Using Epistemic Network Analysis to Examine Discourse and Scientific Practice During a Collaborative Game
According to the National Research Council, the ability to collaboratively solve problems is of the utmost importance in scientific careers, yet students are not exposed to learning experiences that promote such expertise. Recent studies have found that interdependent roles used within collaborative mobile games are an effective way to scaffold collaborative problem solving. School Scene Investigators: The Case of the Mystery Powder, a collaborative mobile game, incorporated interdependent roles in order to foster collaborative problem solving and promote scientific practice. Using epistemic network analysis (ENA), this study examined the conversational discourse of game teams to determine what connections exist between communication responses, language style, and scientific practice. Data included audio transcripts of three teams that played through the game. Transcripts were qualitatively coded for five types of scientific practice aligned to the National Research Council framework for K-12 science education, three types of communication responses (accept/discuss/reject), and an emergent language style (communal). ENA revealed that students developed scientific practices during gameplay. ENA also identified engaged communication responses and communal language style as two types of collaborative discourse used within School Scene Investigators: The Case of the Mystery Powder that fostered key linkages to effective data analysis and interpretation.
KeywordsCollaborative problem solving Game-based learning Augmented reality Mobile technology Science education Interdependence
The study utilized the epistemic network analysis (ENA) method which was funded in part by the National Science Foundation (DRL-0918409, DRL-0946372, DRL-1247262, DRL-1418288, DRL-1661036, DRL-1713110, DUE-0919347, DUE-1225885, EEC-1232656, EEC-1340402, REC-0347000), the MacArthur Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The opinions, findings, and conclusions do not reflect the views of the funding agencies, cooperating institutions, or other individuals.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- ARIS. (2018). ARIS—Create location-based games and stories. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from https://fielddaylab.org/make/aris/
- Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Bressler, D. (2014a). Better than business-as-usual: Improving scientific practices during discourse and writing by playing a collaborative mystery game. Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing, 2, 1–13.Google Scholar
- Bressler, D. (2014b). Is it all in the game? Flow experience and scientific practices during an INPLACE mobile game. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bethlehem: Lehigh University.Google Scholar
- Bressler, D., & Bodzin, A. (2013). A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow experiences during a mobile augmented reality science game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 505–517.Google Scholar
- Bressler, D., & Bodzin, A. (2016). Investigating flow experience and scientific practices during a mobile Serious Educational Game. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(5), 795–805.Google Scholar
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy.Google Scholar
- Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Employment projections—2014–24. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf.
- Chatterjee, S., Mohanty, A., & Bhattacharya, B. (2011). Peer collaboration, facilitator intervention, and learning styles in computer game-based learning: Initial findings from an empirical study. In Proceedings of the European conference on games based learning (pp. 683–690).Google Scholar
- Cheng, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 449–462.Google Scholar
- Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G.-J. (2014). Students' online interactive patterns in augmented reality-based inquiry activities. Computers in Education, 78(0), 97–108.Google Scholar
- Demetriadis, S., Tsiatsos, T., & Karakostas, A. (2012). Scripted collaboration to guide the pedagogy and architecture of digital learning games. In Proceedings of the European conference on games based learning (pp. 148–154).Google Scholar
- Di Blas, N., & Paolini, P. (2014). Multi-user virtual environments fostering collaboration in formal education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 54–69.Google Scholar
- Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
- Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., and Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
- Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom (4th ed.). Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
- Mansour, S. S., & El-Said, M. (2009). Multi-players role-playing educational serious games: A link between fun and learning. International Journal of Learning, 15(11), 229–239.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Nebel, S., Schneider, S., Beege, M., Kolda, F., Mackiewicz, V., & Rey, G. (2017). You cannot do this alone! Increasing task interdependence in cooperative educational videogames to encourage collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 993–1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9511-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2018). Framework for 21 st century learning [web page]. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework.
- Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Shaffer, D. W. (2017) Quantitative ethnography. Madison, Wisconsin: Cathcart Press.Google Scholar
- Siebert-Evenstone, A.L., Arastoopour, G., Collier, W., Swiecki, Z, Ruis, A.R., & Shaffer, D.W. (2016). In search of conversational grain size: Modeling semantic structure using moving stanza windows. In C.K. Looi, J.L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.) Transforming learning, empowering learners: The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2016, Volume 1 (pp. 631–638), Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
- Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–425). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students' achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 321–351.Google Scholar
- Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
- Trespalacios, J., Chamberlin, B., & Gallagher, R. (2011). Collaboration, engagement & fun: How youth preferences in video gaming can inform 21st century education. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve. Learning, 55(6), 49–54.Google Scholar
- Vasalou, A., Khaled, R., Holmes, W., & Gooch, D. (2017). Digital games-based learning for children with dyslexia: A social constructivist perspective on engagement and learning during group game-play. Computers in Education, 114, 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar