Knowledge Structure Measures of Reader’s Situation Models Across Languages: Translation Engenders Richer Structure

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 249-268

  Kim, Kyung ^a   Clariana, Roy B ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Graph centrality; Knowledge structure measures; Situation model

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; DATA VISUALIZATION;

COGNITIVE PROCESSING; DEGREE CENTRALITY; GRAPH CENTRALITIES; KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES; PATHFINDER NETWORKS; READING COMPREHENSION; RELATIONAL NETWORK; SITUATION MODELING;

TRANSLATION (LANGUAGES);

EID: 84930766414     PISSN: 22111662     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-015-9246-8     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Beare, S., & Bourdages, J. S. (2007). Skilled writers’ generating strategies in L1 and L2: An exploratory study. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & M. Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing vol. 20, writing and cognition: research and applications (pp. 151–161). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
2. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Braverman, E. P. (1997). Investigating the relationship between trainees’ mental models and the transfer of training (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland College Park, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 10B, 6626.
4. Centeno-Corte, S. B., & Jime´nez, A. (2004). Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: The importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,14, 7–35.
5. Chan, A., Luke, K., Li, P., Yip, V., Li, G., Weekes, B., & Tan, L. (2008). Neural correlates of nouns and verbs in early bilinguals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,1145, 30–40.
6. Clariana, R. B. (2010). Deriving group knowledge structure from semantic maps and from essays. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (Vol. 7, pp. 117–130). New York, NY: Springer.
7. Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2004). A computer-based approach for translating text into concept map-like representations. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. González (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping. Spain: Pamplona.
8. Clariana, R. B., & Taricani, E. M. (2010). The consequences of increasing the number of terms used to score open-ended concept maps. International Journal of Instructional Media,37(2), 218–226.
9. Clariana, R.B., Draper, D., & Land, S.M. (2011). An automated measure of group knowledge structure convergence. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology. November: Jacksonville, FL. Available online at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/rbc4/AECT_2011.pdf.
10. Clariana, R. B., Engelmann, T., & Yu, W. (2013). Using centrality of concept maps as a measure of problem space states in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development,61(3), 423–442.
11. Clariana, R. B., Koul, R., & Salehi, R. (2006). The criterion-related validity of a computer based approach for scoring concept maps. International Journal of Instructional Media,33(3), 317–325.
12. Clariana, R. B., Wallace, P. E., & Godshalk, V. M. (2009). Deriving and measuring group knowledge structure from essays: The effects of anaphoric reference. Educational Technology Research and Development,57, 725–737.
13. Clariana, R. B., Wolfe, M. B., & Kim, K. (2014). The influence of narrative and expository text lesson text structures on knowledge structures: Alternate measures of knowledge structure. Educational Technology Research and Development,62(4), 601–616.
14. Cohen, A. D., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal,85, 169–188.
15. Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication,7, 482–511.
16. Davis, M.H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2014). Measuring reading comprehension of content area texts using an assessment of knowledge organization. The Journal of Educational Research, doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.863749 Accepted author version posted online August 8 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.863749
17. Engelmann, & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,5, 299–319. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9089-1.
18. Ferstl, E. C., & Kintsch, W. (1999). Learning from text: Structural knowledge assessment in the study of discourse comprehension. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 247–277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 109–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Glenberg, A. M., Kruley, P., & Langston, W. E. (1994). Analogical processes in comprehension: Simulation of a mental model. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 609–640). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
22. Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing knowledge structure. Journal of Educational Psychology,83, 88–96.
23. Gonzalvo, P., Canas, J. J., & Bajo, M. (1994). Structural representations in knowledge acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology,86(4), 601–616.
24. Hay, D. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies. Education and Training,48, 127–142. doi:10.1108/00400910610651764.
25. Hong, N. S. (1998). The relationship between well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in multimedia simulation. Unpublished Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University. http://www.cet.edu/pdf/structure.pdf. Accessed 02 November 2014.
26. Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development,58, 81–97. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9087-4.
27. Jamieson, J., Enright, M., & Chapelle, C. (2008). Building a validity argument for the test of English as a foreign language. New York: Routledge.
28. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual difference, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
30. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Kim, K., Clariana, R. B., & Mun, Y. (2014). Using pathfinder network as a measure of lexical structure of bilingual learners. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on (pp. 355–359). IEEE.
32. Kinchin, I. M., & Hay, D. B. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research,42, 43–57.
33. Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review,95, 163–182.
34. Klois, S. S., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013a). How hypertext fosters children’s knowledge acquisition: the roles of text structure and graphical overview. Computer is Human Behavior,29, 2047–2057.
35. Klois, S.S., Segers, E., Clariana, R.B., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Effects of links in children’s digital text comprehension. Presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR), The Chinese University of Hong Kong, July 10–13.
36. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning,42, 183–215.
37. Koul, R., Clariana, R. B., & Salehi, R. (2005). Comparing several human and computer-based methods for scoring concept maps and essays. Journal of Educational Computing Research,32(3), 261–273.
38. Kudikyala, U. K., & Vaughn, R. B. (2005). Software requirement understanding using Pathfinder networks: Discovering and evaluating mental models. Journal of Systems and Software,74(1), 101–108.
39. Lally, C. G. (2000). First language influences in second language composition: The effect of pre-writing. Foreign Language Annals,33, 428–432.
40. Lim, B. C., & Klein, K. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior,27(4), 403–418.
41. McKeown, J. O. (2008). Using annotated concept map assessments as predictors of performance and understanding of complex problems for teacher technology integration. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University. http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/. Accessed 02 November 2014.
42. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review,99(3), 440–466.
43. Ober, B., & Shenaut, G. K. (1999). Well-organized conceptual domains in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,5, 676–684.
44. Perfetti, C. A. (1989). There are generalized abilities and one of them is reading. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing and learning: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 307–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Proctor, C., August, D., Carlo, M., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,97(2), 246–256.
46. Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Kieft, M., Broekkamp, H., & Van den Bergh, H. (2005). Psychology and the teaching of writing in 8000 and some words. BJEP Monograph Series,3, 127–153.
47. Rikers, R. M. J. P., Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2000). Knowledge encapsulation and the intermediate effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25, 150–166. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.1000.
48. Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Manchon, R. (1999). The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a Foreign Language. Journal of Second Language Writing,8, 13–44.
49. Sanders, T., Weijen, V. D., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. C. W. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing,18(4), 235–250.
50. Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners’ writing processes. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing vol. 11, new directions for research in l2 writing (pp. 49–80). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
51. Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning,54, 525–582.
52. Sawaki, Y., Quinlan, T., & Lee, Y. W. (2013). Understanding learner strengths and weaknesses: assessing performance on an integrated writing task. Language Assessment Quarterly,10, 73–95.
53. Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1985). Empirically derived networks. Paper presented at a symposium, F. Durso (Chair), Human Expertise: Papers in Honor of William Chase. Meetings of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Austin, April.
54. Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
55. Schvaneveldt, R.W., Sitze, K., & McDonald, J. (1989). Knowledge Network Organizing Tools (KNOT 4.3) [Computer software for Pathfinder Network analysis]. Gilbert, AZ: Interlink. Retrieved October 31, 2007. Available from http://interlinkinc.net/
56. Schvaneveldt, R. W., Beringer, D. B., & Lamonica, J. A. (2001). Priority and organization of information accessed by pilots in various phases of flight. International Journal of Aviation Psychology,11, 253–280.
57. Stevenson, M. (2005). Reading and writing in a foreign language; a comparison of conceptual and linguistic processes in Dutch and English. SCOKohnstamm Instituut van de Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofAmsterdam.
58. Taricani, E. M., & Clariana, R. B. (2006). A technique for automatically scoring open-ended concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development,54, 61–78.
59. Trumpower, D. L., & Goldsmith, T. E. (2004). Structural enhancement of learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology,29, 426–446.
60. Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners’ processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 to L2. Journal of Second Language Writing,5, 271–294.
61. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies in discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
62. Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing,12, 347–375.
63. Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing,11, 225–246.
64. Wolfersberger, M. (2003). L1 to L2 writing process and strategy transfer: A look at lower proficiency writers. TESL-EJ. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language,7(2), 1–15.
65. Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second. Journal of Second Language Writing,11, 7–28.
66. Yang, J., Tan, L., & Li, P. (2011). Lexical representation of nouns and verbs in the late bilingual brain. Journal of Neurolinguistics,24, 674–682.
67. Zareva, A. (2007). Structure of the second language mental lexicon: How does it compare to native speakers’ lexical organization? Second Language Research,23(2), 123–153.
68. Zhao, X., & Li, P. (2013). Simulating cross-language priming with a dynamic computational model of the lexicon. Bilingualism Language and Cognition,16(2), 288–303. doi:10.1017/S1366728912000624.
69. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin,123(2), 162–185.
70. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,21, 386–397.
71. Zwaan, R. A., Radvansky, G. A., Hilliard, A. E., & Curiel, J. M. (1998). Constructing multidimensional situation models during reading. Scientific Studies of Reading,2, 199–220.