Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Research on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is often concerned with the question of how scaffolds or other characteristics of learning may affect learners’ social and cognitive engagement. Such engagement in socio-cognitive activities frequently materializes in discourse. In quantitative analyses of discourse, utterances are typically coded, and differences in the frequency of codes are compared between conditions. However, such traditional coding-and-counting-based strategies neglect the temporal nature of verbal data, and therefore provide limited and potentially misleading information about CSCL activities. Instead, we argue that analyses of the temporal proximity, specifically temporal co-occurrences of codes, provide a more appropriate way to characterize socio-cognitive activities of learning in CSCL settings. We investigate this claim by comparing and contrasting a traditional coding-and-counting analysis with epistemic network analysis (ENA), a discourse analysis technique that models temporal co-occurrences of codes in discourse. We apply both methods to data from a study that compared the effects of individual vs. collaborative problem solving. The results suggest that compared to a traditional coding-and-counting approach, ENA provides more insight into the socio-cognitive learning activities of students.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Andrist, S., Collier, W., Gleicher, M., Mutlu, B., & Shaffer, D. W. (2015). Look together: Analyzing gaze coordination with epistemic network analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1016).
Arastoopour, G., Shaffer, D. W., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A. R., & Chesler, N. C. (2016). Teaching and assessing engineering design thinking with virtual internships and epistemic network analysis. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3B), 1492–1501.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Bannert, M., Reimann, P., & Sonnenberg, C. (2014). Process mining techniques for analysing patterns and strategies in students’ self-regulated learning. Metacognition and learning, 9(2), 161–185. CrossRef
Bause, I. M., Brich, I. R., Wesslein, A. K., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Using technological functions on a multi-touch table and their affordances to counteract biases and foster collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 7–33. CrossRef
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. CrossRef
Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2005). A new method for analyzing sequential processes: Dynamic multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36(5), 600–631. CrossRef
Collier, W., Ruis, A. R., & Shaffer, D. W. (2016). Local versus global connection making in discourse. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016, volume 1 (pp. 426–433). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Cress, U., & Hesse, W. (2013). Quantitative methods for studying small groups. In C. A. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 93–111). New York, NY: Routledge.
Csanadi, A., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2015). Internal scripts and social context as antecedents of teacher students’ scientific reasoning. Paper presented at the 16th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Limassol, Cyprus.
Csanadi, A., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2016). Scientific reasoning and problem solving in a practical domain: Are two heads better than one? In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016, volume 1 (pp. 50–57). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Csanadi, A., Eagan, B., Shaffer, D., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Collaborative and individual scientific reasoning of pre-service teachers: New insights through epistemic network analysis (ENA). In B. K. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim (Eds.), Making a Difference: Prioritizing Equity and Access in CSCL, 12 th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2017, volume 1 (pp. 215–222). Philadelphia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Dyke, G., Kumar, R., Ai, H., & Rosé, C. P. (2012). Challenging assumptions: Using sliding window visualizations to reveal time-based irregularities in CSCL processes. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2012 (Vol. 1, pp. 363–370). Sydney: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Eagan, B., & Hamilton, E. (2018). Epistemic Network Analysis of an International Digital Makerspace in Africa, Europe, and the US. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American education research association. New York: NY.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251. CrossRef
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., & Hussmann, H. (2014). Pekrun, R.,…Eberle, J. Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 5, 28–45.
Fox, M. C., Ericsson, K. A., & Best, R. (2011). Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 316–344. CrossRef
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., & Chernobilsky, E. (2011). Representational tools for understanding complex computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In.: Puntambekar S., Erkens G., Hmelo-silver C. (Eds). Analyzing Interactions in CSCL. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12, 83–106.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., & Sinha, S. (2013). Seeing to understand. Using visualizations to understand learning in technology-rich learning environments. In R. Luckin, S. Puntambekar, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, J. Underwood, & N. Winters (Eds.), Handbook of Design in Educational Technology (pp. 457–471). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jeong, A. (2005). A guide to analyzing message–response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383. CrossRef
Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 39–56. CrossRef
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1–48. CrossRef
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721. CrossRef
Lämsä, J., Hämäläinen, R., Koskinen, P., & Viiri, J. (2018). Visualising the temporal aspects of collaborative inquiry-based learning processes in technology-enhanced physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 40(14), 1697–1717. CrossRef
Marquart, C. L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., & Shaffer, D. W. (2018). Epistemic Network Analysis (Version 0.1.0) [Software]. Available from http://app.epistemicnetwork.org
Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59. CrossRef
Mullins, D., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2011). Are two heads always better than one? Differential effects of collaboration on students’ computer-supported learning in mathematics. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 421–443. CrossRef
Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable-and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 239–257. CrossRef
Reimann, P., & Yacef, K. (2013). Using process mining for understanding learning. In R. Luckin, S. Puntambekar, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, J. D. M. Underwood, & N. Winters (Eds.), Handbook of design in educational technology (pp. 472–481). New York, NY: Routledge.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer. CrossRef
Ruis, A.R., Rosser, A.A., Quandt-Walle, C., Nathwani, J.N., Shaffer, D.W., & Pugh, C.M. (2018). The hands and head of a surgeon: Modeling operative competency with multimodal epistemic network analysis. American Journal of Surgery.
Schwaighofer, M., Bühner, M., & Fischer, F. (2017). Executive functions in the context of complex learning: Malleable moderators? Frontline Learning Research, 5(1), 58–75. CrossRef
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education, 46(3), 223–234. CrossRef
Shaffer, D. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shaffer, D. W. (2012). Models of situated action: Computer games and the problem of transfer. In C. Steinkuehler, K. Squire, & S. Barab (Eds.), Games learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age (pp. 403–433). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography. Madison, WI: Cathcart.
Shaffer, D. W., & Ruis, A. R. (2017). Epistemic network analysis: A worked example of theory-based learning analytics. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. F. Wise, & D. Gasevic (Eds.), Handbook of learning analytics (pp. 175–187) Society for Learning Analytics Research.
Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., Frank, K., Rupp, A., & Mislevy, R. (2009). Epistemic network analysis: A prototype for 21st century assessment of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 33–53. CrossRef
Shaffer, D. W., Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9–45. CrossRef
Shaffer, D. W., & Serlin, R. C. (2004). What Good are Statistics that Don’t Generalize? Educational Researcher, 33(9), 14–25. CrossRef
Siebert-Evenstone, A. L., Arastoopour, G., Collier, W., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A. R., & Shaffer, D. W. (2016). In search of conversational grain size: Modeling semantic structure using moving stanza windows. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016, volume 1 (pp. 631–638). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Siebert-Evenstone, A., Arastoopour Irgens, G., Collier, W., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A. R., & Williamson Shaffer, D. (2017). In search of conversational grain size: Modelling semantic structure using moving stanza windows. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(3), 123–139. CrossRef
Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323. CrossRef
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46(1), 29–48. CrossRef
Sullivan, S. A., Warner-Hillard, C., Eagan, B. R., Thompson, R., Ruis, A. R., Haines, K., & Jung, H. S. (2018). Using epistemic network analysis to identify targets for educational interventions in trauma team communication. Surgery, 163(4), 938–943. CrossRef
Suthers, D. D. (2005). Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda for CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years (pp. 662–671). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Suthers, D., & Medina, R. (2011). Tracing interaction in distributed collaborative learning. In.: Puntambekar S., Erkens G., Hmelo-silver C. (Eds). Analyzing Interactions in CSCL. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12, 341–366.
Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207–220. CrossRef
Vogel, F., & Weinberger, A. (2018). Quantifying qualities of collaborative learning processes. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1997). Using computer-based text analysis to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in research on collaborative learning. Language and Education, 11(4), 271–286. CrossRef
Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 445–470. CrossRef
- When coding-and-counting is not enough: using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research
David Williamson Shaffer
- Springer US
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
An Official Publication of the International Society of the Learning Sciences
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-1615
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com