Advertisement

Using Process Mining (PM) and Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) for Comparing Processes of Collaborative Problem Regulation

  • Nadine MelznerEmail author
  • Martin Greisel
  • Markus Dresel
  • Ingo Kollar
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1112)

Abstract

Learning Sciences research often concerns the analysis of data from individual or collaborative learning processes. For the analysis of such data, various methods have been proposed, including Process Mining (PM) and Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA). Both methods have advantages and disadvantages when analyzing learning processes. We argue that a concerted use of both techniques may provide valuable information that would be obscured when using only one of these methods. We demonstrate this by applying PM and ENA on data from a study that investigated how students regulate collaborative learning when faced with either motivational or comprehension-related problems. While PM showed that collaborative learners are more incoherent (i.e. more heterogeneous in their chosen activities) when regulating motivational problems than comprehension-related problems at the beginning, ENA revealed that in later stages of their learning process, they focus on fewer activities when being confronted with motivational than with comprehension-related problems. Thus, a combination of the two approaches seems to be warranted.

Keywords

Epistemic network analysis Process mining Self-regulation Collaborative learning Co-regulation Shared regulation 

References

  1. 1.
    Csanadi, A., Eagan, B., Kollar, I., Shaffer, D.W., Fischer, F.: When coding-and-counting is not enough: using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collaborative Learn. 13(4), 419–438 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9292-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hadwin, A.F., Järvelä, S., Miller, M.: Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In: Zimmerman, B., Schunk, D. (eds.) Handbook of Self-regulation of Learning and Performance, pp. 65–84. Routledge, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bannert, M., Reimann, P., Sonnenberg, C.: Process mining techniques for analysing patterns and strategies in students’ self-regulated learning. Metacognition Learn. 9(2), 161–185 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9107-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bolt, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Leoni, M.: Finding process variants in event logs. In: Panetto, H., et al. (eds.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10573, pp. 45–52. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69462-7_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaffer, D.W.: Quantitative Ethnography. Cathcart Press, Madison (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ruis, A.R., Rosser, A.A., Quandt-Walle, C., Nathwani, J.N., Shaffer, D.W., Pugh, C.M.: The hands and head of a surgeon: Modeling operative competency with multimodal epistemic network analysis. Am. J. Surg. 216(5), 835–840 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.11.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, S., Liu, Q., Cai, Z.: Exploring primary school teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in online collaborative discourse: an epistemic network analysis. Br. J. Edu. Technol. (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boekaerts, M.: Self-regulated learning: where we are today. Int. J. Educ. Res. 31(6), 445–457 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedrich, H.F., Mandl, H.: Lernstrategien: Zur Strukturierung des Forschungsfeldes. In: Mandl, H., Friedrich, H.F. (eds.) Handbuch Lernstrategien, pp. 1–23. Hogrefe, Göttingen (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hadwin, A., Oshige, M.: Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers Coll. Rec. 113(2), 240–264 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Janssenswillen, G.: bupaR: Business Process Analysis in R. R package version 0.4.2 (2019)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marquart, C.L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., Shaffer, D.W.: Epistemic network analysis version 0.1.0 (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dureh, N., Choonpradub, C., Tongkumchum, P.: An alternative method for logistics regression on contingency tables with zero cell counts. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 38(2), 171–176 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.14456/sjst-psu.2016.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Melzner, N., Greisel, M., Dresel, M., Kollar, I.: Effective regulation in collaborative learning: an attempt to determine the fit of regulation challenges and strategies (long paper). In: Lund, K., Niccolai, G., Lavoué, E., Hmelo-Silver, C., Gweon, G., Baker, M. (eds.) A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL, vol. 1, pp. 312–319. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Lyon (2019)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marquart, C.L., Swiecki, Z., Collier, W., Eagan, B., Woodward, R., Shaffer, D.W.: rENA: epistemic network analysis. R package version 0.1.6.1 (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations