Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:55:32.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Methodologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

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

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education. (2013b). Policy report. Retrieved from www.gordoncommission.org/publications_reports.htmlGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.htmlGoogle 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-12-01Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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-opinionGoogle 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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Methodologies
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 14 March 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Methodologies
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 14 March 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Methodologies
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 14 March 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.011
Available formats
×