What is the Effect of a Dominant Code in an Epistemic Network Analysis?

  • Rafael Ferreira MelloEmail author
  • Dragan Gašević
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1112)


This paper investigates how different configuration of epistemic network analysis parameters influence the examination of student interactions in asynchronous discussions in online learning environments. Specifically, the paper investigates strategies for dealing by unintended consequences of a dominant node in epistemic network analysis (ENA). In particular, the paper reports on a study that explored the effects of two different strategies including (i) the use of different dimensions calculated with singular value decomposition (SVD), and (ii) exclusion of a dominant code. Our results showed that the use of different SVDs did not change the influence of a dominant code in the graph. On the other hand, the exclusion of the dominant code led to an entirely different configuration in ENA. The practical implications of the results are further discussed.


Epistemic network analysis Dominant code Graph analysis 


  1. 1.
    Anderson, T., Dron, J.: Three generations of distance education pedagogy. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 12(3), 80–97 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arastoopour, G., Shaffer, D.W., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A., Chesler, N.C.: Teaching and assessing engineering design thinking with virtual internships and epistemic network analysis. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 32(2), 1492–1501 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cai, Z., Eagan, B., Dowell, N., Pennebaker, J., Shaffer, D., Graesser, A.: Epistemic network analysis and topic modeling for chat data from collaborative learning environment. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferreira, R., Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Rolim, V.: Towards combined network and text analytics of student discourse in online discussions. In: Penstein Rosé, C., et al. (eds.) AIED 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10947, pp. 111–126. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., Archer, W.: Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. Am. J. Distance Educ. 15(1), 7–23 (2001). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gašević, D., Adesope, O., Joksimović, S., Kovanović, V.: Externally-facilitated regulation scaffolding and role assignment to develop cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. Internet High. Educ. 24, 53–65 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Eagan, B.R., Shaffer, D.W.: SENS: network analytics to combine social and cognitive perspectives of collaborative learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 92, 562–577 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gašević, D., Mirriahi, N., Dawson, S., Joksimović, S.: Effects of instructional conditions and experience on the adoption of a learning tool. Comput. Hum. Behav. 67, 207–220 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., Gasevic, D., Hatala, M.: What is the source of social capital? the association between social network position and social presence in communities of inquiry (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nash, P., Shaffer, D.W.: Mentor modeling: the internalization of modeled professional thinking in an epistemic game. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 27(2), 173–189 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neto, V., et al.: Automated analysis of cognitive presence in online discussions written in Portuguese. In: Pammer-Schindler, V., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Drachsler, H., Elferink, R., Scheffel, M. (eds.) EC-TEL 2018. LNCS, vol. 11082, pp. 245–261. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rolim, V., Ferreira, R., Kovanović, V., Gašević, D.: Analysing social presence in online discussions through network and text analytics. In: 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), vol. 2161, pp. 163–167. IEEE (2019)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rolim, V., Ferreira, R., Lins, R.D., Gǎsević, D.: A network-based analytic approach to uncovering the relationship between social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry. Internet High. Educ. 42, 53–65 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., Archer, W.: Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruis, A., Siebert-Evenstone, A., Pozen, R., Eagan, B.R., Shaffer, D.W.: A method for determining the extent of recent temporal context in analyses of complex, collaborative thinking. In: International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. [ISLS] (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruxton, G.D.: The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to student’s t-test and the mann–whitney u test. Behav. Ecol. 17(4), 688–690 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shaffer, D.W.: Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Comput. Educ. 46(3), 223–234 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shaffer, D.W., Collier, W., Ruis, A.: A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. J. Learn. Anal. 3(3), 9–45 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shaffer, D.W., et al.: Epistemic network analysis: a prototype for 21st-century assessment of learning. Int. J. Learn. Media 1(2), 1–21 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siebert-Evenstone, A.L., Irgens, G.A., Collier, W., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A.R., Shaffer, D.W.: In search of conversational grain size: modeling semantic structure using moving stanza windows. J. Learn. Anal. 4(3), 123–139 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siemens, G., Gašević, D., Dawson, S.: Preparing for the digital university: A review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swiecki, Z., Ruis, R., Shaffer, D.: Does order matter? investigating sequential and cotemporal models of collaboration. In: 13th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Federal Rural de PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Monash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations