Leveraging a Sorting Task as a Measure of Knowledge Structure in Bilingual Settings

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 23-35

  Tang, Hengtao ^a   Clariana, Roy ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Knowledge structure; Measurement; Second language reading; Sorting task

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; MEASUREMENTS; SORTING;

EXPLORATORY STUDIES; KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES; RELATIONAL STRUCTURES; SECOND LANGUAGE;

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84983448581     PISSN: 22111662     EISSN: 22111670     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-016-9290-z     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13(10), 5–10.
2. Aronoff, J. M., Gonnermanb, L. M., Almorc, A., Arunachalam, S., Kempler, D., & Andersen, E. S. (2005). Information content versus relational knowledge: Semantic deficits in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 44, 21–35.
3. Bonilla, J. L., & Johnson, M. K. (1995). Semantic space in Alzheimer’s disease patients. Neuropsychology, 9(3), 345–353.
4. Britton, B. K., & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 329–345.
5. Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., Desena, A. T., & Squires, D. A. (1981). Structural representations of student’s knowledge before and after science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(2), 97–111.
6. Clariana, R. B. (2010). Multi-decision approaches for eliciting knowledge structure. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 41–59). Berlin: Springer.
7. Clariana, R. B., Rysavy, M. D., & Taricani, E. M. (2015). Text signals influence team artifacts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 35–52.
8. Clariana, R. B., & Wallace, P. (2007). A computer-based approach for deriving and measuring individual and team knowledge structure from essay questions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(3), 211–227.
9. Clariana, R. B., & Wallace, P. E. (2009). A comparison of pair-wise, list-wise, and clustering approaches for eliciting structural knowledge. International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(3), 287–302.
10. Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Schleigh, S. P. (2011). Comparison of student’s knowledge Structure coherence and understanding of force in the Philippines, Turkey, China, Mexico, and the United States. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 207–261. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.508028.
11. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval lime from long-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247.
12. Davis, M. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2015). Measuring reading comprehension of content area texts using an assessment of knowledge organization. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(2), 148–164. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.863749.
13. Fitzpatrick, T., & Izura, C. (2011). Word associations in L1 and L2: An exploratory study of response types, response times, and interlingual mediation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 373–398.
14. Fuessel, D., & Isermann, R. (2000). Hierarchical motor diagnosis utilizing structural knowledge and a self-learning neuro-fuzzy scheme. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 47(5), 1070–1077.
15. Galton, F. R. S. (1879). Psychometric experiments. Brain, 2, 149–162.
16. Gonzalvo, P., Canas, J. J., & Bajo, M. (1994). Structural representations in knowledge acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 601–616.
17. Günther, J., Bergner, A., Hendlich, M., & Klebe, G. (2003). Utilizing structural knowledge in drug design strategies: Applications using Relibase. Journal of Molecular Biology, 326(2), 621–636.
18. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403.
19. Hakan, K. U. R. T., Ekici, G., Aktas, M., & Aksu, O. (2013). Determining biology student teachers’ cognitive structure on the concept of “diffusion” through the free word-association test and the drawing-writing technique. International Education Studies, 6(9), p187.
20. Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., & Ke, H. R. (2011). An interactive concept map approach to supporting mobile learning activities for natural science courses. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2272–2280.
21. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Kaufman, A. B., Green, S. R., Seitz, A. R., & Burgess, C. (2012). Using a self-organizing map (SOM) and the hyperspace analog to language (HAL) model to identify patterns of syntax and structure in the songs of humpback whales. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 25, 237–275.
23. Kim, K., & Clariana, R. B. (2015). Knowledge structure measures of reader’s situation models across languages: Translation engenders richer structure. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 20, 249–268.
24. Kroll, J. F., & de Groot, A. M. B. (2014). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism (pp. 169–200). New York: Psychology Press.
25. Martinez, M. M. (2010). Learning and cognition: The design of the mind. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
26. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington: National Academies Press.
27. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.
28. Ober, B. A., & Shenaut, G. K. (1999). Well-organized conceptual domains in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5(7), 676–684.
29. Ozgungor, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Interactions among elaborative interrogation, knowledge, and interest in the process of constructing knowledge from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 437–443. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.437.
30. Rumlehart, D. E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J. L., & Hinton, G. E. (1986). Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. In D. E. Rumelhart & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 7–57)., Psychological and biological models Cambridge: MIT Press.
31. Schvaneveldt, R. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (p. 1990). Norwood: Ablex.
32. Schvaneveldt, R. (2016). Curated bibliography of 272 published investigation using Pathfinder network methods. http://interlinkinc.net/References.html.
33. Shavelson, R. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1975). Construct validation: Methodology and application to three measures of cognitive structure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12(2), 67–85.
34. Spinozzi, G. (1993). Development of spontaneous classificatory behavior in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107, 193–200. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.107.2.193.
35. Suen, H. K., & Murphy, L. C. R. (1999). Validating measures of structural knowledge through the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Presented at AERA.
36. Taricani, E. M., & Clariana, R. B. (2006). A technique for automatically scoring open-ended concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(1), 65–82.
37. Trumpower, D. L., & Goldsmith, T. E. (2004). Structural enhancement of learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 426–446.
38. Willson, V. L., & Rupley, W. H. (1997). A structural equation model for reading comprehension based on background, phonemic, and strategy knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(1), 45–63.
39. Zareva, A., & Wolter, B. (2012). The ‘promise’ of three methods of word association analysis to L2 lexical research. Second Language Research, 28, 41–67.
40. Zhao, X., & Li, P. (2013). Simulating cross-language priming with a dynamic computational model of the lexicon. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 16, 288–303. doi:10.1017/S1366728912000624.