Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 23–35 | Cite as

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

  • Hengtao Tang
  • Roy Clariana
Original Research
First Online:

Abstract

This descriptive exploratory study considers whether a simple sorting task can elicit readers’ knowledge structure in learners’ first and second language. In this investigation, knowledge structure is considered from a symbolic connectionist viewpoint as the fundamental pre-meaningful aspect of knowledge, where structure is the precursor of knowledge acquisition and the underpinning of meaningful activity. Chinese–English (C–E) bilingual participants (n = 23) were assigned to one of four counter-balanced conditions to complete two presorting tasks, read an English expository text passage, and then complete two post-sorting tasks including: CE-read-EC, CE-read-EC, EC-read-EC, and EC-read-CE. Data analysis focused on the knowledge structure measures elicited by the four sorting tasks. Results show that both the reading and the sorting elicitation task itself differentially influenced knowledge structure; the Chinese post-sorting task immediately after reading the English text led to a relatively more relational structure than did the English post-sorting task. Individual’s knowledge structure elicited by the sorting tasks was not much like those of other students, but each individual’s self-to-self structure in Chinese and English were somewhat alike before reading (r = .35, 13 % overlap) and moderately alike after reading (r = .62, 39 % overlap). These findings add to the evidence base that sorting tasks can elicit knowledge structures in dual language settings.

Keywords

Knowledge structure Sorting task Second language reading Measurement 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This is a research project for Dr. Roy Clariana’s course, LDT 594 Research Topics. Special thanks go to Yaozu Dong, Yuanyuan Shang, Yu Yan, and Shulong Yan for the support.

References

  1. Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13(10), 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonilla, J. L., & Johnson, M. K. (1995). Semantic space in Alzheimer’s disease patients. Neuropsychology, 9(3), 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clariana, R. B., Rysavy, M. D., & Taricani, E. M. (2015). Text signals influence team artifacts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval lime from long-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galton, F. R. S. (1879). Psychometric experiments. Brain, 2, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonzalvo, P., Canas, J. J., & Bajo, M. (1994). Structural representations in knowledge acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  25. Martinez, M. M. (2010). Learning and cognition: The design of the mind. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  26. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  27. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  31. Schvaneveldt, R. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (p. 1990). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Suen, H. K., & Murphy, L. C. R. (1999). Validating measures of structural knowledge through the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Presented at AERA.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trumpower, D. L., & Goldsmith, T. E. (2004). Structural enhancement of learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 426–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options