Deriving Individual and Group Knowledge Structure from Network Diagrams and from Essays

  • Roy B. ClarianaEmail author


This chapter describes an approach for analyzing lexical aggregates (i.e., ALA) from network diagrams such as concept maps and from texts such as essays in order to establish individual and group knowledge structure representations. We describe two free software tools that were designed to work with Pathfinder Network analysis, ALA-Mapper for analyzing network diagrams and ALA-Reader for analyzing text. The derived knowledge structure representations can be compared to each other, for example, to compare novices to an expert, or can be combined into a group representation, for example, to compare one team to another team. Several investigations are reviewed that have used these tools. Then, possible applications and also limitations of the software and the approach are described. Finally, the next stage of software development for these tools is described.


Concept maps Network diagrams Essays Knowledge structure 


  1. Cernusca, D. (2007). A design-based research approach to the implementation and examination of a cognitive flexibility hypertext. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia. Downloaded November 11, 2008, from
  2. Clariana, R. B. (2002). ALA-Mapper software, version 1.01. Retrieved September 28, 2008, from
  3. Clariana, R. B. (2004). ALA-Reader software, version 1.01. Retrieved December 24, 2008, from
  4. Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2004). A computer-based approach for translating text into concept map-like representations. In A. J.Canas, J. D.Novak, & F. M.Gonzales (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology, vol. 2, in the Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain, Sep. 14–17, pp. 131–134. See
  5. Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2008). The effects of learner prior knowledge when creating concept maps from a text passage. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35, 229–236Google Scholar
  6. 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, 317–325.Google Scholar
  7. Clariana, R. B., & Poindexter, M. T. (2003). The influence of relational and proposition-specific processing on structural knowledge. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA, April 2003.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., & Wallace, P. E. (2007). A computer-based approach for deriving and measuring individual and team knowledge structure from essay questions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 209–225.Google Scholar
  10. Clariana, R. B., Wallace, P. E., & Godshalk, V. M. (2008). Deriving and measuring group knowledge structure via computer-based analysis of essay questions: The effects of controlling anaphoric reference. In D. G. Kinshuk, J. M. Sampson, P. Spector, D. Isaías, & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS international conference on cognition and exploratory learning in the digital age (pp. 88–95). Freiburg, Germany: International Association for Development of the Information Society.Google Scholar
  11. Dearholt, D. W., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Properties of pathfinder networks. In Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 1–30). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  12. Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., & Canas, A. J. (2007). Concept maps: Experiments on dynamic thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 448–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Bowers, C. A., & Stevens, D. T. (1984). Memory for prose: The influence of relational and proposition-specific processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldsmith, T. E., & Davenport, D. M. (1990). Assessing structural similarity of graphs. In Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 75–87). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing knowledge structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonzalvo, P., Canas, J. J., & Bajo, M. (1994). Structural representations in knowledge acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harper, M. E., Hoeft, R. M., Evans, A. W. III, & Jentsch, F. G. (2004). Scoring concepts maps: Can a practical method of scoring concept maps be used to assess trainee’s knowledge structures? Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 48, 2599–2603.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychology Review, 85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. KNOT (1998). Knowledge Network and Orientation Tool for the Personal Computer, version 4.3. Retrieved October 3, 2003 from
  23. 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, 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Cross, D. R., & Reynolds, S. B. (1989). Multirelational semantic maps. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 331–367.Google Scholar
  25. Lim, K. Y., Lee, H. W., & Grabowski, B. (2008). Does concept-mapping strategy work for everyone? The levels of generativity and learners’ self-regulated learning skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 606–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lomask, M., Baron, J. B., Greig, J., & Harrison, C. (1992, March). ConnMap: Connecticut’s use of concept mapping to assess the structure of students’ knowledge of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, in Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  27. Poindexter, M. T., & Clariana, R. B. (2006). The influence of relational and proposition-specific processing on structural knowledge and traditional learning outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33, 177–184.Google Scholar
  28. Schvaneveldt, R. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations