Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 93–114 | Cite as

Local Semantic Trace: A Method to Analyze Very Small and Unstructured Texts for Propositional Knowledge

  • Pablo Pirnay-Dummer
Original Research
First Online:
  • 153 Downloads

Abstract

A local semantic trace is a certain quasi-propositional structure that can still be reconstructed from written content that is incomplete or does not follow a proper grammar. It can also retrace bits of knowledge from text containing only very few words, making the microstructure of these artifacts of knowledge externalization available for automated analysis and comparison—which makes it highly interesting when learners write short texts within or outside of any learning experience. The methodology is designed to track knowledge and understanding in contexts that contain small pieces of speech of this kind, like discussion boards, chats, forums, or any other conceivable discourse, with very small amounts of text. In this paper, the methodology is introduced and cross-validated by two subsequent studies with a total of N = 310 text samples against already existing methods that allow the analysis of medium-length texts with proper grammar. The results show a very promising outlook for three levels of expertise and five completely different domains.

Keywords

Knowledge assessment Automated assessment Knowledge tracking Assessment of learning e-Assessment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aebli, H. (1991). Zwölf Grundformen des Lehrens: eine allgemeine Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage. Medien und Inhalte didaktischer Kommunikation, der Lernzyklus (6th ed.). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. M. (2006). The non-autonomy of syntax. Folia Linguistica, 39(3–4), 223–250.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, E. (1968). Nouns and noun phrases. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 90–122). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, E. (1989). Informal lectures on formal semantics. NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brill, E. (1995). Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part of speech tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21(4), 543–565.Google Scholar
  6. Cañas, 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. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. González (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology, proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deerwester, S. C., Dumais, S. T., Landauer, T. K., Furnas, G. W., & Harshman, R. A. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 41(6), 391–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herbart, J. F. (1806). Allgemeine Pädagogik aus dem Zweck der Erziehung abgeleitet. Göttingen: Röwer.Google Scholar
  11. Huifen, L. (2011). Facilitating learning from animated instruction: Effectiveness of questions and feedback as attention-directing strategies. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 31–42. (article).Google Scholar
  12. Ifenthaler, D. (2009). Model-based feedback for improving expertise and expert performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 7(2), 83–101.Google Scholar
  13. Ifenthaler, D. (2010a). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 1556–6501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janetzko, D. (2008). Objectivity, reliability, and validity of search engine count estimates. International Journal of Internet Science, 3(1), 3–77.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, T. E., O’Connor, D. L., Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., Spector, J. M., & Seel, N. M. (2006a). Comparative study of mental model research methods: Relationships, among, ACSMM, SMD, MITOCAR and DEEP methodologies. In A. J. Cañas & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on concept mapping. San Jose, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, T. E., O’Connor, D. L., Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., & Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2006b). Comparative study of mental model research methods: Relationships among ACSMM, SMD, MITOCAR and DEEP methodologies. In A. J. Canas & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. San Jose, Costa Rica: University of Costa Rica.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. 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. 145–159). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing. Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2/3), 307–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Link, G. (1979). Montague-Grammatik. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
  24. McNamara, T. P. (2005). Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word recognition. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mevarech, Z. R. (1980). The role of teaching–learning strategies and feedback-corrective procedures in developing higher cognitive achievement. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375–410). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2010). Complete Structure Comparison. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 235–258). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2012). Measures of Association. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2145–2147). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2012). Designing model-based learning environments to support mental models for learning. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 55–90). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Walter, S. (2009). Bridging the world’s knowledge to individual knowledge using latent semantic analysis and web ontologies to complement classical and new knowledge assessment technologies. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 7(1), 21–45.Google Scholar
  34. Pollio, H. R. (1966). The structural basis of word association behavior. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  35. Russel, W. A., & Jenkins, J. J. (1954). The complete Minnesota norms for responses to 100 words from the Kent–Rosanoff word association test. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  36. Schnotz, W. (1994). Aufbau von Wissensstrukturen. Weinheim: Beltz, Psychologie-Verl.-Union.Google Scholar
  37. Seel, N. M. (1991). Weltwissen und Mentale Modelle. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  38. Seel, N. M. (2003). Model centered learning and instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 59–85.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, W. G. (1894). Mediate association. Mind, 3(11), 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, W. G. (1918). Methods of studying controlled word associations. Psychobiology, 1(6), 369–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spector, J. M. (2008). The fragmented nature of learning and instruction. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 3–22). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spector, J. M., Christensen, D. L., Sioutine, A. V., & McCormack, D. (2001). Models and simulations for learning in complex domains: Using causal loop diagrams for assessment and evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5–6), 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spector, J. M., & Koszalka, T. A. (2004). The DEEP methodology for assessing learning in complex domains (final report to the National Science Foundation evaluative research and evaluation capacity building). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  44. Strasser, A. (2010). A functional view towards mental representations. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 15–26). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turner, R. (1983). Montague semantics, nominalization and Scott’s domains. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vygotskij, L. S., & Kozulin, A. (1997). Thought and language (10th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Waldo, J. (1979). A PTQ semantics for sortal incorrectness. In S. Davis & M. Mithun (Eds.), Linguistics, philosophy, and montague grammar (pp. 311–331). Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
  49. Warren, H. C. (1921). A history of the association psychology. New York, Chicago: C. Scribner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2003). Use of latent semantic analysis for predicting psychological phenomena: Two issues and proposed solutions. Behaviour Research Methods, 35, 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationMartin Luther University of Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options