用认识论网络分析模拟群体话语:解读联系、观点和个人贡献

IF 3.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Shai Goldfarb Cohen, Johnatan Verissimo Yanai, Gideon Dishon
{"title":"用认识论网络分析模拟群体话语:解读联系、观点和个人贡献","authors":"Shai Goldfarb Cohen, Johnatan Verissimo Yanai, Gideon Dishon","doi":"10.1007/s10956-024-10139-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Operationalizing and modeling group talk has proved to be a consistent challenge in educational research. In this paper, we suggest that epistemic network analysis (ENA) could provide unique insights concerning group talk. Specifically, we use ENA to model the talk orientations put forward in the Exploratory Talk framework (Cumulative, Disputational, Exploratory). Participants (<i>n</i> = 60, 67% female, 33% male) were undergraduate students in an Introduction to Psychology course who took part in three 90-min collaborative online tasks. We coded student discourse according to a set of basic communicative acts reflective of the Exploratory Talk framework. Then, using ENA, we identified different groups’ patterns of discourse at the group and individual level. Presenting the epistemic networks of four purposefully chosen groups, this paper offers three key contributions to modeling and conceptualizing group dialogue: (1) illustrating how ENA could offer new ways to analyze group talk by focusing on the <i>frequency of co-occurrence of connections</i> between a basic set of communicate acts rather than the different <i>communicative acts used</i>; (2) refining the theoretical conceptualization of Exploratory Talk by distinguishing two sub-variations—<i>other-oriented vs. self-oriented Exploratory Talk</i>—that differ according to the depth of engagement with other perspectives; (3) examining how ENA allows unpacking diverging dynamics of <i>individual contributions to group discourse</i>, focusing on the role of individuals that function as “instigators” or “connectors.”</p>","PeriodicalId":50057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Education and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modeling Group Discourse with Epistemic Network Analysis: Unpacking Connections, Perspectives, and Individual Contributions\",\"authors\":\"Shai Goldfarb Cohen, Johnatan Verissimo Yanai, Gideon Dishon\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10956-024-10139-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Operationalizing and modeling group talk has proved to be a consistent challenge in educational research. In this paper, we suggest that epistemic network analysis (ENA) could provide unique insights concerning group talk. Specifically, we use ENA to model the talk orientations put forward in the Exploratory Talk framework (Cumulative, Disputational, Exploratory). Participants (<i>n</i> = 60, 67% female, 33% male) were undergraduate students in an Introduction to Psychology course who took part in three 90-min collaborative online tasks. We coded student discourse according to a set of basic communicative acts reflective of the Exploratory Talk framework. Then, using ENA, we identified different groups’ patterns of discourse at the group and individual level. Presenting the epistemic networks of four purposefully chosen groups, this paper offers three key contributions to modeling and conceptualizing group dialogue: (1) illustrating how ENA could offer new ways to analyze group talk by focusing on the <i>frequency of co-occurrence of connections</i> between a basic set of communicate acts rather than the different <i>communicative acts used</i>; (2) refining the theoretical conceptualization of Exploratory Talk by distinguishing two sub-variations—<i>other-oriented vs. self-oriented Exploratory Talk</i>—that differ according to the depth of engagement with other perspectives; (3) examining how ENA allows unpacking diverging dynamics of <i>individual contributions to group discourse</i>, focusing on the role of individuals that function as “instigators” or “connectors.”</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Science Education and Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Science Education and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10139-3\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Science Education and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10139-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在教育研究中,小组讨论的操作化和模型化一直是个难题。在本文中,我们认为认识论网络分析(ENA)可以为小组谈话提供独特的见解。具体来说,我们使用ENA来模拟探索性谈话框架(累积性、争议性、探索性)中提出的谈话取向。参与者(n = 60,67% 为女性,33% 为男性)是心理学导论课程的本科生,他们参加了三个 90 分钟的在线协作任务。我们根据一套反映探索性谈话框架的基本交际行为对学生的谈话进行了编码。然后,我们使用ENA识别了不同群体在群体和个体层面上的话语模式。本文介绍了特意选择的四个小组的认识论网络,为小组对话的建模和概念化做出了三个重要贡献:(1) 说明了ENA如何通过关注一组基本交流行为之间联系的共同出现频率,而不是所使用的不同交流行为,为分析小组谈话提供新的方法;(2) 通过区分两个子变体--面向他人的探索性谈话和面向自我的探索性谈话--来完善探索性谈话的理论概念化。(3) 研究ENA如何允许解读个人对群体话语贡献的不同动态,重点关注作为 "煽动者 "或 "连接者 "的个人的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Modeling Group Discourse with Epistemic Network Analysis: Unpacking Connections, Perspectives, and Individual Contributions

Modeling Group Discourse with Epistemic Network Analysis: Unpacking Connections, Perspectives, and Individual Contributions

Operationalizing and modeling group talk has proved to be a consistent challenge in educational research. In this paper, we suggest that epistemic network analysis (ENA) could provide unique insights concerning group talk. Specifically, we use ENA to model the talk orientations put forward in the Exploratory Talk framework (Cumulative, Disputational, Exploratory). Participants (n = 60, 67% female, 33% male) were undergraduate students in an Introduction to Psychology course who took part in three 90-min collaborative online tasks. We coded student discourse according to a set of basic communicative acts reflective of the Exploratory Talk framework. Then, using ENA, we identified different groups’ patterns of discourse at the group and individual level. Presenting the epistemic networks of four purposefully chosen groups, this paper offers three key contributions to modeling and conceptualizing group dialogue: (1) illustrating how ENA could offer new ways to analyze group talk by focusing on the frequency of co-occurrence of connections between a basic set of communicate acts rather than the different communicative acts used; (2) refining the theoretical conceptualization of Exploratory Talk by distinguishing two sub-variations—other-oriented vs. self-oriented Exploratory Talk—that differ according to the depth of engagement with other perspectives; (3) examining how ENA allows unpacking diverging dynamics of individual contributions to group discourse, focusing on the role of individuals that function as “instigators” or “connectors.”

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Science Education and Technology
Journal of Science Education and Technology EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
45
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Science Education and Technology is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of original peer-reviewed, contributed and invited research articles of the highest quality that address the intersection of science education and technology with implications for improving and enhancing science education at all levels across the world. Topics covered can be categorized as disciplinary (biology, chemistry, physics, as well as some applications of computer science and engineering, including the processes of learning, teaching and teacher development), technological (hardware, software, deigned and situated environments involving applications characterized as with, through and in), and organizational (legislation, administration, implementation and teacher enhancement). Insofar as technology plays an ever-increasing role in our understanding and development of science disciplines, in the social relationships among people, information and institutions, the journal includes it as a component of science education. The journal provides a stimulating and informative variety of research papers that expand and deepen our theoretical understanding while providing practice and policy based implications in the anticipation that such high-quality work shared among a broad coalition of individuals and groups will facilitate future efforts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信