This study explored the development trajectory of shared epistemic agency in online collaborative learning through epistemic network analysis and lag sequential analysis. It was carried out in a postgraduate course with 14 in-service teachers. Drawing on the online discussion data from six sessions and the participants’ academic scores, this study found a nonlinear development trajectory of learners’ shared epistemic agency across the six sessions. The managerial dimension (e.g., regulative and relational actions) mediated the development of learners’ shared epistemic agency. The analysis of different groups’ mean networks and academic performance revealed a tentative relationship between them. Finally, the transition of shared epistemic agency actions in higher-achieving sessions and groups largely followed an upward sequential pattern. This study provides a graphical insight into how students learn in an online collaborative setting and can inform future pedagogical and technological designs of facilitating students’ shared epistemic agency for the creation of collective knowledge.
AkkermanS.Van den BosscheP.AdmiraalW.GijselaersW.SegersM.SimonsR.-J.KirschnerP. (2007). Reconsidering group cognition: From conceptual confusion to a boundary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives?Educational Research Review, 2(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.02.001
2.
AndristS.CollierW.GleicherM.MutluB.ShafferD. (2015). Look together: Analyzing gaze coordination with epistemic network analysis.Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1016. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01016
3.
BakemanR.GottmanJ. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis(2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
4.
ChiangT. H. C. (2017). Analysis of learning behavior in a flipped programing classroom adopting problem-solving strategies. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1276084
5.
CsanadiA.EaganB.KollarI.ShafferD. W.FischerF. (2018). When coding-and-counting is not enough: Using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9292-z
6.
DamşaC. I. (2014). The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 247–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9193-8
7.
DamşaC. I.KirschnerP. A.AndriessenJ. E.ErkensG.SinsP. H. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508401003708381
8.
ElbyA.HammerD. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 409–434). Cambridge University Press.
9.
González‐HowardM.McNeillK. L. (2020). Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions. Science Education, 104(6), 953–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21592
10.
GunawardenaC. N.LoweC. A.AndersonT. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431. https://doi.org/10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG
11.
LaiK.-W.CampbellM. (2018). Developing secondary students’ epistemic agency in a knowledge-building community. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1369150
12.
LiaoC. W.ChenC. H.ShihS. J. (2019). The interactivity of video and collaboration for learning achievement, intrinsic motivation, cognitive load, and behavior patterns in a digital game-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 133, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.013
13.
LipponenL.KumpulainenK. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education.Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.001
14.
McComasJ. J.MooreT.DahlN.HartmanE.HochJ.SymonsF. (2009). Calculating contingencies in natural environments: Issues in the application of sequential analysis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(2), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-413
15.
MillerE.ManzE.RussR.StroupeD.BerlandL. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21459
16.
ReiderP. J. (2016). Social epistemology and epistemic agency: Decentralizing epistemic agency. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
17.
SackettG.P. (1979). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (pp. 623--649). Wiley.
18.
ScardamaliaM. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Open Court Publishing Company.
19.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge University Press.
20.
ShafferD.CollierW.RuisA. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9–45. http://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.3
21.
ShafferD.RuisA. (2017). Epistemic network analysis: A worked example of theory-based learning analytics. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. Wise, & D. Gasevic (Eds.), Handbook of learning analytics (pp. 175–187). SOLAR, Society for Learning Analytics and Research.
22.
StroupeD. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science‐as‐practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112
23.
SwieckiZ.RuisA.FarrellC.ShafferD. W. (2019). Assessing individual contributions to collaborative problem solving: A network analysis approach. Computers in Human Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.009
24.
VoletS.SummersM.ThurmanJ. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained?Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001
25.
WangC.FangT.GuY. (2020). Learning performance and behavioral patterns of online collaborative learning: Impact of cognitive load and affordances of different multimedia. Computers & Education, 143, 103683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103683
26.
WooldridgeA. R.CarayonP.ShafferD. W.EaganB. (2018). Quantifying the qualitative with epistemic network analysis: A human factors case study of task-allocation communication in a primary care team.IISE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering, 8(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/24725579.2017.1418769
27.
YangY. (2019). Reflective assessment for epistemic agency of academically low‐achieving students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(4), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12343
28.
YangY.ChenQ.YuY.FengX.van AalstJ. (2020). Collective reflective assessment for shared epistemic agency by undergraduates in knowledge building. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1136–1154. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12909
29.
ZhaoK.ChanC. K. (2014). Fostering collective and individual learning through knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(1), 63–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9188-x
30.
ZhangJ.HongH.-Y.ScardamaliaM.TeoC. L.MorleyE. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.528317
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
