The Information in Relations in Biology, or The Unexamined Relation Is Not Worth Having

  • Joseph Faletti
  • Kathleen M. Fisher
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 148)

Abstract

Designing good relations is a challenge, as is using them consistently in the context of constructing knowledge representations. Further, the ability to generate and use relations effectively is a feature that clearly distinguishes between good and poor biology students. Fortunately, the SemNet software makes it possible for teachers to diagnose individual student problems in creating and using relations and to provide pencil and paper exercises to build missing skills. Assignments for students engaged in generating or using computer-based knowledge representations are significantly more powerful, in our opinion, when they are designed to prompt student thinking about using and applying knowledge to solve problems rather than to organize textbook knowledge in a relatively inert format. Finally, there are many problems in knowledge representation strategies for science students that remain to be solved.

Keywords

Biological relations knowledge representation concept mapping semantic networking SemNet knowledge maps cognitive analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, J.H. (1990). Patterns of thinking. Needham Heights, MA.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faletti, J., & Frase, L.T. (1991, April). Automatic overviews of semantic networks from statistical and graph algorithms. Presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fisher, K.M. (1990). Semantic networking: The new kid on the block. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1001–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher, K.M. & Faletti, J. (1989, April). Student strategies in building semantic networks in biology. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher, K.M., Faletti, J., Patterson, H., Thornton, R., Lipson, J., & Spring, C. (1990). Computer-based concept mapping. Journal for College Science Teaching, 19(6): 347–352Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher, K.M., Faletti, J., & Quinn, C. (1990). Exploring cognitive structure with semantic networks. SemNet Research Group Technical Report, c/o Fisher, San Diego State University.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gentner, D. (1978). On relational meaning: The acquisition of verb meaning. Child Development, 49, 988–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gentner, D. (1981). Some interesting differences between verbs and nouns. Cognition and Brain Theory, 4, 161–178.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gentner, D. (1981). Verb semantic structures in memory for sentences: Evidence for componential representation. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 56–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gentner, D. (1981). Integrating verb meanings into context. Discourse Processes, 4, 349–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (ed.), Language Development: Language, cognition, and culture. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Good, R.G., Novak, J., & Wandersee, J.H., (eds.) (1991). Journal of Research in Science Teaching — Special Issue: Perspectives on Concept Mapping, 27(10), 923–936.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoffman, R.P. (1991). Use of relational descriptors by experienced users of a computer-based semantic network. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jay, M., Alldredge, S., & Peters, S. (1990, April). Student semantic networks: an alternative way to present the subject. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luoma-Overstreet, K. & Allen, B. (1990). SemNet Journal: A documentation of progress over the duration of the final assignment. Unpublished manuscript. Available from B.S. Allen, Department of Educational Technology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pierce, C.S. (1891). Architecture of theories. The Monist, 161–176.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Audubon Society. (1965). Audubon Nature Encyclopedia, Volume 4, pp. 708–709. New York: Curtis.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Novak, J., & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W. Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher 21(1), 14–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Vertag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Faletti
    • 1
  • Kathleen M. Fisher
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Research in Mathematics and Science EducationSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations