AKOVIA: Automated knowledge visualization and assessment

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Volumn 19, Issue 1-2, 2014, Pages 241-248

  Ifenthaler, Dirk ^a  

^a DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

AKOVIA; Automated assessment; Knowledge representation; Natural language processing; Similarity measure

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE; KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; VISUALIZATION;

AKOVIA; AUTOMATED ASSESSMENT; EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; KNOWLEDGE VISUALIZATION; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY; SIMILARITY MEASURE; WEB-BASED APPLICATIONS;

AUTOMATION;

EID: 84902532989     PISSN: 22111662     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-014-9224-6     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Al-Diban, S.; Ifenthaler, D. (2011). Comparison of two analysis approaches for measuring externalized mental models: Implications for diagnostics and applications. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 16-30.
2. Carley, K. M. (1997). Extracting team mental models through textual analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(S1), 533-558.
3. Chomsky, N. (1970). Sprache und Geist. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
4. Chung, G. K. W.; O'Neil, H. F.; Herl, H. E. (1999). The use of computer-based collaborative knowledge mapping to measure team processes and team outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(3-4), 463-493. doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00032-1.
5. Clariana, R. B. (2010). Deriving individual and group knowledge structure from network diagrams and from essays. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 117-130). New York: Springer.
6. Coronges, K. A.; Stacy, A. W.; Valente, T. W. (2007). Structural comparison of cognitive associative networks in two populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(9), 2097-2129. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007. 00253.x.
7. Ding, Y. (2001). A review of ontologies with the semantic web in view. Journal of Information Science, 27(6), 377-384. (Pubitemid 34130113)
8. Eseryel, D.; Ge, X.; Ifenthaler, D.; Law, V. (2011a). Dynamic modeling as cognitive regulation scaffold for complex problem solving skill acquisition in an educational massively multiplayer online game environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 265-287.
9. Eseryel, D.; Ifenthaler, D.; Ge, X. (2011b). Alternative assessment strategies for complex problem solving in game-based learning environments. In D. Ifenthaler, Kinshuk, P. Isaias, D. Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on problem solving and learning in the digital age (pp. 159-178). New York: Springer.
10. Eseryel, D.; Ifenthaler, D.; Ge, X. (2013). Validation study of a method for assessing complex ill-structured problem solving by using causal representations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 443-463. doi: 10.1007/s11423-013-9297-2.
11. Eseryel, D.; Law, V.; Ifenthaler, D.; Ge, X.; Miller, R. B. (2014). An investigation of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement, and complex problem solving in game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 42-53.
12. Fischer, F.; Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405-441. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1403-3. (Pubitemid 41328206)
13. Foltz, P. W.; Kintsch, W.; Landauer, T. K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), 285-307. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545029.
14. Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
15. Greiff, S.; Wüstenberg, S.; Molnár, G.; Fischer, A.; Funke, J.; Csapó, B. (2013). Complex problem solving in educational contexts: Something beyond g - concept, assessment, measurement invariance, and construct validity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 364-379. doi: 10.1037/a0031856.
16. Gweon, G.; Rosé, C. P.; Wittwer, J.; Nueckles, M. (2005). Supporting efficient and reliable content analysis using automatic text processing technology. In M. F. Costabile & F. Paternò (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: INTERACT 2005 (Vol. 3585, pp. 1112-1115). Berlin: Springer.
17. Helbig, H. (2006). Knowledge representation and the semantics of natural language. Berlin: Springer.
18. Ifenthaler, D. (2009). Model-based feedback for improving expertise and expert performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 7(2), 83-101.
19. Ifenthaler, D. (2010a). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 81-97. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9087-4.
20. Ifenthaler, D. (2010b). Scope of graphical indices in educational diagnostics. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 213-234). New York: Springer.
21. Ifenthaler, D. (2011a). Identifying cross-domain distinguishing features of cognitive structures. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 817-840. doi: 10.1007/s11423-011-9207-4.
22. Ifenthaler, D. (2011b). Intelligent model-based feedback. Helping students to monitor their individual learning progress. In S. Graf, F. Lin, Kinshuk, & R. McGreal (Eds.), Intelligent and adaptive systems: Technology enhanced support for learners and teachers (pp. 88-100). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
23. Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 38-52.
24. Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Toward automated computer-based visualization and assessment of team-based performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0035505.
25. Ifenthaler, D.; Lehmann, T. (2012). Preactional self-regulation as a tool for successful problem solving and learning. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9(1-2), 97-110.
26. 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, 39(1), 41-61. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9097-6.
27. Ifenthaler, D.; Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2009). Assessment of knowledge: Do graphical notes and texts represent different things? In M. R. Simonson (Ed.), Annual proceedings of selected research and development papers presented at the national convention of the association for educational communications and technology (32nd, Louisville, KY, 2009) (Vol. 2, pp. 86-93). Bloomington, IN: AECT.
28. Ifenthaler, D.; Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2014). Model-based tools for knowledge assessment. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.; pp. 289-301). New York: Springer.
29. Johnson, T. E.; Pirnay-Dummer, P.; Ifenthaler, D.; Mendenhall, A.; Karaman, S.; Tennenbaum, G. (2011). Text summaries or concept maps: Which better represent reading text conceptualization? Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 8(3-4), 297-312.
30. Jonassen, D. H. (1987). Assessing cognitive structure: Verifying a method using pattern notes. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20(3), 1-14.
31. Jonassen, D. H.; Beissner, K.; Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Jonassen, D. H.; Cho, Y. H. (2008). Externalizing mental models with mindtools. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 145-160). New York: Springer.
33. Kim, M. K. (2012). Cross-validation study of methods and technologies to assess mental models in a complex problem solving situation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 703-717. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.018.
34. Lehmann, T.; Hähnlein, I.; Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 313-323. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.051.
35. Markman, A. B. (1999). Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. McKeown, J. O. (2009). Using annotated concept map assessments as predictors of performance and understanding of complex problems for teacher technology integration. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
37. Minsky, M. (1981). A framework for representing knowledge in mind design. In R. J. Brachmann & H. J. Levesque (Eds.), Readings in knowledge representation (pp. 245-262). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
38. Miyake, N. (1986). Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive Science, 10(2), 151-177. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(86) 80002-7.
39. O'Neil, H. F.; Chuang, S.-H.; Baker, E. L. (2010). Computer-based feedback for computer-based collaborative problem solving. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 261-280). New York: Springer.
40. Pellegrino, J. W. (2013). Measuring what matters in a digital age: Technology and the design of assessments for multisource comprehension. In D. G. Sampson, P. Isaias, D. Ifenthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Ubiquitous and mobile learning in the digital age (pp. 259-286). New York: Springer.
41. Pirnay-Dummer, P.; Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Automated knowledge visualization and assessment. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 77-115). New York: Springer.
42. Pirnay-Dummer, P.; Ifenthaler, D. (2011). Reading guided by automated graphical representations: How model-based text visualizations facilitate learning in reading comprehension tasks. Instructional Science, 39(6), 901-919. doi: 10.1007/s11251-010-9153-2.
43. Pirnay-Dummer, P.; Ifenthaler, D.; Spector, J. M. (2010). Highly integrated model assessment technology and tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 3-18. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9119-8.
44. Pollio, H. R. (1966). The structural basis of word association behavior. The Hague: Mouton.
45. Rumelhart, D. E.; Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three model of learning. In R. L. Klatzky & J. W. Cotton (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Schvaneveldt, R. W. (Ed.). (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
47. Searle, J.; Grewendorf, G. (2002). Speech acts, mind, and social reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
48. Tittmann, P. (2010). Graphs and networks. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 177-188). New York: Springer.
49. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.