The impact of structural characteristics of concept maps on automatic quality measurement

10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: The Future of Learning, ICLS 2012 - Proceedings

Volumn 1, Issue , 2012, Pages 291-298

  Hoppe, H Ulrich ^a   Engler, Jan ^a   Weinbrenner, Stefan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING; INHERENT CHARACTERISTICS; LEARNING SCENARIOS; ONTOLOGY RELATIONS; QUALITY MEASUREMENTS; SCALE FREE NETWORKS; STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS; STRUCTURAL MEASURES;

GRAPH THEORY;

SCAFFOLDS;

EID: 84878716450     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Barabási, A.-L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-Free Networks. Scientific American 288 (May 2003), 60-9.
2. Blei, D.M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 3, 993-1022.
3. Conlon, T. (2004). 'Please Argue, I Could Be Wrong': A reasonable fallible analyser for student concept maps. In: Proc. of Ed-Media 2004, Lugano, Switzerland.
4. Erman, L.D., Hayes-Roth, F., Lesser, V.R., & Reddy, D.R. (1980). The Hearsay-II speech understanding system: Integrating knowledge to resolve uncertainty. ACM Comp. Surveys 12 (2), 213-253.
5. Gelernter, D. (1985). Generative communication in Linda. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 7 (1), 80-112.
6. Gouli, E., Gogoulou, A., & Grigoriadou, M. (2003). A coherent and integrated framework using concept maps for various educational assessment functions. J. of Information Technology Education, 2, 215-240.
7. Gouli, E., Gogoulou, A., Papanikolaou, K., & Griggoriadou, M. (2005). How to qualitatively + quantitatively assess concepts maps: the case of COMPASS. In Proc. of AIED 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
8. Gupta, R., Wu, Y., & Biswas, G. (2005). Teaching about dynamic processes: a teachable agents approach. In Proc. of AIED 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
9. Ifenthaler, D., Masduki, I., Seel, N.M. (2011). The mystery of cognitive structure and how we can detect it: tracking the development of cognitive structures over time. Instructional Science, vol. 39, 41-61.
10. Jacobson, M. J., & Kapur, M. (2010). Ontologies as scale free networks: Implications for theories of conceptual change. In K. Gomez, L, Lyons, & J. Radinsky Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010), 193-194.
11. Kilanioti, I., Gouli E., Gogoulou, A., & Grigoriadou, M. (2008). Representing knowledge of a concept map assessment and learning environment: an ontological approach. In Proc. of ICL 2008, Villach, Austria.
12. Marra, R.M. (2002). The ideal online learning environment for supporting epistemic development: Putting the puzzle together. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3 (1), 15-31.
13. Ruiz-Primo, M. (2004). Examining concept maps as an assessment tool. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. González. (Eds), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proc. of CMC 2004. Pamplona, Spain, 555-562.
14. Rye, J., & Rubba, P. (2002). Scoring concept maps: An expert map-based scheme weighted for relationships. School Science and Mathematics, vol. 102 (1), 33-44.
15. Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., & Canaday, D. (2000). Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning - A report of methodology. The International Journal of Science Education, vol. 22 (12), 1221-1246.
16. Weinbrenner, S., Engler, J., Wichmann, A., & Hoppe, H.U. (2010). Monitoring and analysing students' systematic behaviour - the SCY pedagogical agent framework. In Proc. of ECTEL 2010, Barcelona, Spain.
17. Weinbrenner, S., Giemza, A., & Hoppe, H.U. (2007). Engineering heterogeneous distributed learning environments using TupleSpaces as an architectural platform. In Proc. of ICALT 2007, Los Alamitos, USA (IEEE Press).