Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 249–268 | Cite as

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

  • Kyung Kim
  • Roy B. Clariana
Original research
First Online:

Abstract

In order to further validate and extend the application of recent knowledge structure (KS) measures to second language settings, this investigation explores how second language (L2, English) situation models are influenced by first language (L1, Korean) translation tasks. Fifty Korean low proficient English language learners were asked to read an L2 story and then complete L2 concept map and summary writing tasks, with or without an intervening L1 production tasks (Translated versus Directed conditions). Posttest comprehension was measured using the TOEFL multiple-choice items associated with the story (both in L2). KS elicited as concept maps and as text summaries were used to represent the situation models before, during, and after writing. For analysis, all of the participants’ maps and writing artifacts were converted into Pathfinder Networks (PFNets) that were analyzed using two distinctly different approaches, correlation of the raw proximity data and also degree centrality of the PFNets, in order to analyze the PFNets statistically and to visually describe KS cognitive state changes over time. The correlation results showed that the Translated Writing participants’ L2 KS relative to the Directed Writing condition are more similar to that of an expert and are significantly correlated with comprehension posttest scores. Including L1 tasks substantially improved the qualities of the L2 KS artifacts and underlying mental structures related to reading comprehension. In addition, the average centrality results showed that the KS ‘form’ of the participants’ PFNets who translated were relational network structures relative to the Directed Writing group’s (English only) PFNets that had a more linear structure that matched the text surface structure, suggesting a fundamental way that L1 and L2 cognitive processing differs.

Keywords

Knowledge structure measures Situation model Graph centrality 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Prof. Michael B. Wolfe, Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, for his comments on an early draft.

References

  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  22. Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing knowledge structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gonzalvo, P., Canas, J. J., & Bajo, M. (1994). Structural representations in knowledge acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jamieson, J., Enright, M., & Chapelle, C. (2008). Building a validity argument for the test of English as a foreign language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual difference, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  36. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42, 183–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lally, C. G. (2000). First language influences in second language composition: The effect of pre-writing. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 428–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ober, B., & Shenaut, G. K. (1999). Well-organized conceptual domains in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5, 676–684.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  51. Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning, 54, 525–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  54. Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trumpower, D. L., & Goldsmith, T. E. (2004). Structural enhancement of learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 426–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies in discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 347–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  65. Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning, Design, and TechnologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options