Complete structure comparison

Computer-Based Diagnostics and Systematic Analysis of Knowledge

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 235-258

  Pirnay Dummer, Pablo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Graph theory; Knowledge analysis; Knowledge assessment; Knowledge structure; Structural comparison

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054045984     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-5662-0_13     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. Al-Diban, S. (2002). Diagnose mentaler modelle [Assessment of mental models]. Hamburg: Kovac.
2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2001). Data collection on the Web for informetric purposes: A review and analysis. Scientometrics, 50(1), 7-32. (Pubitemid 33594952)
3. Canas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, N., Suri N., Lott, J., Eskridge, T., et al. (2004). CmapTools: A knowledge modeling and sharing environment. In A. J. Canas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. Gonzalez (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology, proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Publica de Navarra.
4. Cilibrasi, R. L., & Vitanyi, P. M. B. (2007). The Google similarity distance. IEEE Transaction on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 19(3), 370-383. (Pubitemid 46374534)
5. Eckert, A. (1998). Kognition und Wissensdiagnose. Die Entwicklung und empirische Uberprufung des computergestutzten wissensdiagnostischen Instrumentariums Netzwerk-Elaborations-Technik (NET). Lengerich: Pabst.
6. Ellson, J., Gansner, E. R., Koutsofios, E., North, S. C., & Woodhull, G. (2003). GraphViz and dynagraph. static and dynamic graph drawing tools. Florham Park, NJ: AT & T Labs -Research.
7. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63.
8. Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19, 141-205.
9. Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., Markman, A. B., & Ferguson, R. W. (1998). Analogy just looks like high level perception: Why a domain-general approach to analogical mapping is right. Journal of experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 10(2), 231-257. (Pubitemid 128475467)
10. Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 109-128). New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (2006). Defining structural similarity. Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, 1-20.
12. Gilovich, T., & Griffin, D. (2002). Introduction - Heuristics and Biases: Then and now. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgement (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Glaser, R. (1992). Expert knowledge and process of thinking. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Glaser, E. M., Abelson, H. H., & Garrison, K. N. (1983). Putting knowledge to use: Facilitating the diffusion ofknowledge and the implementation ofplanned change (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15. Gruber, H. (1994). Expertise Modelle und empirische Untersuchungen [Expertise. Models and empirical studies]. Opladen: Westdt. Verl.
16. Helbig, H. (2006e). Knowledge representation and the semantics ofnatural language.Berlin, New York: Springer.
17. Ifenthaler, D. (2006). Diagnose lernabhangiger Veranderung mentaler Modelle Entwicklung der SMD-Technologie als methodologisches Verfahren zur relationalen, strukturellen und semantischen Analyse individueller Modellkonstruktionen. Freiburg: FreiDok.
18. Ifenthaler, D. (2008). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9087-4
19. Jackendoff, R. (2007). Linguistics in cognitive science: The state of the art. The linguistic review, 24(4), 347-101.
20. Janetzko, D. (2008). Objectivity, reliability, and validity of search engine count estimates. International Journal of Internet Science, 3(1), 3-77.
21. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
22. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Kant, I. (1787). Critik der reinen Vernunft [The critique of pure reason]. Riga: J. F. Hartknoch.
25. Kruskal, J. B. (1957). On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the travelling salesman problem. Proceeding of the American Mathematical Society, 7, 48-50.
26. Kubose, T. T., Holyoak, K. J., & Hummel, J. E. (2002). The role of textual coherence in incremental analogical mapping. Journal ofmemory and language, 47(3), 407-435.
27. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Link, G. (1979). Montague-Grammatik. Munchen: Wilhelm Fink.
29. Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy: Selected papers ofRichard Montague.NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.
30. Nuckles, M. (2004). Mind maps und concept maps: Visualisieren, Organisieren, Kommunizieren. Munchen: Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag.
31. Pirnay-Dummer, P. N. (2006). Expertise und Modellbildung - MITOCAR. Freiburg: FreiDok
32. Pirnay-Dummer, P. N. (2008). Rendezvouz with a quantum of learning. Effect metaphors, extended design experiments and omnivariate learning instances. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction. Essays in honor of NorbertM. Seel (pp. 105-143). New York: Springer.
33. Pirnay-Dummer, P. N., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Highly integrated model assessment technology and tools. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9119-8
34. Preece, P. F. W. (1976). Mapping cognitive structure: A comparison of methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 1-8.
35. Schvaneveldt, R. W., Durso, F. T., Goldsmith, T. E., Breen, T. J., Cooke, N. M., Tucker, R. G., et al. (1985). Measuring the structure of expertise. International Journal ofMan-Maschine Studies, 23, 699-728. (Pubitemid 16103298)
36. Seel, N. M. (1991). Weltwissen und mentale Modelle [World knowledge and mental models]. Gottingen: Hogrefe Verl. fur Psychologie.
37. Seel, N. M. (2003). Model centered learning and instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 59-85.
38. Seel, N. M., Al-Diban, S., & Blumschein, P. (2002). Mental models and instructional planning. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), Integrated and holistic perspectiveson learning, instruction and technology: Understanding complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
39. Snow, R. E. (1990). New approaches to cognitive and conative assessment in education. International Journal of Educational Research, 14(5), 455-473.
40. Taylor, J. R. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and autonomous linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics (pp. 566-588). New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
42. van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method. A practical guide to modelling cognitve processes. London: Academic Press.