Educational Research Methods 10

Research Methods for the Learning Sciences 85-748

Spring 2010 Syllabus Carnegie Mellon University

Class times

4:30 to 5:50 Tuesday & Thursday

Location

336B Baker Hall for the first day.

3501 Newell Simon Hall thereafter.

Instructors

Professor Ken Koedinger

Location: 3601 Newell-Simon Hall

Phone: 8-7667

Email: Koedinger@cmu.edu

Office hours by appointment

Dr. Philip I. Pavlik Jr.

Location: 300S Craig St, 224

Phone: 8-1618

Email: ppavlik@andrew.cmu.edu

Office hours by appointment

Teaching Assistant

Benjamin Shih

Location: GHC 8003

Phone: 8-6289

Email: shih@cmu.edu

Office hours by appointment

Class URL

learnlab.org/research/wiki/index.php/Educational_Research_Methods_10

Goals

The goals of this course are to learn data collection, design, and analysis methodologies that are particularly useful for scientific research in education. The course will be organized in modules addressing particular topics including overview of methods, cognitive task analysis, qualitative methods, protocol and discourse analysis, and educational data mining and log analysis. A key goal is to help students think about and learn how to apply these methods to their own research programs.

Course Prerequisites

To enroll you must have taken 85-738, "Educational Goals, Instruction, and Assessment" or get the permission of the instruction.

Textbook and Readings

"The Research Methods Knowledge Base: 3rd edition" by William M.K. Trochim and James P. Donnelly. You can find it at www.atomicdogpublishing.com/BookDetails.asp?BookEditionID=160

Other readings will be assigned in class.

Reading Reports

We will be using Google Wave for course reading reports and discussions. Google Wave combines discussion boards, instant messengers, and wikis into a single system. You can use it just as you would a discussion board, but you can also edit your own / other peoples' posts, play back the changes, and see changes update in real-time. Further details and account invitations will be discussed in class.

Reading reports consist of three parts: students are required to submit at least one original post per reading assignment, at least one reply or comment on another student's post, and at least one substantive addition to the reading assignment summary. More posts, replies, and summary improvements are encouraged.

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday	Sunday
Original Post (Tuesday Reading)	Reply (Tuesday Reading) Summary Edits (Tuesday Reading)		Original Post (Thursday Reading) Summary Edits (Thursday Reading)			Reply (Thursday Reading)

Posts and Replies

Original posts should contain at least one of the following:

• a question you had about the reading or something important you did not understand
• an idea inspired by the reading
• an interesting connection with something you learned or did previously in this or another course, or in other professional work or research

For readings due on a Tuesday, the original post must be submitted by Monday morning.

For readings due on a Thursday, the original post must be submitted by Thursday morning.

Replies must be:

• an on-topic, relevant response, clarification, or further comment on another student’s post

For readings due on a Tuesday, at least one reply must be submitted by Tuesday morning.

For readings due on a Thursday, at least one reply must be submitted by Sunday morning.

This means that replies for Tuesday readings are due before class, whereas replies for Thursday readings are due after. Please use this extra time to have a full and meaningful discussion on the topics discussed.

Summary

For each reading assignment, one student will be responsible for a finished summary of that assignment and its related discussion.

Each summary will consist of:

• A brief overview of the reading assignment. For a chapter from the textbook, this should be a couple sentences on major topics addressed in the chapter. For a research paper, this should be a couple sentences covering the research question(s) and primary result(s).
• A brief discussion of the methodology. For a chapter from the textbook, this should be a more detailed discussion of the main research methodology discussed. For a research paper, this should be a couple sentences discussing aspects of the data, such as the subject population or analytical methods.
• A listing of major issues or suggestions for the paper, as related to the course. Threats to validity and problems with test reliability are example topics, as well as suggestions on how to avoid or resolve such issues.

The first two parts of the summary should be complete by the morning of the day of class.

Grading

There will be assignments associated with each section of the course. Grades will be determined by your performance on these assignments, by your participation in Reading Reports, and by your participation in class.

• Course work
  • 10% Reading reports
  • 50% Homework assignments
• Project & final paper
  • 40% Design a new study based on one (or more) of these methods that pushes your own research in a new direction.

1. Apply a method from the class to your research. You should not choose a method that you have a large amount of experience with, but you may choose a method that you were planning to use for some upcoming project anyway.

   Think of it as writing a grant proposal, and remember it could actually form part of a grant if you so choose.

   No more than 10 double-spaced pages -- Be efficient. Space is always limited in academic publications and you will find it useful to learn to include only what is important. Since this is styled as a grant proposal, please beginning with a bit of literature review and discussion of significance of the area you want to investigate. You should also briefly detail plans for participants, how you will apply the method, and how you will analyze the data. Certainly you will want to account for any challenges to validity that seem plausible as part of your design and writeup.

• • • Final Project Milestones***

March 5 - a paragraph project proposal in email

March 15 - approval of proposed project

April 20 - turn in a draft for feedback

April 26 - feedback provided by April 26

Desired: set up a meeting with one of the faculty to discuss draft

May 5 - final paper due

Class Schedule

Basic Research & Experimental Methods (Koedinger, Pavlik)

• 1-12-10
  • Slides: pdf version OR ppt version
  • Assignment 1: Assignment1.doc
    • Assignment 1 Paper: 1996_Marcus.pdf
• 1-14-10
  • Reading: Trochim Ch 1 and 7
  • Slides: ppt
• 1-19-10
  • Reading: Trochim Ch 9 and 10
  • Slides: pdf OR ppt
• 1-21-10
  • Reading: Trochim Ch 11
  • Assignment 1 due before class
  • Slides: pdf OR ppt

Cognitive Task Analysis (Koedinger, Pavlik)

• 1-26-10
  • Clark, R. E., Feldon, D., van Merriënboer, J., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2007). Cognitive task analysis: In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 577–593). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Assignment 2: Assignment2.doc
  • Slides: CTA-01.pdf

• 1-28-10
  • Rittle-Johnson, B. & Koedinger, K. R. (2001). Using cognitive models to guide instructional design: The case of fraction division: In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 857-862). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

• • Heffernan, N. & Koedinger, K. R. (1997). The composition effect in symbolizing: The role of symbol production vs. text comprehension: In Shafto, M. G. & Langley, P. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 307-312). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

• 2-2-10
  • Go to PSLC poster session outside of 6115 Gates
  • See projects from these pages Cognitive Factors, Metacognition and Motivation, Social and Communicative Factors in Learning, and Computational Modeling and Data Mining
  • Reading for later: How People Learn Chapter 2: How Experts Differ From Novices

Video and Verbal Protocol Analysis (Lovett, Rosé)

• 2-4-10: In this introductory lecture, we will discuss the main steps of protocol analysis and what can be gained from the process. We will discuss these 2 readings in class.
  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Revised Edition, pp. xii-xv). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Media:E&SPreface.pdf
  • Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S. H., & Wynn, V. (2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects, British Journal of Psychology, 98, 611-625. Media:Gilhooly.pdf‎
• 2-9-10 Snowmagedon
• 2-11-10 Protocol Analysis of Educational Discussions
  • [Half the class will read this one]Veel, R. (1999). Language, knowledge and authority in school mathematics, in Francis Christie (Ed.) Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistics and Social Processes, Continuum. Media:PedagogyChapter_7.pdf
  • [Half the class will read this one] Williams, G. (1999). The pedagogic device and the production of pedagogic discourse: a case example in early literacy education, in Francis Christie (Ed.) Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistics and Social Processes, Continuum. Media:PedagogyChapter_4.pdf
  • [Optional] Martin, J. and White, P. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English, Chapter 3, Palgrave. Media:Martin-WhiteChapter_3.pdf
  • [Optional] Michaels et al., 2007 paper on Accountable Talk AccountableTalkPaper
• 2-16-10
  • van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994).The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. New York: Academic Press. Chapter 7Media:VanSch7.pdf‎
  • Kumar, R., Ai, H., and Rosé (submitted). Choosing Optimal Levels of Social Interaction – Towards creating Human-like Conversational Tutors, submitted to the Intelligent Tutoring Systems ConferenceITS2010-Kumar
  • Data set from Kumar et al. study Data
  • Iris's coding manual Manual
  • Chapter with alternative presentation of Reasoning coding Chapter
• 2-18-10
  • Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y.C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., (2008). Analyzing Collaborative Learning Processes Automatically: Exploiting the Advances of Computational Linguistics in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, submitted to the International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning [[1]]
  • Ai, H., Kumar, R., Nagasunder, A., Rose, C. P. (submitted). Exploring the Effectiveness of Social Capabilities and Goal Alignment in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, submitted to the Intelligent Tutoring Systems ConferenceMedia:Its2010_submission_172.pdf‎
  • Hua Ai's Lecture File:EduMethod.ppt
• 2-23-10
  • Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts Beyond Words: When Language Overshadows Insight, Journal of Experimental Psychology 122(2), pp 166-183. Media:Schooleretal.pdf‎
• 2-25-10
  • Download SIDE and the SIDE User's Manual from the webpage. [[2]]

Psychometrics, reliability, Item Response Theory (Junker, Koedinger)

• 3-2-10
• 3-4-10

NO CLASS – Spring break

• 3-9-10
• 3-11-10

Psychometrics continued

• 3-16-10

Surveys, Questionnaires, Interviews (Kiesler)

• 3-18-10
• 3-23-10

Educational data mining (Scheines, Pavlik, Koedinger)

• 3-25-10
• 3-30-10
• 4-1-10
• 4-6-10
• 4-8-10
• 4-13-10
• 4-15-10 NO CLASS – Spring Carnival

Cognitive Task Analysis - Revisited (Koedinger, Pavlik)

• 4-20-10
• 4-22-10

Wrap-up

• 4-27-10
• 4-29-10