, synonym replacement, word embeddings, etc.). Among traditional ML approaches, Support Vector Machines (SVM) with data augmentation achieved the best overall performance, reaching 94 percent accuracy, recall, and F1 scores with minimal overfitting. In contrast, the RNN models and BERT suffered from severe overfitting, while RoBERTa initially overcame it but began to show signs as training progressed. Finally, zero-shot evaluations of large language models (LLMs) indicated that OpenAI and Gemini performed best among the tested LLMs, achieving approximately 0.72-0.73 accuracy and comparable F1 scores. These findings highlight the challenges of training complex deep models on limited data and underscore the value of careful data augmentation and simpler algorithms (such as augmented SVM) for Bloom's Taxonomy classification.