Educational Research Methods 2012
Still under construction ... with remnants from 2010 version ...
- 1 Research Methods for the Learning Sciences 05-748
- 1.1 Class times
- 1.2 Location
- 1.3 Instructor
- 1.4 Class URL
- 1.5 Goals
- 1.6 Course Prerequisites
- 1.7 Textbook and Readings
- 1.8 Reading Reports
- 1.9 Grading
- 1.10 Class Schedule in Brief
- 1.11 Class Schedule with Readings and Assignments
- 1.11.1 Course Intro & Formulating Good Research Questions (Koedinger)
- 1.11.2 Cognitive Task Analysis (Koedinger)
- 1.11.3 Video and Verbal Protocol Analysis (Lovett, Rosé)
- 1.11.4 Cognitive Task Analysis - Revisited (Koedinger)
- 1.11.5 Psychometrics, reliability, Item Response Theory (Junker, Koedinger)
- 1.11.6 NO CLASS – Spring break
- 1.11.7 Psychometrics continued
- 1.11.8 Surveys, Questionnaires, Interviews (Kiesler)
- 1.11.9 Educational data mining (Scheines, Pavlik, Koedinger)
- 1.11.10 Experimental Research Methods (Koedinger)
- 1.11.11 Wrap-up
Research Methods for the Learning Sciences 05-748
Spring 2012 Syllabus Carnegie Mellon University
4:30 to 5:50 Tuesday & Thursday
To be determined, probably 3001 Newell Simon Hall.
Professor Ken Koedinger
Office: 3601 Newell-Simon Hall
Office hours by appointment
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 cognitive task analysis, qualitative methods, protocol and discourse analysis, survey design, psychometrics, educational data mining, and experimental design. A key goal is to help students think about and learn how to apply these methods to their own research programs.
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.
[This section will be revised. For pre-class preparation (formerly "reading reports"), I am considering using the discussion pages on this wiki rather than Google Wave. I am also planning to use the Assistment system (with questions for students to answer before class) for some pre-class preparation.]
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.
|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.
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.
There will be assignments associated with each section of the course. Grades will be determined by your performance on these assignments, by before-class preparation activities including reading reports, by your participation in class, and by a final paper.
- Course work
- 20% Before-class preparation, including reading reports, and in-class participation
- 50% Assignments
- Project & final paper
- 30% Design a new study based on one or more of these methods that pushes your own research in a new direction.
- Apply a method from the class to your research. You should not choose a method that you already know well.
- Think of it as writing a grant proposal. Because some methods will be introduced after the project proposal date, we are open to a modification in your project to apply the newly introduced method. But, please check with us to get feedback and approval on a proposed change.
- No more than 15 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 include some literature review and discussion of significance of the area you want to investigate. You should also briefly detail plans for participants, explain specifically how you will apply the method, and describe how you will analyze the data.
- Final Project Milestones
- February 15 - a list of possible project ideas including the method(s) in email
- 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
- Desired: set up a meeting to discuss draft with an instructor
- May 5 - final paper due
Class Schedule in Brief
- Course Intro & Formulating Good Research Questions: Jan 17 (T)
- Cognitive Task Analysis 1: Jan 19, 24, 26 (RTR)
- Video and Verbal Protocol Analysis: Jan 31, Feb 2,7,9,14,16 (TRTRTR)
- Guest Instructor(s): Marsha Lovett & Carolyn Rose
- Cognitive Task Analysis 2: Feb 21, 23 (TR)
- Educational Measurement & Psychometrics: Feb 28, Mar 1, 6 (TRT)
- Guest Instructor(s): Brian Junker
- Educational Design Research: Mar 8 (R)
- NO CLASS – Spring break, Mar 13, 15 (TR)
- Surveys, Questionnaires, Interviews: Mar 20, 22 (TR)
- Guest Instructor(s): Sara Kiesler
- Educational data mining: March 27, 29, Apr 3, 5, 10, 12 (TRTRTR)
- Guest Instructor(s): Richard Scheines (& Ken Koedinger)
- Experimental Methods: Apr 17, 24, 26, May 1 (TTRT)
- NO CLASS – Spring Carnival, Apr 19 (R)
- Wrap-up: May 3 (R)
Class Schedule with Readings and Assignments
Course Intro & Formulating Good Research Questions (Koedinger)
[CONTENT BELOW MAY STILL BE REVISED!!]
Cognitive Task Analysis (Koedinger)
- Lovett paper
- 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.
- Newell & Simon
Other possible readings:
- How People Learn Chapter 2: How Experts Differ From Novices
Video and Verbal Protocol Analysis (Lovett, Rosé)
- 1-31-12: 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
- 2-2-12 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
- 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
- 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 []
- 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
- 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
- Download SIDE and the SIDE User's Manual from the webpage. []
Cognitive Task Analysis - Revisited (Koedinger)
- Koedinger & Nathan
- 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.
[DATES/CONTENT BELOW STILL NEED TO BE REVISED!!]
Psychometrics, reliability, Item Response Theory (Junker, Koedinger)
1. From Trochim:
A. Chapter 3 - the vocabulary of measurement B. Chapter 5 - on constructing scales (it's ok to focus on the material up through sect 5.2a; the rest is more of a skim [but I'd be happy to talk about that in class also])
2. On item response theory (IRT), a set of statistical models that are used to construct scales and to derive scores from them, especially in education and psychological research:
A. Harris Article (PDF) Please take and self-score the test at the end of this article. Count each part of question one as one point, and each of the remaining three questions as one point (no partial credit!). Bring your 8 scores to class. E.g. if you missed 1(c) and (d), and you also missed question 4, then you would bring to class the following scores: 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 If you missed 1(a) and (b) and question 2, bring the following scores: 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 (note that the total score is 5 in both cases, but the pattern of rights and wrongs differs; it is the pattern that we are interested in). B. Please browse *online* through pp 1-23 of the pdf at . The math is a bit heavy going but there are links to apps that illustrate various points in the harris article. So skim the math and play with the apps.
We will discuss on Tue whatever of this we can get through, and continue the discussion as needed on Thursday. There will be additional readings for Thu to introduce fitting and using IRT models.
1. Short introduction to R (Rintro.pdf)
Please download and install R for your computer (windows, mac or linux) from . Then try all the things in sections 1-9 of this handout (section 10 is optional). You can try most things by copying from the pdf and pasting into the R command window. You do not have to be completely done with this by the time we meet for lecture 2, but you should aim to finish it soon afterwards.
2. "Cognitive Assessment Models with Few Assumptions..." by Junker & Sijtsma (Junker, Sijtsma (PDF))
Please read up through p 266 only. The math is a bit heavy going so please try to read around it to see what the point of the article is. We will try to look at some of the data in the article as examples in lecture 2.
3. "Psychometric Principles in Student Assessment" by Mislevy et al (Mislevy (PDF))
Read through p 18. This is a more modern modern look at some of the same issues that are addressed in Trochim's chapters. The remainder of this paper surveys various probabilistic models for the "measurement model" portion of Mislevy's framework (Figure 1). It is quite interesting but we will not pursue it.
NO CLASS – Spring break
Surveys, Questionnaires, Interviews (Kiesler)
Reading: Trochim Ch 4 and 5
Tourangeau, Roger, and T. Yan. 2007. "Sensitive questions in surveys." Psychological Bulletin, 133(5): 859-883. Media:Tourangeau_SensitiveQuestions.pdf
Tourangeau, R. (2000). “Remembering what happened: Memory errors and survey reports.@ In A. Stone, J. Turkkan, C. Bachrach, J. Jobe, H. Kurtzman, & V. Cain (Eds.), The Science of Self-Report: Implications for research and practice (pp. 29-48). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Media:Tourangeau_RememberingWhatHappened.pdf
Educational data mining (Scheines, Pavlik, Koedinger)
Ritter, F.E., & Schooler, L. J. (2001). The learning curve. In W. Kintch, N. Smelser, P. Baltes, (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Media:RittterSchooler01.pdf
Zhang, X., Mostow, J., & Beck, J. E. (2007, July 9). All in the (word) family: Using learning decomposition to estimate transfer between skills in a Reading Tutor that listens. AIED2007 Educational Data Mining Workshop, Marina del Rey, CA Media:AIED2007_EDM_Zhang_ld_transfer.pdf
Assignment: Due Thursday, 4/1. DOC
Reading: Cen, H., Koedinger, K. R., & Junker, B. (2006). Learning Factors Analysis: A general method for cognitive model evaluation and improvement. In M. Ikeda, K. D. Ashley, T.-W. Chan (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 164-175. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. PDF
Roberts, Seth, & Pashler, Harold. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107(2), 358 - 367. Media:2000_roberts_pashler.pdf
Schunn, C. D., & Wallach, D. (2005). Evaluating goodness-of-fit in comparison of models to data. In W. Tack (Ed.), Psychologie der Kognition: Reden and Vorträge anlässlich der Emeritierung von Werner Tack (pp. 115-154). Saarbrueken, Germany: University of Saarland Press. Media:GOF.doc No Summary Required.
Do Unit 2 in the OLI course Empirical Research Methods
-- go to: http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/ -- go to Empirical Research methods (on left tab) -- click on Peek In -- complete Unit 2
Read Scheines, R., Leinhardt, G., Smith, J., and Cho, K. (2005). Replacing lecture with web-based course materials. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 1, 1-26. PDF
- 4-15-10 NO CLASS – Spring Carnival
Experimental Research Methods (Koedinger)
- Reading: Trochim Ch 1 and 7
- Slides: ppt
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1). PDF
Nathan, M., & Alibali, M. (2010). Learning sciences. WIREs Cognitive Science. PDF