Connecting Curricular Design and Student Identity Change: An Epistemic Network Analysis

A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on Epistemic Network Analysis in Education

“…The remaining articles ranged from a single coder to nine coders. The manual coding was supported with software tools in 19 articles (25%), for example, ncoder automatic coding [26], [45], [47], [49], [73], [82], MAXQDA 2018 [84], [90]- [92] and NVivo [67], [104], automated coding algorithm [48], [77], Python [44], and linguistic tools (LIWC and Coh-Metrix) [59].…”

“…Other reliability tests were used less frequently, such as Krippendorff's test in two articles [97], [98] and Cronbach's alpha in one article [64]. On the other hand, five articles reported only the percentage of agreement between coders [57], [68], [69], [75], [100], and five articles reported that an agreement was tested among coders, without specifying the type of agreement used [79], [84], [90], [91], [101].…”

“…Temporal progress was compared in 19 studies (25%), for example, to identify progress throughout the course [13], [79], [84], [90]- [92], students' epistemic frames after course completion [14], [20], [21], [64], [81], [87] and students' progress throughout different game levels [26], [45], [71], [89].…”

“…For any CoP, the elements of the epistemic frame theory, "the skills, knowledge, values, identity, and epistemology," are linked together and shared by CoP members in their professional context [29]. ENA was used to analyze networks of different CoP in 16 articles (21.1%), for example, urban planning [12], [20], [63], [70], [79], [84], [90], teaching [50], [62], [100], engineering [21], [61] and journalism [64]. [105] define collaborative learning as a "set of teaching and learning strategies promoting student collaboration in small groups in order to optimize their own and each other's learning".…”

Approaching Structured Debate with Quantitative Ethnography in Mind

“…Thus far, the conversation surrounding debate has labelled it as a feature of more varied discourse. Barany et al [8] analyzed student discussions and included "debate" as a type of interaction, but the authors were not specifically centered on investigating ways in which students formally engage in debate, nor did they explicitly deal with the structure of debate in general. Similarly, Nachtigall and Sung [9] utilize debate as a code to describe student interactions during collaboration, but do not delve into the components of that debate.…”