两种量化教科书内容分布相似性的方法

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jöran Petersson, Judy Sayers, Paul Andrews
{"title":"两种量化教科书内容分布相似性的方法","authors":"Jöran Petersson, Judy Sayers, Paul Andrews","doi":"10.1080/1743727X.2022.2093846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Measures of association, which typically require pairwise data, are widespread in many aspects of educational research. However, due to the need to reduce their content to equal numbers of units of analysis, they are rarely found in the analysis of textbooks. In this paper, we present two methods for overcoming this limitation, one through the use of disjoint sections and the other through the use of overlapping moving averages. Both methods preserve the temporal structure of data and enable researchers to calculate a measure of association which, in this case, is the complementary Euclidean average distance, as an indicator of the books’ similarity. We illustrate these approaches by means of a comparative analysis of three commonly-used English and Swedish mathematics textbooks. Analyses were focused on individual tasks, which had all been coded according to the presence or absence of particular characteristics. Both methods produce nearly identical results and are robust with respect to both densely and sparsely occurring characteristics. For both methods, widening the aggregation window results in a slightly increased level of quantified similarity, which is the result of the ‘smoothing effect’. We discuss the relation between the window width and the choice of research question.","PeriodicalId":51655,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Research & Method in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two methods for quantifying similarity between textbooks with respect to content distribution\",\"authors\":\"Jöran Petersson, Judy Sayers, Paul Andrews\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1743727X.2022.2093846\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Measures of association, which typically require pairwise data, are widespread in many aspects of educational research. However, due to the need to reduce their content to equal numbers of units of analysis, they are rarely found in the analysis of textbooks. In this paper, we present two methods for overcoming this limitation, one through the use of disjoint sections and the other through the use of overlapping moving averages. Both methods preserve the temporal structure of data and enable researchers to calculate a measure of association which, in this case, is the complementary Euclidean average distance, as an indicator of the books’ similarity. We illustrate these approaches by means of a comparative analysis of three commonly-used English and Swedish mathematics textbooks. Analyses were focused on individual tasks, which had all been coded according to the presence or absence of particular characteristics. Both methods produce nearly identical results and are robust with respect to both densely and sparsely occurring characteristics. For both methods, widening the aggregation window results in a slightly increased level of quantified similarity, which is the result of the ‘smoothing effect’. We discuss the relation between the window width and the choice of research question.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Research & Method in Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Research & Method in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2093846\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Research & Method in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2093846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关联度量通常需要成对的数据,在教育研究的许多方面都很普遍。然而,由于需要将其内容减少到相同数量的分析单位,因此在教科书的分析中很少发现它们。在本文中,我们提出了两种克服这一限制的方法,一种是通过使用不相交部分,另一种是使用重叠移动平均。这两种方法都保留了数据的时间结构,并使研究人员能够计算出一个关联度量,在这种情况下,即互补欧几里得平均距离,作为书籍相似性的指标。我们通过对三本常用的英语和瑞典语数学教科书的比较分析来说明这些方法。分析的重点是单个任务,这些任务都是根据特定特征的存在与否进行编码的。这两种方法产生了几乎相同的结果,并且在密集和稀疏出现的特征方面都是稳健的。对于这两种方法,加宽聚合窗口会导致量化相似性水平略有提高,这是“平滑效应”的结果。我们讨论了窗口宽度与研究问题选择之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Two methods for quantifying similarity between textbooks with respect to content distribution
ABSTRACT Measures of association, which typically require pairwise data, are widespread in many aspects of educational research. However, due to the need to reduce their content to equal numbers of units of analysis, they are rarely found in the analysis of textbooks. In this paper, we present two methods for overcoming this limitation, one through the use of disjoint sections and the other through the use of overlapping moving averages. Both methods preserve the temporal structure of data and enable researchers to calculate a measure of association which, in this case, is the complementary Euclidean average distance, as an indicator of the books’ similarity. We illustrate these approaches by means of a comparative analysis of three commonly-used English and Swedish mathematics textbooks. Analyses were focused on individual tasks, which had all been coded according to the presence or absence of particular characteristics. Both methods produce nearly identical results and are robust with respect to both densely and sparsely occurring characteristics. For both methods, widening the aggregation window results in a slightly increased level of quantified similarity, which is the result of the ‘smoothing effect’. We discuss the relation between the window width and the choice of research question.
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
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Research & Method in Education is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal that draws contributions from a wide community of international researchers. Contributions are expected to develop and further international discourse in educational research with a particular focus on method and methodological issues. The journal welcomes papers engaging with methods from within a qualitative or quantitative framework, or from frameworks which cut across and or challenge this duality. Papers should not solely focus on the practice of education; there must be a contribution to methodology. International Journal of Research & Method in Education is committed to publishing scholarly research that discusses conceptual, theoretical and methodological issues, provides evidence, support for or informed critique of unusual or new methodologies within educational research and provides innovative, new perspectives and examinations of key research findings. The journal’s enthusiasm to foster debate is also recognised in a keenness to include engaged, thought-provoking response papers to previously published articles. The journal is also interested in papers that discuss issues in the teaching of research methods for educational researchers. Contributors to International Journal of Research & Method in Education should take care to communicate their findings or arguments in a succinct, accessible manner to an international readership of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners from a range of disciplines including but not limited to philosophy, sociology, economics, psychology, and history of education. The Co-Editors welcome suggested topics for future Special Issues. Initial ideas should be discussed by email with the Co-Editors before a formal proposal is submitted for consideration.
×
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