When coding-and-counting is not enough: using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research

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.

[1]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment , 2012 .

[2]  David Williamson Shaffer,et al.  The hands and head of a surgeon: Modeling operative competency with multimodal epistemic network analysis. , 2017, American journal of surgery.

[3]  Alyssa Friend Wise,et al.  Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[4]  Brendan R. Eagan,et al.  Collaborative and Individual Scientific Reasoning of Pre-Service Teachers: New Insights Through Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) , 2017, CSCL.

[5]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  Are two heads always better than one? Differential effects of collaboration on students’ computer-supported learning in mathematics , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[6]  Peter Reimann,et al.  Using Process Mining for Understanding Learning , 2013 .

[7]  David W. Shaffer,et al.  Epistemic frames for epistemic games , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[8]  M. Chi Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide , 1997 .

[9]  P. Reimann,et al.  Process mining techniques for analysing patterns and strategies in students’ self-regulated learning , 2013, Metacognition and Learning.

[10]  Zachari Swiecki,et al.  Teaching and Assessing Engineering Design Thinking with Virtual Internships and Epistemic Network Analysis , 2015 .

[11]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Content analysis: What are they talking about? , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[12]  Zachari Swiecki,et al.  In Search of Conversational Grain Size: Modeling Semantic Structure Using Moving Stanza Windows , 2017, ICLS.

[13]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Tracing interaction in distributed collaborative learning. , 2011 .

[14]  Mark C. Fox,et al.  Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. , 2011, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  J. Gee,et al.  How Computer Games Help Children Learn , 2006 .

[16]  David Williamson Shaffer,et al.  Local Versus Global Connection Making in Discourse , 2016, ICLS.

[17]  Ulrike Cress,et al.  Quantitative Methods for Studying Small Groups , 2013 .

[18]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Executive Functions in the Context of Complex Learning: Malleable Moderators?. , 2017 .

[19]  Roger Bakeman,et al.  Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis , 1986 .

[20]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Representational Tools for Understanding Complex Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments , 2011 .

[21]  F. Fischer,et al.  Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation: Advancing an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda in Education , 2014 .

[22]  Peter Reimann,et al.  Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[23]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning , 2007, Learning and Instruction.

[24]  Manu Kapur,et al.  Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[25]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: a thematic agenda for CSCL , 2005, CSCL.

[26]  Neil Mercer,et al.  Using Computer-based Text Analysis to Integrate Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research on Collaborative Learning , 1997 .

[27]  David Williamson Shaffer,et al.  Using epistemic network analysis to identify targets for educational interventions in trauma team communication , 2018, Surgery.

[28]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving , 1995 .

[29]  David Klahr,et al.  Dual Space Search During Scientific Reasoning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  David Williamson Shaffer,et al.  What Good are Statistics that Don’t Generalize? , 2004 .

[31]  Stephanie D. Teasley The role of talk in children's peer collaborations. , 1995 .

[32]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Verbal reports as data. , 1980 .

[33]  David Williamson Shaffer,et al.  Epistemic Network Analysis: A Worked Example of Theory-Based Learning Analytics , 2017 .

[34]  David Williamson Shaffer,et al.  Games, Learning, and Society: Models of Situated Action , 2012 .

[35]  Friedrich W. Hesse,et al.  Using technological functions on a multi-touch table and their affordances to counteract biases and foster collaborative problem solving , 2018, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[36]  Neil Mercer,et al.  The Seeds of Time: Why Classroom Dialogue Needs a Temporal Analysis , 2008 .

[37]  Armin Weinberger,et al.  Quantifying Qualities of Collaborative Learning Processes , 2018 .

[38]  Elizabeth Bagley,et al.  Epistemic network analysis : a Prototype for 21 st Century assessment of Learning , 2009 .

[39]  M. Chiu,et al.  A New Method for Analyzing Sequential Processes , 2005 .

[40]  Sean Andrist,et al.  Look together: analyzing gaze coordination with epistemic network analysis , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[41]  Raija H. Hämäläinen,et al.  Visualising the temporal aspects of collaborative inquiry-based learning processes in technology-enhanced physics learning , 2018, International Journal of Science Education.

[42]  David Williamson Shaffer,et al.  A Tutorial on Epistemic Network Analysis: Analyzing the Structure of Connections in Cognitive, Social, and Interaction Data , 2016, J. Learn. Anal..

[43]  Allan Jeong A Guide to Analyzing Message–Response Sequences and Group Interaction Patterns in Computer‐mediated Communication , 2005 .