Content analysis: What are they talking about?

Quantitative content analysis is increasingly used to surpass surface level analyses in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (e.g., counting messages), but critical reflection on accepted practice has generally not been reported. A review of CSCL conference proceedings revealed a general vagueness in definitions of units of analysis. In general, arguments for choosing a unit were lacking and decisions made while developing the content analysis procedures were not made explicit. In this article, it will be illustrated that the currently accepted practices concerning the ‘unit of meaning’ are not generally applicable to quantitative content analysis of electronic communication. Such analysis is affected by ‘unit boundary overlap’ and contextual constraints having to do with the technology used. The analysis of e-mail communication required a different unit of analysis and segmentation procedure. This procedure proved to be reliable, and the subsequent coding of these units for quantitative analysis yielded satisfactory reliabilities. These findings have implications and recommendations for current content analysis practice in CSCL research

The use of computer-based programming environments as computer modelling tools in early science education: the cases of textual and graphical program languages

This is an interpretive case study seeking to develop detailed and comparative descriptions of how two groups of fifth grade students used two different Computer-Based Programming Environments (CPEs) (namely Microworlds Logo and Stagecast Creator) during scientific modelling. The primary sources of data that were used in this four-month-long study include videotaped students' group work and whole-class discussions, and the instructors’ reflective journals. For the data analysis contextual inquiry was used in conjunction with analysis of student conversation in order to gain better insight in students’ activity and conversation patterns while working with CPEs. Findings highlight the differences in the ways that the students used the two CPEs in the context of developing models of natural phenomena with respect to three distinct phases that emerged from data analysis that include student approaches to (i) planning, (ii) writing and debugging code and (iii) using code to represent the phenomenon under study. Lastly, findings highlight which aspects of students work during the three phases can be productive for scientific modelling, proposing possible relationships between student work and CPE features

The effect of roles on computer-supported collaborative learning.

Strijbos, J. W. (2004). The effect of roles on computer-supported collaborative learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Open University of the Netherlands, The Netherlands

Research on Teaching and Learning In Biology, Chemistry and Physics In ESERA 2013 Conference

This paper provides an overview of the topics in educational research that were published in the ESERA 2013 conference proceedings. The aim of the research was to identify what aspects of the teacher-student-content interaction were investigated frequently and what have been studied rarely. We used the categorization system developed by Kinnunen, Lampiselkä, Malmi and Meisalo (2016) and altogether 184 articles were analyzed. The analysis focused on secondary and tertiary level biology, chemistry, physics, and science education. The results showed that most of the studies focus on either the teacher’s pedagogical actions or on the student - content relationship. All other aspects were studied considerably less. For example, the teachers’ thoughts about the students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the goals and the content, and the teachers’ conceptions of the students’ actions towards achieving the goals were studied only rarely. Discussion about the scope and the coverage of the research in science education in Europe is needed.Peer reviewe

CASE STUDIES OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENT MODELING IN SCIENCE THROUGH PROGRAMMING: COMPARISON OF MODELING PRACTICES AND CONVERSATIONS

This is a descriptive case study investigating the use of two computer-based programming environments (CPEs), MicroWorldsTM (MW) and Stagecast CreatorTM (SC), as modeling tools for collaborative fifth grade science learning. In this study I investigated how CPEs might support fifth grade student work and inquiry in science. There is a longstanding awareness of the need to help students learn about models and modeling in science, and CPEs are promising tools for this. A computer program can be a model of a physical system, and modeling through programming may make the process more tangible: Programming involves making decisions and assumptions; the code is used to express ideas; running the program shows the implications of those ideas. In this study I have analyzed and compared students' activities and conversations in two after-school clubs, one working with MW and the other with SC. The findings confirm the promise of CPEs as tools for teaching practices of modeling and science, and they suggest advantages and disadvantages to that purpose of particular aspects of CPE designs. MW is an open-ended, textual CPE that uses procedural programming. MW students focused on breaking down phenomena into small programmable pieces, which is useful for scientific modeling. Developing their programs, the students focused on writing, testing and debugging code, which are also useful for scientific modeling. SC is a non-linear, object-oriented CPE that uses visual program language. SC students saw their work as creating games. They were focused on the overall story which they then translated it into SC rules, which was in conflict with SC's object-oriented interface. However, telling the story of individual causal agents was useful for scientific modeling. Programming in SC was easier, whereas reading code in MW was more tangible. The latter helped MW students to use the code as the representation of the phenomenon rather than merely as a tool for creating a simulation. The analyses also pointed to three emerging "frames" that describe student's work focus, based on their goals, strategies, and criteria for success. Emerging "frames" are the programming, the visualization, and the modeling frame. One way to understand the respective advantages and disadvantages of the two CPEs is with respect to which frames they engendered in students

Models, Rules and Behaviours: Investigating Young Children’s Modelling Abilities Using an Educational Computer Program

A model can be built to represent aspects of the world establishing at the same time a world on its own. It might be considered in terms of its relation to the world or as an\ud artefact having an identity related to the nature and kind of the modelling tool used to make it. The present research focuses on models being built by a computer-based modelling tool called WorldMaker (WM), which allows models to be built in terms of objects and the actions they perform. It is intended to be accessible to younger pupils. Therefore, children from the last years of primary and the first years of secondary education (aged 10-14) participated in the research.\ud The research was carried out in three stages. The preliminary study aimed to explore children’s ability to use WM, as well as possibilities for the kinds of tasks that might be used with it. The first main study focused on rules, which define actions in WM, and their meaning for children. It mainly investigated children’s understanding, use and thinking about models in the form of WM rules. The second main study looked into children’s ability to think of situations in terms of structures as well as their\ud understanding about the relation between models and reality. Its primary concern was to find out if children think about situations presented as stories or computer\ud models in the ‘modelling’ way required by WM, that is, in terms of objects and the actions they perform. In the research tasks the children were called on to approach\ud the modelling process by creating or exploring a model, as well as by describing and explaining the formal behaviour of a model or interpreting the meaning of it.\ud It was found that the children were able to use WM as a modelling tool; they could represent actions in the form of a WM rule and they were able to think of situations\ud in terms of objects and actions. Besides, the relation between models and reality is an issue when young children are involved with the modelling process