In Search of Conversational Grain Size: Modeling Semantic Structure using Moving Stanza Windows
Keywords:sliding window, epistemic network analysis, segmentation, discourse analysis
Analyses of learning based on student discourse need to account not only for the content of the utterances but also for the ways in which students make connections across turns of talk. This requires segmentation of discourse data to define when connections are likely to be meaningful. In this paper, we present an approach to segmenting data for the purposes of modeling connections in discourse using epistemic network analysis. Specifically, we use epistemic network analysis to model connections in student discourse using a temporal segmentation method adapted from recent work in the learning sciences. We compare the results of this study to a purely conversation-based segmentation method to examine the affordances of temporal segmentation for modeling connections in discourse.
Arastoopour, G., Swiecki, Z., Chesler, N.C., & Shaffer, D.W. (2015). Epistemic Network Analysis as a Tool for Engineering Design Assessment. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education. Seattle, WA.
Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 448-459.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Trans. Vern W. McGee. University of Texas Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152.
Chesler, N. C., Ruis, A. R., Collier, W., Swiecki, Z., Arastoopour, G., & Shaffer, D. W. (2015). A novel paradigm for engineering education: Virtual internships with individualized mentoring and assessment of engineering thinking. Journal of biomechanical engineering, 137(2), 024701.
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, F. W. (2013). Quantitative methods for studying small groups. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, and A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning, (pp. 93-111). Routledge.
DiSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 47-70). Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
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 Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 363-370).
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Falmer Press.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1991). Cognitive processes and mechanisms in language comprehension: The structure building framework. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 217-263). Academic Press.
Graesser, A.C., Dowell, N., Clewley, D., & Shaffer, D.W. (in press). Agents in collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.
Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S.R. (1997). Cognition. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 292-319). Sage.
Hearst, M. A. (1994). Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository text. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 9-16). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., & Jordan, R. (2009). Visual Representation of a Multidimensional Coding Scheme for Understanding Technology-Mediated Learning about Complex Natural Systems. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(3), 253-280.
Knight, S., Arastoopour, G., Shaffer, D.W., Shum, S.B., & Littleton, K. (2014). Epistemic networks for epistemic commitments. In J.L. Polman, E.A. Kyza, D.K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W.R. Penuel, A.S. Jurow, & L. D’Amico (Eds.) Learning and becoming in practice; The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014, Volume 3 (pp. 150-157). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
Rosé, C., Wang, Y. C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 237-271.
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 University Press.
Shaffer, D. W. (2014). User guide for Epistemic Network Analysis web version 3.3. Madison, WI: Games and Professional Simulations Technical Report 2014-1.
Shaffer, D.W. (2017). Quantitative Ethnography. Madison, WI: Cathcart Press.
Shaffer, D.W., Borden, F., Srinivasan, A., Saucerman, J., Arastoopour, G., Collier, W., Ruis, A.R., & Frank, K.A. (2015). The nCoder: A technique for improving the utility of inter-rater reliability statistics. Epistemic Games Group Working Paper 2015-01. University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E. A., … Mislevy, R. J. (2009). Epistemic Network Analysis: A prototype for 21st century assessment of learning. The International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(1), 1-21.
Smagorinsky, P. (2012). Vygotsky and literacy research: A methodological framework (Vol. 2). Sense Publishers.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (pp. 409-426). Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. Springer Science and Business Media.
Suthers, D. D., & Desiato, C. (2012, January). Exposing chat features through analysis of uptake between contributions. In 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (pp. 3368-3377). IEEE.
Trausan-Matu, S., Dascalu, M., & Rebedea, T. (2014). PolyCAFe-automatic support for the polyphonic analysis of CSCL chats. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(2), 127–156.
Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1-28.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2017 Journal of Learning Analytics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution - NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).