skip to main content
10.1145/3448139.3448176acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Modelling Spatial Behaviours in Clinical Team Simulations using Epistemic Network Analysis: Methodology and Teacher Evaluation

Published:12 April 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

In nursing education through team simulations, students must learn to position themselves correctly in coordination with colleagues. However, with multiple student teams in action, it is difficult for teachers to give detailed, timely feedback on these spatial behaviours to each team. Indoor-positioning technologies can now capture student spatial behaviours, but relatively little work has focused on giving meaning to student activity traces, transforming low-level x/y coordinates into language that makes sense to teachers. Even less research has investigated if teachers can make sense of that feedback. This paper therefore makes two contributions. (1) Methodologically, we document the use of Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) as an approach to model and visualise students’ movements. To our knowledge, this is the first application of ENA to analyse human movement. (2) We evaluated teachers’ responses to ENA diagrams through qualitative analysis of video-recorded sessions. Teachers constructed consistent narratives about ENA diagrams’ meaning, and valued the new insights ENA offered. However, ENA’s abstract visualisation of spatial behaviours was not intuitive, and caused some confusions. We propose, therefore, that the power of ENA modelling can be combined with other spatial representations such as a classroom map, by overlaying annotations to create a more intuitive user experience.

References

  1. Karan Ahuja, Dohyun Kim, Franceska Xhakaj, Virag Varga, Anne Xie, Stanley Zhang, Jay Townsend, Chris Harrison, Amy Ogan, and Yuvraj Agarwal. 2019. EduSense: Practical Classroom Sensing at Scale. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 3, 3 (Sep 2019), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351229Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Pengcheng An, Saskia Bakker, Sara Ordanovski, Ruurd Taconis, and Berry Eggen. 2018. ClassBeacons: Designing Distributed Visualization of Teachers’ Physical Proximity in the Classroom. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173225.3173243Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Sean Andrist, Wesley Collier, Michael Gleicher, Bilge Mutlu, and David W. Shaffer. 2015. Look together: analyzing gaze coordination with epistemic network analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 6 (Jul 2015), 1016. https://doi.org/10.3389Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Liz Berragan. 2011. Simulation: An effective pedagogical approach for nursing?Nurse Education Today 31, 7 (2011), 660–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.01.019Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Simon Buckingham Shum, Vanessa Echeverria, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2019. The Multimodal Matrix as a Quantitative Ethnography Methodology. In International Conference on Quantitative Ethnography. Springer, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33232-7_3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Adam Cheng, Walter Eppich, Taylor Sawyer, and Vincent Grant. 2018. Debriefing: the state of the art and science in healthcare simulation. Healthcare simulation education: evidence, theory and practice. Chichester: Wiley (2018), 158–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119061656.ch21Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwin Chng, Mohamed Seyam, William Yao, and Bertrand Schneider. 2020. Using Motion Sensors to Understand Collaborative Interactions in Digital Fabrication Labs. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, Cham, 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52237-7_10Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. W. Collier. 2015. Application of ENA-based network analyses to fMRI data on school-children’s acquisition of number symbols. In Discovery Challenge Research Symposium. Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Andras Csanadi, Brendan Eagan, Ingo Kollar, David Williamson Shaffer, and Frank Fischer. 2018. When coding-and-counting is not enough: using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 13, 4 (Dec 2018), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9292-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Vanessa Echeverria, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, and Simon Buckingham S.2019. Towards collaboration translucence: Giving meaning to multimodal group data. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300269Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Vanessa Echeverria, Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Tamara Power, Carolyn Hayes, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2018. Where Is the Nurse? Towards Automatically Visualising Meaningful Team Movement in Healthcare Education. In Proceedings International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93846-2_14Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Máverick Ferreira, Vitor Rolim, Rafael Ferreira Mello, Rafael Dueire Lins, Guanliang Chen, and Dragan Gašević. 2020. Towards automatic content analysis of social presence in transcripts of online discussions. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. 141–150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Marva Foster, Marie Gilbert, Darlene Hanson, Kathryn Whitcomb, and Crystal Graham. 2019. Use of simulation to develop teamwork skills in prelicensure nursing students: an integrative review. Nurse educator 44, 5 (2019), E7–E11. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000616Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kristin L. Fraser, Michael J. Meguerdichian, Jolene T. Haws, Vincent J. Grant, Komal Bajaj, and Adam Cheng. 2018. Cognitive Load Theory for debriefing simulations: implications for faculty development. Advances in Simulation 3, 1 (Dec 2018), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-018-0086-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Janet Gardner. 2014. Spatial ability in registered nurses.Ph.D. Dissertation. University of North Texas, Texas.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dragan Gašević, Srećko Joksimović, Brendan R Eagan, and David Williamson Shaffer. 2019. SENS: Network analytics to combine social and cognitive perspectives of collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior 92 (2019), 562–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Edward T. Hall. 1963. A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior. American Anthropologist 65, 5 (1963), 1003–1026.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Marc Hassenzahl and Daniel Ullrich. 2007. To do or not to do: Differences in user experience and retrospective judgments depending on the presence or absence of instrumental goals. Interacting with Computers 19, 4 (Jul 2007), 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2007.05.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Tiffany Herder, Zachari Swiecki, Simon Fougt, Andreas Tamborg, Benjamin Allsopp, David W. Shaffer, and Morten Misfeldt. 2018. Supporting teachers’ intervention in students’ virtual collaboration using a network based model. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170394Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Michaela Kolbe and Margarete Boos. 2019. Laborious but elaborate: The benefits of really studying team dynamics. In Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10. Frontiers Media S.A., 1478. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01478Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Bette Mariani and Jessica Doolen. 2016. Nursing Simulation Research: What Are the Perceived Gaps?Clinical Simulation in Nursing 12, 1 (2016), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.11.004Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Gabriele Marini. 2019. Towards indoor localisation analytics for modelling flows of movements. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 377–382. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341162.3349306Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2019. ”I Spent More Time with that Team”: Making Spatial Pedagogy Visible Using Positioning Sensors. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge - LAK19. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303818Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Vanessa Echeverria, Jurgen Schulte, Antonette Shibani, Katerina Mangaroska, and Simon Buckingham S.2020. Moodoo: Indoor Positioning Analytics for Characterising Classroom Teaching. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, Cham, 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52237-7_29Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Nora Mcdonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Nora McDonald. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput 1(2019), Article 39:23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Jane Moore, Dawn Prentice, and Maurene McQuestion. 2015. Social Interaction and Collaboration among Oncology Nurses. Nursing research and practice 2015 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/248067Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jakob Nielsen and Thomas K. Landauer. 1993. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’93. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169166Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Pam Pointon and Ruth Kershner. 2000. Making decisions about organising the primary classroom environment as a context for learning: the views of three experienced teachers and their pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education 16, 1 (Jan 2000), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00043-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Luis P. Prieto, Kshitij Sharma, Pierre Dillenbourg, and María Jesús. 2016. Teaching Analytics: Towards Automatic Extraction of Orchestration Graphs Using Wearable Sensors. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics &; Knowledge (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (LAK ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883927Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Mikael Rask and David Brunt. 2007. Verbal and social interactions in the nurse-patient relationship in forensic psychiatric nursing care: a model and its philosophical and theoretical foundation.Nursing inquiry 14, 2 (Jun 2007), 169–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2007.00364.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Vitor Rolim, Rafael Ferreira Leite De Mello, Vitomir Kovanovic, and Dragan Gaševic. 2019. Analysing social presence in online discussions through network and text analytics. In 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Vol. 2161. IEEE, 163–167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Nazmus Saquib, Ayesha Bose, Dwyane George, and Sepandar Kamvar. 2018. Sensei: Sensing Educational Interaction. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 4 (Jan 2018), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3161172Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. David W. Shaffer. 2006. Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education 46, 3 (Apr 2006), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. David W. Shaffer. 2017. Quantitative ethnography. Lulu. com, Madison, WI, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. David W. Shaffer, Wesley Collier, and A. Ruis. 2016. A Tutorial on Epistemic Network Analysis: Analyzing the Structure of Connections in Cognitive, Social, and Interaction Data.Journal of Learning Analytics 3, 3 (2016), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. David W. Shaffer, David Hatfield, Gina N. Svarovsky, Padraig Nash, Aran Nulty, Elizabeth Bagley, Ken Frank, André A Rupp, and Robert Mislevy. 2009. Epistemic network analysis: A prototype for 21st-century assessment of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media 1, 2 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1162/ijlm.2009.0013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. David W. Shaffer and A. Ruis. 2017. Epistemic Network Analysis: A Worked Example of Theory-Based Learning Analytics. In Handbook of Learning Analytics. Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR), Chapter 15, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17.015Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Hanall Sung, Shengyang Cao, Andrew R Ruis, and David Williamson Shaffer. 2019. Reading for Breadth, Reading for Depth: Understanding the Relationship Between Reading and Complex Thinking Using Epistemic Network Analysis. International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Jun 2019). https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2019.376Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Zachari Swiecki and David Williamson Shaffer. 2020. iSENS: an integrated approach to combining epistemic and social network analyses. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375505Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Zachari Swiecki and David Williamson Shaffer. 2020. iSENS: an integrated approach to combining epistemic and social network analyses. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. 305–313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Abigail Wooldridge, Pascale Carayon, David W. Shaffer, and Brendan Eagan. 2018. Quantifying the qualitative with epistemic network analysis: A human factors case study of task-allocation communication in a primary care team. IISE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering 8, 1 (Jan 2018), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/24725579.2017.1418769Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Marcelo Worsley. 2018. Multimodal Learning Analytics’ Past, Present, and, Potential Futures, In 2nd Multimodal Learning Analytics Across (Physical and Digital) Spaces, CrossMMLA 2018. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1–16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhan Zhang and Aleksandra Sarcevic. 2015. Constructing Awareness Through Speech, Gesture, Gaze and Movement During a Time-Critical Medical Task. In ECSCW 2015: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19-23 September 2015, Oslo, Norway. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20499-4_9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    LAK21: LAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference
    April 2021
    645 pages
    ISBN:9781450389358
    DOI:10.1145/3448139

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 12 April 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format