Assistive Tool for Collaborative Learning of Conceptual Structures

  • Lauri Lahti
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5616)

Abstract

There is a demand for computational methods assisting learners to generate relevant associations for current context. Many concepts in natural language have ambiguous meanings implying alternative ways to define associations for them. It is crucial to develop collaborative methods that support free experiments with promising conceptual structures in learning. Methods for evaluating these structures in respect to the person’s needs are also required. We propose a new collaborative ideation scheme and based on that we have implemented an assistive tool for learning conceptual structures in a collaborative Web environment.

Keywords

online learning collaboration concept map competing values framework 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    MacWhinney, B. (ed.): The emergence of language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chou, S., Liu, C.: Learning effectiveness in web-based technology-mediated virtual learning environment. In: 38th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonastre, O., Pina, M.: Cognitive learning for distance education: a concept maps perspective. In: Fourth IEEE Int. Conf. on Cognitive Informatics, pp. 228–231 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    La Vecchia, L., Pedroni, M.: Concept maps as a learning assessment tool. Journal of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 4 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blenkhorn, P., Evans, D.: Using speech and touch to enable blind people to access schematic diagrams. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 21, 17–29 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hilliges, O., Terrenghi, L., Boring, S., Kim, D., Richter, H., Butz, A.: Designing for collaborative creative problem solving. In: 6th Int. Conf. on Creativity & Cognition, pp. 137–146 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual spaces as a framework for knowledge representation. Mind and Matter 2(2), 9–27 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fauconnier, G., Turner, M.: The origin of language as a product of the evolution of modern cognition. In: Laks, B., et al. (eds.) Origin and Evolution of Languages: Approaches, Models, Paradigms. Equinox, London (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gero, J.: Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quinn, R., Rohrbaugh, J.: A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science 29, 363–377 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeGraff, J., Quinn, S.: Leading innovation: how to jump start your organization’s growth engine. McGraw-Hill, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belasen, A., Frank, N.: Competing values leadership: quadrant roles and personality traits. Leadership & Organization Development 29(2), 127–143 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buenger, V., Daft, R., Conlon, E., Austin, J.: Competing values in organizations: contextual influences and structural consequences. Organization Science 7(5), 557–576 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gregory, B., Harris, S., Armenakis, A., Shook, C.: Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research (in press), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.021Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang, O., Shao, Y.: Shared leadership in self-managed teams: a competing values approach. Total Quality Management 7(5), 521–534 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quinn, R., Cameron, K., Degraff, J., Thakor, A.: Competing values leadership: creating value in organizations. Edward Elgar Publishing (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalliath, T., Bluedorn, A., Gillespie, D.: A confirmatory factor analysis of the competing values instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59(1), 143–158 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheon, J., Grant, M.: A cognitive load approach to metaphorical interface design: Reconsidering theoretical frameworks. In: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Int. Conf., pp. 1054–1059. AACE, Chesapeake (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quinn, R., Faerman, S., Thompson, M., McGrath, M.: Becoming a master manager: a competency framework. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suthers, D.: Collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. In: 38th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stahl, G.: Supporting group cognition in an online math community: a cognitive tool for small-group referencing in text chat. Journal of Educational Computing Research 35(2), 103–122 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carte, T., Chidambaram, L., Becker, A.: Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams – A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviors. Group Decision and Negotiation 15, 323–343 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pounder, J.: A behaviourally anchored rating scales approach to institutional self-assessment in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25(2), 171–182 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Noypayak, W., Speece, M.: Tactics to influence subordinates among Thai managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology 13(5/6), 343–358 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauri Lahti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringHelsinki University of TechnologyFinland

Personalised recommendations