Design Paired and Repeated ENA Comparisons
Use the shared synthetic design-talk dataset to practise comparing the same units across time or conditions without treating repeated networks as unrelated observations, document the decision, test a defensible alternative, and keep every interpretation tied to source evidence.
Le corps du tutoriel vérifié est actuellement disponible en anglais.
Sources méthodologiques
Tutoriel complet
Design Paired and Repeated ENA Comparisons addresses comparing the same units across time or conditions without treating repeated networks as unrelated observations. This decision belongs in the evidence model, not in a late formatting pass. It affects which coded observations can contribute to a network, what the plotted coordinates represent, and how confidently a comparison can be interpreted. The lesson extends the same eight-team synthetic design-talk case used throughout the Academy so that only the target decision changes while the broader learning context remains stable.
You will work from the source CSV, codebook, and blank decision record. The synthetic file is intentionally small and balanced; it supports transparent inspection but no real-world inference. Your goal is to leave an audit trail that another analyst can rerun: the primary choice, its theoretical rationale, one prespecified sensitivity check, the resulting network evidence, and the claim boundary.
Cas pédagogique
Design Paired and Repeated ENA Comparisons in the design-talk case
Eight fictional teacher-design teams discuss goals, student evidence, strategies, tradeoffs, and revisions. Four are labeled baseline and four scaffolded, with six ordered utterances per team. The recurring question is whether the two conditions organize these ideas differently. For this lesson, the analytic focus is comparing the same units across time or conditions without treating repeated networks as unrelated observations; the tiny balanced file makes every contributing row inspectable while preventing invented population claims.
Jeu de données d'exercice
Étape 1
Restate the relational estimand
Write one sentence naming the unit network, the comparison, and the contextual relation represented by a connection. Then explain how comparing the same units across time or conditions without treating repeated networks as unrelated observations can change that estimand. Keep the distinction between raw observation, coded evidence, accumulated connection, normalized vector, projected coordinate, and substantive claim visible. If the target choice cannot be linked to the question, pause before opening a model.
Point de contrôleThe decision record names one unit, one bounded context, one comparison, and the exact relation a weighted edge represents.Étape 2
Freeze the shared baseline specification
Record the dataset filename and hash; team_id as unit; conversation_id as conversation; line_number as order; condition as metadata; the five binary code columns; the current window, weighting, normalization, and rotation; exclusions; and software version. This frozen baseline prevents an apparent change from being attributed to comparing the same units across time or conditions without treating repeated networks as unrelated observations when another setting changed at the same time.
Point de contrôleA second analyst can recreate the baseline model without relying on interface memory or undocumented defaults.Étape 3
Implement the primary decision
Apply this prespecified procedure: create a stable composite unit identifier, define time or condition as metadata, preserve the pairing key, and select a paired or repeated-measures inferential strategy before viewing separation. Save the configuration before inspecting the preferred group pattern. Export unit coordinates, accumulated and normalized edge tables, group summaries, and diagnostics rather than keeping only a screenshot. Mark any manual judgment with a date and rationale so later review can distinguish planned configuration from reactive adjustment.
Point de contrôleThe primary run has a dated configuration, machine-readable outputs, and a rationale written before substantive interpretation.Étape 4
Inspect units before group averages
Review all eight unit networks, their coded-row exposure, connection magnitudes, and positions. Identify all-zero, sparse, or influential cases and verify that every unit belongs to the intended condition. A mean network can look coherent even when only one team supplies an edge, so record unit coverage for the strongest visible relations and inspect whether within-group heterogeneity contradicts a simple group story.
Point de contrôleEvery interpreted group edge has a unit-coverage count, and no case was silently dropped because its pattern was inconvenient.Étape 5
Run the planned sensitivity check
Without changing unrelated settings, compare complete-pair results with a transparent description of incomplete cases, and inspect whether change is consistent across units or dominated by a few large shifts. Save the primary and alternative outputs side by side and compare connection ranks, unit coordinates, group means, diagnostics, and the wording of the conclusion. Sensitivity analysis is not a search for the most separated plot; report stable, weakened, reversed, and ambiguous patterns with equal visibility.
Point de contrôleThe record states exactly what changed, what stayed fixed, and whether the main interpretation survives the alternative.Étape 6
Return from edges to evidence
Close the interpretive loop: for one unit, trace both networks back to the corresponding time-specific conversations and verify that the same construct and coding rules were applied. Read enough surrounding rows to recover the conversational context and examine counterexamples, not only quotations that fit the network. Preserve team, conversation, and row identifiers in the audit output. If the edge interpretation conflicts with the excerpts, revise the interpretation or investigate the coding and window rather than trusting the graph.
Point de contrôleThe interpretation cites traceable rows from multiple units and records at least one contradictory or boundary case.Étape 7
Write the decision and claim boundary
Write three layers in order: the observed source evidence, the modeled pattern under the primary specification, and the explanation the synthetic design cannot establish. Include the sensitivity outcome and this boundary: Pre/post separation does not by itself identify an intervention effect. History, maturation, task differences, missing pairs, and regression can explain within-unit change when the design lacks a counterfactual. End with the exact files needed to reproduce the lesson and a note that the exercise demonstrates workflow logic rather than a finding about real teachers or scaffolds.
Point de contrôleThe final paragraph separates observation, model output, interpretation, uncertainty, and non-causal limitation in explicit language.