Abstract
This research report questions whether the expressiveness of cognitive mapping tools is an important variable in learning and retention of the information in a concept domain. Learning Tool, TextVision and SemNet have different symbol systems, different types of operations, and different means for expressing semantic relations in the concept domain to be studied by the learner. A qualitative analysis of student reports concludes that a concept mapping tool should offer a flexible method of representation rather than a fixed symbol set. The overall finding that flexibility of expressiveness is the major principle in concept mapping tools was made more explicit in seven design criteria for a new generation of ‘adaptive’ mapping tools.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Cognitive Tools for Learning |
Editors | Piet A.M. Kommers, David H. Jonassen, J. Terry Mayes |
Place of Publication | Berlin, Heidelberg |
Publisher | Springer |
Pages | 85-102 |
Number of pages | 18 |
ISBN (Electronic) | 978-3-642-77222-1 |
ISBN (Print) | 978-3-642-77224-5 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Sept 1992 |
Event | NATO Advanced Study Institute on Mindtools: Cognitive Technologies for Modeling 1990 - University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands Duration: 4 Jul 1990 → 10 Jul 1990 |
Conference
Conference | NATO Advanced Study Institute on Mindtools: Cognitive Technologies for Modeling 1990 |
---|---|
Country/Territory | Netherlands |
City | Enschede |
Period | 4/07/90 → 10/07/90 |
Keywords
- Cognitive mapping tools
- Information retention
- Learning tool
- TextVision
- SemNet