Epistemic network analysis showed Type 1 concentrating on behaviour-related code connections, Type 2 on both communication- and behaviour-related connections, and Type 3 on communication-related connections¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? ENA identified three strongly connected code pairs per type (connection values > 0.40) and distinct centroid locations, with Type 1 centred on behaviour-related codes, Type 2 on communication- and behaviour-related codes, and Type 3 on communication-related codes. → Fan Ouyang 2023
Evidence¶
Fan Ouyang 2023¶
Fan Ouyang, Weiqi Xu, Mutlu Cukurova. (2023). An artificial intelligence-driven learning analytics method to examine the collaborative problem-solving process from the complex adaptive systems perspective. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn (2023) 18:39–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09387-z
q2 · i? · associational · r1
ENA of the three clusters using three pairs of connected codes per type; for example in Type 2 the connection between Int-B and Int-C was 0.71 and between Int-C and KM was 0.62; "Type 1 concentrated on the behaviour-related codes".
"In summary, Type 1 concentrated on the behaviour-related codes; Type 2 focused on both communication-related and behaviour-related codes, and Type 3 concentrated on the communication-related codes"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Intrinsically motivated students form reflective-iterative metacognitive co-occurrence networks, but overall ENA centroid positions do not differ significantly between motivational groups — related
- PIA and TFA types differ structurally in deliberative networks, with PIA centred on establishing strategy, educating, agreeing and monitoring — related
- Cluster analysis of student-AI dialogue identifies three distinct collaboration profiles: Delegated Reasoning, Concerted Interpretation, and Delegated Elaboration — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ena-structural-profiles-pattern-types |
title |
Epistemic network analysis showed Type 1 concentrating on behaviour-related code connections, Type 2 on both communication- and behaviour-related connections, and Type 3 on communication-related connections |
description |
Epistemic network analysis showed Type 1 concentrating on behaviour-related code connections, Type 2 on both communication- and behaviour-related connections, and Type 3 on communication-related connections |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2023 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — fan-ouyang-2023 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.