Methodologies

doi:10.1017/9781108888295.011

Part II - Methodologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022

Edited by

R. Keith Sawyer

Show author details

R. Keith Sawyer: Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 175 - 278

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, A. (1992). What do cases do? Some notes on activity in sociological analysis. In Ragin, C. C. & Becker, H. S. (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundation of social inquiry (pp. 53–82). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barab, S. A., & Arici, A. (2017). Producing sustainable and scaled impact: A human-centric framework. In Young, M. Y. & Slota, S. T. (Eds.), Exploding the castle: Rethinking how video games & game mechanics can shape the future of education (pp. 139–177). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Barab, S. A., Arici, A., Aguilera, E., & Dutchin, K. (2019). Ecosystem empowerment: A value-creation focus for unlocking human potential. In Barnett, R. & Jackson, N. (Eds.), Learning ecologies: Sightings, possibilities, and emerging practices (pp. 129–145). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Barrett, C. B. (2006). Food Aid’s intended and unintended consequences. FAO. Agriculture and Economics Division. ESA Working paper No. 06-05.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.Google Scholar

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar

Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator’s dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change the way you do business. New York, NY: Harper Business.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.Google Scholar

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In Scanlon, E. & O’Shea, T. (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.Google Scholar

Connell, J. P., & Klem, A. M. (2000). You can’t get there from here: Using a theory of change approach to plan urban education reform. Journal of Educational Psychological Consulting, 11(1), 93–110.CrossRef Google Scholar

Confrey, J. (2006). The evolution of design studies as a methodology. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 135–151). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Design-based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gee, J. (2013). The anti-education era: Creating smarter students through digital learning. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Geertz, C. (1976). From the native’s point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding. In Basso, K. & Selby, H. A. (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). A discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar

Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (Eds.). (1997). Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lesh, R. A., & Kelly, A. E. (2000). Multitiered teaching experiments. In Kelly, A. E. & Lesh, R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 197–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Levin, J. R., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). What to do about educational research’s credibility gaps? Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 5(2), 177–229.CrossRef Google Scholar

Maxwell, J. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.Google Scholar

McKinsey & Co. (2004). Using Logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action: Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.Google Scholar

Mink, L. O., Fay, B., Golob, E. O., & Vann, R. T. (1987). Historical understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.Google Scholar

Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28.Google Scholar

Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Torres, C. A. (1998). Education, power, and personal biography: Dialogues with critical educators. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition & Instruction, 19(1), 1–46.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barron, B., Pea, R., & Engle, R. (2013). Advancing understanding of collaborative learning with data derived from video records. In Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 203–219). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., Feder, M. A. (Eds.), & National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits [Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy of Sciences]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432–460). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.Google Scholar

Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.Google Scholar

Cress, U., & Hesse, F. (2013). Quantitative methods for studying small groups. In Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 93–111). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Spada, E. & Reiman, P. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Duranti, A. (2006). Transcripts, like shadows on a wall. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(4), 301–310.Google Scholar

Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (Vol. 11). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, A. (2007). A taxonomy for categorizing generalizations: Generalizing actions and reflection generalizations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 221–262.CrossRef Google Scholar

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(34), 399–483.CrossRef Google Scholar

Enyedy, N. (2003). Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk, and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 361–408.CrossRef Google Scholar

Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.Google Scholar

Enyedy, N., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2007). They don’t show anything I didn’t know: Emergent tensions between culturally relevant pedagogy and mathematics pedagogy. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 139–174.CrossRef Google Scholar

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Erickson, F. (1999). Appropriation of voice and presentation of self as a fellow physician: Aspects of discourse of apprenticeship in medicine. In Sarangi, S. & Roberts, C. (Eds.), Talk, work, and institutional order: Discourse in medicine, mediation, and management settings. Berlin, Germany; New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In Green, J., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in educational research (3rd ed., pp. 177–191). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1996). Ethnomethodology’s program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 5–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of seeing, visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In van Leeuwen, T. & Jewitt, C. (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 157–187). London, England: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1987). Children’s arguing. In Philips, S., Steele, S., & Tanz, C. (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200–248). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gutiérrez, K. D., & Jaramillo, N. E. (2006). Looking for educational equity: The consequences of relying on “Brown.” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 105(2), 173–189.Google Scholar

Hall, R. (2000). Video recording as theory. In Kelley, A. & Lesh, R. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 647–664). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2000). Knowledge recycling: Crisscrossing the landscape of educational psychology in a problem-based learning course for preservice teachers. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11, 41–56.Google Scholar

Howley, I. Mayfield, E., & Rose, C. (2013). Linguistic analysis methods for studying small groups. In Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 184–202). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1995a). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1995b). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Engeström, Y. & Middleton, D. (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 15–34). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ito, M., Horst, H. J., Finn, M., et al. (2010). Hanging out, messing around and geeking out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that matters. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1046–1058.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In Atkinson, J. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (pp. ix–xvi). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jeong, A. (2005). A guide to analyzing message-response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 44(4), 395–408.Google Scholar

Keifert, D., & Stevens, R. (2019). Inquiry as a members’ phenomenon: Young children as competent inquirers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 240–278.Google Scholar

Klein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R. (1992). Effects of cooperative learning and need for affiliation on performance, time on task, and satisfaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 39–48.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ma, J. Y., & Hall, R. (2018). Learning a part together: Ensemble learning and infrastructure in a competitive high school marching band. Instructional Science, 46(4), 507–532.Google Scholar

McDermott, R. P., & Hood, L. (1982). Institutional psychology and the ethnography of schooling. In Gilmore, P. & Glatthorn, A. (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education (pp. 232–249). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.Google Scholar

Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring classroom talk. London, England: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Michaels, S. (2005). Can the intellectual affordances of working-class storytelling be leveraged in school? Human Development, 48(3), 136–145.Google Scholar

Nichols, J. (1996). The effects of cooperative learning on student achievement and motivation in a high school geometry class. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 467–476.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1921). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Philip, T., Bang, M., & Jackson, K. (2018). Articulating the “how,” the “for what,” the “for whom,” and the “with whom” in concert: A call to broaden the benchmarks of our scholarship. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 83–88.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (2011). Conversation analysis: An approach to the analysis of social interaction. In van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 165–190). London, England: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Puntambekar, S. (2013). Mixed methods for analyzing collaborative learning. In Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 220–230). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.Google Scholar

Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. (Original [first] lecture given in 1967)Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 70–96). London, England: Berg.Google Scholar

Simon, H. A. (2001). Learning to research about learning. In Carver, S. M. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 205–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Smith, J. P. III, DiSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stevens, R. (2000). Divisions of labor in school and in the workplace: Comparing computer and paper-supported activities across settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 373–401.Google Scholar

Stevens, R. (2010). Learning as a members’ phenomenon: Toward an ethnographically adequate science of learning. NSSE 2010 Yearbook: A Human Sciences Approach to Research on Learning, 109(1), 82–97.Google Scholar

Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In Lampert, M. & Blunk, M. L. (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stevens, R., Jona, K., Penney, L., et al. (2016). FUSE: An alternative infrastructure for empowering learners in schools. Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Stevens, R., Wineburg, S., Herrenkohl, L., & Bell, P. (2005). The comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present and future. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 125–157.Google Scholar

Strom, D., Kemeny, V., Lehrer, R., & Forman, E. (2001). Visualizing the emergent structure of children’s mathematical argument. Cognitive Science, 25(5), 733–773.Google Scholar

Sun, Y., Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Knowledge building and vocabulary growth over two years, Grades 3 and 4. Instructional Science, 38(2), 247–271.Google Scholar

Vahey, P., Enyedy, N., & Gifford, B. (2000). Learning probability through the use of a collaborative, inquiry-based simulation environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 51–84.Google Scholar

Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.Google Scholar

Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 361–428.Google Scholar

Wells, G. (1993). Articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1–37.Google Scholar

Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsche, J. V. (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 162–182). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wood, D. (1992). Teaching talk. In Norman, K. (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 203–214). London, England: Hodder & Stoughton (for the National Curriculum Council).Google Scholar

References

Alibali, M. W., Nathan, M. J., Wolfgram, M. S., et al. (2014). How teachers link ideas in mathematics instruction using speech and gesture: A corpus analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 32(1), 65–100.Google Scholar

Altebarmakian, M., Alterman, R., Yatskar, A., Harsch, K., & DiLillo, A. (2016). The microgenetic analysis of staged peer collaboration for introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Frontiers of Education Conference (FIE), October 12–15, Eire, PA (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar

Bakeman, R., Adamson, L. B., & Strisik, P. (1989). Lags and logs: Statistical approaches to interaction. In Bornstein, M. H. & Bruner, J. S. (Eds.), Interaction in human development: Crosscurrents in contemporary psychology (pp. 241–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 539–550.Google Scholar

Buckland, L. A., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2010, May). Epistemic growth in model-based argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar

Catán, L. (1986). The dynamic display of process: Historical development and contemporary uses of the microgenetic method. Human Development, 29(5), 252–263.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.Google Scholar

Chinn, C. A. (2006). The microgenetic method: Current work and extensions to classroom research. In Green, J. L., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 439–456). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Crowley, K., Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1997). Strategy discovery as a competitive negotiation between metacognitive and associative mechanisms. Developmental Review, 17(4), 462–489.Google Scholar

Darque, N., Sweller, N., & Jones, M. P. (2019). When our hands help us understand: A meta-analysis into the effects of gesture on comprehension. Psychological Bulletin, 145(8), 765–784.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S., Alibali, M. W., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hand to read the mind. Psychological Review, 100(2), 279–297.Google Scholar

Gupta, A., Elby, A., & Sawtelle, V. (2016). Bridging knowledge analysis and interaction analysis through understanding the dynamics of knowledge in use. In diSessa, A. A., Levin, M., & Brown, N. J. S. (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences (pp. 260–291). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.Google Scholar

Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., et al. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230.Google Scholar

Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us? Psychological Science, 6(3), 133–139.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., & Phelps, E. (1979). A methodology for observing development of a formal reasoning strategy. New Directions for Child Development, 5, 45–57.Google Scholar

Lavelli, M., Pantoja, A. P. F., Hsu, H.-C., Messinger, D. S., & Fogel, A. (2005). Using microgenetic designs to study change processes. In Teti, D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental science (pp. 40–65). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.Google Scholar

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mercer, N. (2013). The social brain, language and goal-directed collective thinking: A social conception of cognition and its implications for understanding how we think, teach, and learn. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 148–168.Google Scholar

Parnafes, O. (2012). Developing explanations and developing understanding: Students explain the phases of the moon using visual representations. Cognition and Instruction, 30(4), 359–403.CrossRef Google Scholar

Renström, L., Andersson, B., & Marton, F. (1990). Students’ conceptions of matter. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 555–569.Google Scholar

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175–189.Google Scholar

Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102–119.Google Scholar

Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2013). Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 375–397.Google Scholar

Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Sherin, B. L. (2013). A computational study of commonsense science: An exploration in the automated analysis of clinical interview data. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 600–638.Google Scholar

Sherin, B. L., Kersting, N. B., & Berland, M. (2018). Learning analytics in support of qualitative analysis. 13th International Conference on the Learning Sciences, 1, 464–471.Google Scholar

Sherin, B. L., Krakowski, M., & Lee, V. R. (2012). Some assembly required: How scientific explanations are constructed during clinical interviews. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 166–198.Google Scholar

Sherin, M. G., Russ, R. S., Sherin, B. L., & Colestock, A. (2008). Professional vision in action: An exploratory study. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 27–46.Google Scholar

Shvarts, A., & Abrahamson, D. (2019). Dual-eye-tracking Vygotsky: A microgenetic account of a teaching/learning collaboration in an embodied-interaction technological tutorial for mathematics. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 22.Google Scholar

Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In Damon, W., Lerner, R. M., Kuhn, D., & Siegler, R. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 464–510). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

Siegler, R. S., & Chen, Z. (1998). Developmental differences in rule learning: A microgenetic analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 36(3), 273–310.Google Scholar

Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606–620.Google Scholar

Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 221–283.Google Scholar

Taylor, J., & Cox, B. D. (1997). Microgenetic analysis of group-based solution of complex two-step mathematical word problems by fourth graders. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 183–226.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (Kozulin, A., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Worsley, M. (2012). Multimodal learning analytics: Enabling the future of learning through multimodal data analysis and interfaces. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (pp. 353–356).Google Scholar

References

Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Learning progression in science: Current challenges and future directions. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council of Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council of Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Behrens, J. T., DiCerbo, K. E., & Foltz, P. (2019). Assessment of complex performances in digital environments. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 217–232.Google Scholar

Bennett, R. E., Deane, P., & van Rijn, P. W. (2016). From cognitive-domain theory to assessment practice. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 82–107.Google Scholar

Berman, A., Feuer, M., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (2019). What use is educational assessment? Special issue of The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1).Google Scholar

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–73.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, M. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (2001). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Corcoran, T. B., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Center on Continuous Instructional Improvement.Google Scholar

Daro, P., Mosher, F. A., Corcoran, T., Barrett, J., & Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar

Duncan, R. G., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 606–609.Google Scholar

Duncan, R. G., & Rivet, A. E. (2018). Learning progressions. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 422–432). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grade K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (Eds.). (2018). International handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Forster, M., & Masters, G. (2001). Progress maps. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar

Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education. (2013a). Technical report. Retrieved from www.gordoncommission.org/publications_reports.html Google Scholar

Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education. (2013b). Policy report. Retrieved from www.gordoncommission.org/publications_reports.html Google Scholar

Harris, C. J., Krajcik, J. S., Pellegrino, J. W., & DeBarger, A. H. (2019). Designing knowledge‐in‐use assessments to promote deeper learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 38(2), 53–67.Google Scholar

Herman, J. L., Wilson, M. R., Shavelson, R., Timms, M., & Schneider, S. (2005, April). The CAESL assessment model. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association annual conference, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Hickey, D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2005). Theory, level, and function: Three dimensions for understanding transfer and student assessment. In Mestre, J. P. (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 251–293). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar

Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73.Google Scholar

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Mislevy, R. J. (1996). Test theory reconceived. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(4), 379–416.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mislevy, R. J. (2019). Advances in measurement and cognition. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 164–182.Google Scholar

Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. (2006). Implications of evidence-centered design for educational assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 6–20.Google Scholar

Mislevy, R. J., & Riconscente, M. M. (2006). Evidence-centered assessment design: Layers, concepts, and terminology. In Downing, S. & Haladyna, T. (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 61–90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

National Research Council. (2003). Assessment in support of learning and instruction: Bridging the gap between large-scale and classroom assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Research Council. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts and cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Neumann, K., Schecher, H., & Theyssen, H. (2019). Assessing complex patterns of student resources and behavior in the large scale. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 233–249.Google Scholar

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, J. W., Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1999). Addressing the “two disciplines” problem: Linking theories of cognition and learning with assessment and instructional practice. In Iran-Nejad, A. & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 307–353). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, J. W., DiBello, L., & Brophy, S. (2014). The science and design of assessment in engineering education. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 571–598). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, J. W., DiBello, L. V., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). A framework for conceptualizing and evaluating the validity of instructionally relevant assessments. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 59–81.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, J. W., & Hickey, D. (2006). Educational assessment: Towards better alignment between theory and practice. In Verschaffel, L., Dochy, F., Boekaerts, M., & Vosniadou, S. (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends – Sixteen essays in honour of Erik De Corte (pp. 169–189). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Quellmalz, E., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2009). Technology and testing. Science, 323(5910), 75–79.Google Scholar

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 369–393.Google Scholar

Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.Google Scholar

Shepard, L. A., Penuel, W. R., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2018). Using learning and motivation theories to coherently link formative assessment, grading practices, and large-scale assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 21–34.Google Scholar

Snow, C. E., Burns, M., & Griffin, M. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Stiggins, R. J. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Formative assessment and the regulation of learning. In Lester, F. K. Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053–1098). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Wiliam, D. (2012). Embedded formative assessment: Practical strategies and tools for K-12 teachers. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, M. (2004). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Wilson, M. (2018). Making measurement important for education: The crucial role of classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 5–20.Google Scholar

Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181–208.Google Scholar

Wilson, M. R., & Bertenthal, M. W. (Eds.). (2005). Systems for state science assessments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

References

Agasisti, T., Bowers, A. J., & Soncin, M. (2019). School principals’ leadership types and student achievement in the Italian context: Empirical results from a three-step latent class analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(6), 860–886.Google Scholar

Ahn, J., Campos, F., Hays, M., & DiGiacomo, D. (2019). Designing in context: Reaching beyond usability in learning analytics dashboard design. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 70–85.Google Scholar

Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2006). Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: A model of help seeking with a cognitive tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 16(2), 101–128.Google Scholar

Alkahlisi, Z. (2019, March 5). Abu Dhabi startup is using AI to transform how kids learn. CNN Business. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/tech/alef-education-ai-uae/index.html Google Scholar

Almeda, M. V. Q., & Baker, R. S. (2020). Predicting student participation in STEM careers: The role of affect and engagement during middle school. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 12(2).Google Scholar

An, P., Bakker, S., Ordanovski, S., Taconis, R., Paffen, C. L., & Eggen, B. (2019). Unobtrusively enhancing reflection-in-action of teachers through spatially distributed ambient information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14).Google Scholar

Anderson, C. (2008, June 23). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/Google Scholar

Andor, M. A., Fels, K. M., Renz, J., & Rzepka, S. (2018). Do planning prompts increase educational success? Evidence from randomized controlled trials in MOOCs. Ruhr Economic Papers No. 790.Google Scholar

Arnold, K. E., & Sclater, N. (2017). Student perceptions of their privacy in learning analytics applications. In Proceedings of the 7th International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (pp. 66–69).Google Scholar

Baker, R. S., Corbett, A. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2004). Detecting student misuse of intelligent tutoring systems. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 531–540).Google Scholar

Baker, R. S. J. d., Gowda, S. M., & Corbett, A. T. (2011). Automatically detecting a student’s preparation for future learning: Help use is key. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 179–188).Google Scholar

Baker, R. S. J. d., & Yacef, K. (2009). The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 1(1), 3–17.Google Scholar

Barany, A., & Foster, A. (2019). Examining identity exploration in a video game participatory culture. In International Conference on Quantitative Ethnography (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Bauer, E., Sailer, M., Kiesewetter, J., et al. (2019). Using ENA to analyze pre-service teachers’ diagnostic argumentations: A conceptual framework and initial applications. In International Conference on Quantitative Ethnography (pp. 14–25). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Beck, J. E., & Gong, Y. (2013). Wheel-spinning: Students who fail to master a skill. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 431–440). Berlin, Germany; Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Multimodal learning analytics and education data mining: Using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 220–238.Google Scholar

Bowers, A. J. (2010). Analyzing the longitudinal K-12 grading histories of entire cohorts of students: Grades, data driven decision making, dropping out and hierarchical cluster analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15(7), 1–18.Google Scholar

Bowers, A. J. (2019). Towards measures of different and useful aspects of schooling: Why schools need both teacher-assigned grades and standardized assessments. In Brookhart, S. M. & McMillan, J. H. (Eds.), Classroom assessment and educational measurement (pp. 209–223). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Buckingham Shum, S., & Ferguson, R. (2012). Social learning analytics. Educational Technology and Society, 15(3), 3–26.Google Scholar

Bywater, J. P., Chiu, J. L., Hong, J., & Sankaranarayanan, V. (2019). The Teacher Responding Tool: Scaffolding the teacher practice of responding to student ideas in mathematics classrooms. Computers & Education, 139(1), 16–30.Google Scholar

Cen, H., Koedinger, K., & Junker, B. (2006). Learning factors analysis – A general method for cognitive model evaluation and improvement. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 164–175).Google Scholar

Cheng, M. T., Rosenheck, L., Lin, C. Y., & Klopfer, E. (2017). Analyzing gameplay data to inform feedback loops in The Radix Endeavor. Computers & Education, 111, 60–73.Google Scholar

Coleman, C., Baker, R., & Stephenson, S. (2019). A better cold-start for early prediction of student at-risk status in new school districts. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 732–737).Google Scholar

Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1995). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4), 253–278.Google Scholar

Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 88–108.Google Scholar

Cui, W., Xue, Z., & Thai, K. P. (2018). Performance comparison of an AI-based adaptive learning system in China. In 2018 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC) (pp. 3170–3175).Google Scholar

DeFalco, J. A., Rowe, J. P., Paquette, L., et al. (2018). Detecting and addressing frustration in a serious game for military training. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 28(2), 152–193.Google Scholar

Desmarais, M. C. (2011). Conditions for effectively deriving a q-matrix from data with non-negative matrix factorization. In Conati, C., Ventura, S., Calders, T., & Pechenizkiy, M. (Eds.), 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, EDM 2011 (pp. 41–50).Google Scholar

Dyke, G., Adamson, D., Howley, I., & Rosé, C. P. (2012). Towards academically productive talk supported by conversational agents. In Cerri, S. A., Clancey, W. J., Papadourakis, G., & Panourgia, K. (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7315, pp. 531–540). Berlin, Germany; Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., & Swayne, L. (2016). Big data consumer analytics and the transformation of marketing. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 897–904.Google Scholar

Espino, D. P., Lee, S. B., Van Tress, L., & Hamilton, E. R. (2019). Examining the dynamic of participation level on group contribution in a global, STEM-focused digital makerspace community. In International Conference on Quantitative Ethnography (pp. 55–65). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Fancsali, S. (2012). Variable construction and causal discovery for cognitive tutor log data: Initial results. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 238–239).Google Scholar

Fancsali, S. E., Zheng, G., Tan, Y., Ritter, S., Berman, S. R., & Galyardt, A. (2018). Using embedded formative assessment to predict state summative test scores. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 161–170).Google Scholar

Feng, M., & Roschelle, J. (2016). Predicting students’ standardized test scores using online homework. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 213–216). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ferguson, R. (2012). The state of learning analytics in 2012: A review and future challenges. Technical Report KMI-12–01, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, UK. Retrieved from http://kmi.open.ac.uk/publications/techreport/kmi-12-01 Google Scholar

Fincham, E., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., van Staalduinen, J. P., & Gašević, D. (2019). Counting clicks is not enough: Validating a theorized model of engagement in learning analytics. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 501–510).Google Scholar

Gobert, J. D., Moussavi, R., Li, H., Sao Pedro, M., & Dickler, R. (2018). Real-time scaffolding of students’ online data interpretation during inquiry with Inq-ITS using educational data mining. In Auer, M., Azad, A. K. M., Edwards, A., & de Jong, T. (Eds.), Cyber-physical laboratories in engineering and science education (pp. 191–217). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Grawemeyer, B., Wollenschlaeger, A., Gutierrez-Santos, S., Holmes, W., Mavrikis, M., & Poulovassilis, A. (2017). Using graph-based modelling to explore changes in students’ affective states during exploratory learning tasks. In Proceedings of the Workshops and Tutorials of the International Educational Data Mining Conference.Google Scholar

Harpstead, E., Richey, J. E., Nguyen, H., & McLaren, B. M. (2019). Exploring the subtleties of agency and indirect control in digital learning games. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 121–129).Google Scholar

Haythornthwaite, C. (2001). Exploring multiplexity: Social network structures in a computer-supported distance learning class. The Information Society: An International Journal, 17(3), 211–226.Google Scholar

Hershkovitz, A., Baker, R. S. J. d., Gobert, J., Wixon, M., & Sao Pedro, M. (2013). Discovery with models: A case study on carelessness in computer-based science inquiry. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1479–1498.Google Scholar

Holstein, K., & Doroudi, S. (2019). Fairness and equity in learning analytics systems (FairLAK). In Companion Proceedings of the 9th International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK 2019) (pp. 1–28).Google Scholar

Holstein, K., Hong, G., Tegene, M., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2018, March). The classroom as a dashboard: Co-designing wearable cognitive augmentation for K-12 teachers. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 79–88).Google Scholar

Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2017). SPACLE: Investigating learning across virtual and physical spaces using spatial replays. In Proceedings of the 7th International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (pp. 358–367).Google Scholar

Hutt, S., Gardner, M., Duckworth, A. L., & D’Mello, S. K. (2019a). Evaluating fairness and generalizability in models predicting on-time graduation from college applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 79–88).Google Scholar

Hutt, S., Grafsgaard, J. F., & D’Mello, S. K. (2019b). Time to scale: Generalizable affect detection for tens of thousands of students across an entire school year. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14).Google Scholar

Jan, S. K., & Vlachopoulos, P. (2019). Social network analysis: A framework for identifying communities in higher education online learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(4), 621–639.Google Scholar

Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Malmberg, J. (2019). Capturing the dynamic and cyclical nature of regulation: Methodological progress in understanding socially shared regulation in learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(4), 425–441.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jing, Y., Bian, Y., Hu, Z., Wang, L., & Xie, X. Q. S. (2018). Deep learning for drug design: An artificial intelligence paradigm for drug discovery in the big data era. The AAPS Journal, 20(3), 58.Google Scholar

Joksimović, S., Manataki, A., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Kovanović, V., & De Kereki, I. F. (2016). Translating network position into performance: Importance of centrality in different network configurations. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 314–323).Google Scholar

Jovanović, J., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Pardo, A., & Mirriahi, N. (2017). Learning analytics to unveil learning strategies in a flipped classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 33(4), 74–85.Google Scholar

Kai, S., Andres, J. M. L., Paquette, L., et al. (2017). Predicting student retention from behavior in an online orientation course. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 250–255).Google Scholar

Karumbaiah, S., Ocumpaugh, J., & Baker, R. S. (2019). The influence of school demographics on the relationship between students’ help-seeking behavior and performance and motivational measures. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 99–108).Google Scholar

Khalil, M., & Ebner, M. (2017). Clustering patterns of engagement in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): The use of learning analytics to reveal student categories. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 114–132.Google Scholar

Kitto, K., & Knight, S. (2019). Practical ethics for building learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2855–2870.Google Scholar

Koedinger, K. R., Baker, R. S. J. d., Cunningham, K., Skogsholm, A., Leber, B., & Stamper, J. (2010). A data repository for the EDM community: The PSLC DataShop. In Romero, C., Ventura, S., Pechenizkiy, M., & Baker, R. S. J. d. (Eds.), Handbook of educational data mining (pp. 43–56). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61–78). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (KLI) framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 757–798.Google Scholar

Koedinger, K. R., McLaughlin, E. A., & Stamper, J. C. (2012). Automated student model improvement. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 17–24).Google Scholar

Lazer, D., Pentland, A. S., Adamic, L., et al. (2009). Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723.Google Scholar

Liu, R., & Koedinger, K. R. (2017). Closing the loop: Automated data-driven cognitive model discoveries lead to improved instruction and learning gains. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 9(1), 25–41.Google Scholar

Lynch, C. F. (2017). Who prophets from big data in education? New insights and new challenges. Theory and Research in Education, 15(3), 249–271.Google Scholar

Martinez, R., Yacef, K., Kay, J., & Schwendimann, B. (2012). An interactive teacher’s dashboard for monitoring multiple groups in a multi-tabletop learning environment. In Cerri, S. A., Clancey, W. J., Papadourakis, G., & Panourgia, K. (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7315, pp. 482–492). Berlin, Germany; Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Martinez-Maldonado, R., Goodyear, P., Kay, J., Thompson, K., & Carvalho, L. (2016, May). An actionable approach to understand group experience in complex, multi-surface spaces. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2062–2074).Google Scholar

Martinez-Maldonado, R., Pechenizkiy, M., Buckingham Shum, S., Power, T., Hayes, C., & Axisa, C. (2017). Modelling embodied mobility teamwork strategies in a simulation-based healthcare classroom. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (pp. 308–312).Google Scholar

Matsuda, N., Furukawa, T., Bier, N., & Faloutsos, C. (2015). Machine beats experts: Automatic Discovery of skill models for data-driven online course refinement. In Proceedings of the International Educational Data Mining Society.Google Scholar

McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., & Mikšátko, J. (2010). Supporting collaborative learning and e-discussions using artificial intelligence techniques. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 20(1), 1–46.Google Scholar

Milliron, M., Kil, D., Malcolm, L., & Gee, G. (2017). From innovation to impact: How higher education can evaluate innovation’s impact and more precisely scale student support. Planning for Higher Education, 45(4), 125–136.Google Scholar

Owen, V. E. (2014). Capturing in-game learner trajectories with ADAGE (Assessment Data Aggregator for Game Environments): A cross-method analysis [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.Google Scholar

Paquette, L., & Baker, R. S. (2019). Comparing machine learning to knowledge engineering for student behavior modeling: A case study in gaming the system. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(5–6), 585–597.Google Scholar

Paquette, L., Ocumpaugh, J., Li, Z., Andres, J. M. A. L., & Baker, R. S. (2020). Who’s learning? Using demographics in EDM research. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 12(3), 1–30.Google Scholar

Pardo, A., Bartimote, K., Shum, S. B., et al. (2018). OnTask: Delivering data-informed, personalized learning support actions. Journal of Learning Analytics, 5(3), 235–249.Google Scholar

Pavlik, P. I., Cen, H., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Performance factors analysis – A new alternative to knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED2009) (pp. 531–538).Google Scholar

Peddycord-Liu, Z., Harred, R., Karamarkovich, S., Barnes, T., Lynch, C., & Rutherford, T. (2018). Learning curve analysis in a large-scale, drill-and-practice serious math game: Where is learning support needed?. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 436–449). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Pelánek, R. (2016). Applications of the Elo rating system in adaptive educational systems. Computers & Education, 98(1), 169–179.Google Scholar

Piech, C., Bassen, J., Huang, J., et al. (2015). Deep knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 505–513).Google Scholar

Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2017). An elephant in the learning analytics room: The obligation to act. In Proceedings of the 7th International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (pp. 46–55).Google Scholar

Ritter, S., Yudelson, M., Fancsali, S. E., & Berman, S. R. (2016). How mastery learning works at scale. In Proceedings of the 3rd (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 71–79).Google Scholar

Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2010). Educational data mining: A review of the state-of-the-art. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 40(6), 610–618.Google Scholar

Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography. Madison, WI: Cathcart Press.Google Scholar

Shih, B., Koedinger, K., & Scheines, R. (2008). A response time model for bottom-out hints as worked examples. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 117–126).Google Scholar

Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. J. d. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 252–254).Google Scholar

Slater, S., Bowers, A., Kai, S., & Shute, V. J. (2017). A typology of players in the game physics playground. In Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association DiGRA Conference (pp. 1–12).Google Scholar

Slater, S., Joksimović, S., Kovanović, V., Baker, R. S., & Gašević, D. (2017). Tools for educational data mining: A review. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 42(1), 85–106.Google Scholar

Spann, C. A., Schaeffer, J., & Siemens, G. (2017). Expanding the scope of learning analytics data: Preliminary findings on attention and self-regulation using wearable technology. In Proceedings of the 7th International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (pp. 203–207).Google Scholar

Stamper, J., Carvalho, P., Moore, S., & Koedinger, K. (2019). Tigris: An online workflow tool for sharing educational data and analytic methods. In Companion Proceedings 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (p. 183).Google Scholar

Tatsuoka, K. K. (1995). Architecture of knowledge structures and cognitive diagnosis: A statistical pattern recognition and classification approach. In Nichols, P. D., Chipman, S. F., & Brennan, R. L. (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 327–359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Teasley, S. D. (2017). Student facing dashboards: One size fits all?. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 377–384.Google Scholar

Ubell, R. (2019, June 12). The adaptive learning market shakes out. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/views/2019/06/12/explaining-shakeout-adaptive-learning-market-opinion Google Scholar

van Leeuwen, A., & Rummel, N. (2017). Teacher regulation of collaborative learning: Research directions for learning analytics dashboards. Making a Difference: Prioritizing Equity and Access in CSCL, 2(805–806), 1939–1382.Google Scholar

Vaval, L., Bowers, A. J., & Snodgrass Rangel, V. (2019). Identifying a typology of high schools based on their orientation toward STEM: A latent class analysis of HSLS: 09. Science Education, 103(5), 1151–1175.Google Scholar

Venant, R., Sharma, K., Vidal, P., Dillenbourg, P., & Broisin, J. (2017). Using sequential pattern mining to explore learners’ behaviors and evaluate their correlation with performance in inquiry-based learning. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 286–299). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Vie, J. J., & Kashima, H. (2019). Knowledge tracing machines: Factorization machines for knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 33, pp. 750–757).Google Scholar

Vuong, A., Nixon, T., & Towle, B. (2011). A method for finding prerequisites within a curriculum. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 211–216).Google Scholar

Wang, G., Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E. W., & Papadopoulos, T. (2016). Big data analytics in logistics and supply chain management: Certain investigations for research and applications. International Journal of Production Economics, 176, 98–110.Google Scholar

Wise, A. F., & Jung, Y. (2019). Teaching with analytics: Towards a situated model of instructional decision-making. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 53–69.Google Scholar

Xhakaj, F., Aleven, V., & McLaren, B. M. (2017). Effects of a teacher dashboard for an intelligent tutoring system on teacher knowledge, lesson planning, lessons and student learning. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 315–329). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Yeung, C. K., & Yeung, D. Y. (2018). Incorporating features learned by an enhanced deep knowledge tracing model for stem/non-stem job prediction. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1–25.Google Scholar

Zhang, X., Meng, Y., de Pablos, P. O., & Sun, Y. (2019). Learning analytics in collaborative learning supported by Slack: From the perspective of engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 625–633.Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Shi, X., King, I., & Yeung, D. Y. (2017). Dynamic key-value memory networks for knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 765–774).Google Scholar

Zou, X., Ma, W., Ma, Z., & Baker, R. (2019). Towards helping teachers select optimal content for students. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 413–417).Google Scholar

Book contents

Part II - Methodologies

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive