Abstract
Many research studies have clearly demonstrated the importance of cognitive structures as the building blocks of meaningful learning and retention of instructional materials. Identifying the learners’ cognitive structures will help instructors to organize materials, identify knowledge gaps, and relate new materials to existing slots or anchors within the learners’ cognitive structures. The purpose of our empirical investigation is to track the development of cognitive structures over time. Accordingly, we demonstrate how various indicators derived from graph theory can be used for a precise description and analysis of cognitive structures. Our results revealed several patterns that helped us to better understand the construction and development of cognitive structures over time. We conclude by identifying applications of our approach for learning and instruction and proposing possibilities for the further development of our approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acton, W. H., Johnson, P. J., & Goldsmith, T. E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment: Comparison of referent structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 303–311. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.303.
Al-Diban, S. (2002). Diagnose mentaler Modelle. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). Cognitive structure and the facilitation of meaningful verbal learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 14, 217–221. doi:10.1177/002248716301400220.
Bonato, M. (1990). Wissenstrukturierung mittels Struktur-Lege-Techniken. Eine grapentheoretische Analyse von Wissensnetzen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Cañas, A. J., Hill, R., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., & Eskridge, T. (2004). CmapTools: A knowledge modeling and sharing environment. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, F. M. González, et al. (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology, Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping (pp. 125–133). Pamplona: Universidad Pública de Navarra.
Chartrand, G. (1977). Introductory graph theory. New York: Dover.
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(3), 211–227. doi:10.2190/EC.37.3.a.
Coffey, J. W., Carnot, M. J., Feltovich, P. J., Feltovich, J., Hoffman, R. R., Cañas, A. J., et al. (2003). A summary of literature pertaining to the use of concept mapping techniques and technologies for education and performance support. Pensacola, FL: Chief of Naval Education and Training.
Collins, L. M., & Sayer, A. G. (Eds.). (2001). New methods for the analysis of change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., & Cañas, A. J. (2004). Experiments on the effects of map structure and concept quantification during concept map construction. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak & F. M. González (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping (pp. 125–132). Pamplona: Universidad Pública de Navarra.
Diestel, R. (2000). Graph theory. New York: Springer.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3), 178–186. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3.
Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gunstone, R. F. (1980). Word association and the description of cognitive structure. Research in Science Education, 10, 45–53. doi:10.1007/BF02356308.
Harary, F. (1974). Graphentheorie. München: Oldenbourg.
Harris, C. W. (Ed.). (1963). Problems in measuring change. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Herl, H. E., Baker, E. L., & Niemi, D. (1996). Construct validation of an approach to modeling cognitive structure of U.S. history knowledge. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(4), 206–218.
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ifenthaler, D. (2006). Diagnose lernabhängiger Veränderung mentaler Modelle. Entwicklung der SMD-Technologie als methodologisches Verfahren zur relationalen, strukturellen und semantischen Analyse individueller Modellkonstruktionen. Freiburg: FreiDok.
Ifenthaler, D. (2008a). Practical solutions for the diagnosis of progressing mental models. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 43–61). New York: Springer.
Ifenthaler, D. (2008b). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9087-4.
Ifenthaler, D. (2009). Model-based feedback for improving expertise and expert performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and learning, (in press).
Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2005). The measurement of change: Learning-dependent progression of mental models. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 2(4), 317–336.
Johnson, T. E., O’Connor, D. L., Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., & Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2006). Comparative study of mental model research methods: Relationships among ACSMM, SMD, MITOCAR & DEEP methodologies. In A. J. Cañas & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping, Voume 1 (pp. 87–94). San José: Universidad de Costa Rica.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (1987). Assessing cognitive structure: Verifying a method using pattern notes. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20(3), 1–14.
Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Designing structured hypertext and structuring access to hypertext. Educational Technology, 28(11), 13–16.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kalyuga, S. (2006a). Assessment of learners’ organised knowledge structures in adaptive learning environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 333–342. doi:10.1002/acp.1249.
Kalyuga, S. (2006b). Rapid assessment of learners’ proficiency: A cognitive load approach. Educational Psychology, 26(6), 735–749. doi:10.1080/01443410500342674.
Koubek, R. J., Clarkston, T. P., & Calvez, V. (1994). The training of knowledge structures for manufacturing tasks: An empirical study. Ergonomics, 37(4), 765–780. doi:10.1080/00140139408963687.
Koubek, R. J., & Mountjoy, D. N. (1991). Toward a model of knowledge structure and a comparative analysis of knowledge structure measurement technique. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Mayer, R. E., & Greeno, J. G. (1972). Structural differences between learning outcomes produced by different instructional methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(2), 165–173. doi:10.1037/h0032654.
Moskowitz, D. S., & Hershberger, S. L. (Eds.). (2002). Modelling intraindividual variability with repeated measures data. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.
Norman, D. A., Gentner, D. R., & Stevens, A. L. (1976). Comments on learning schemata and memory representation. In D. Klahr (Ed.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 177–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piaget, J. (1976). Die Äquilibration der kognitiven Strukturen. Stuttgart: Klett.
Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2006). Expertise und Modellbildung: MITOCAR. Freiburg: FreiDok.
Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2007). Model inspection trace of concepts and relations. A heuristic approach to language-oriented model assessment. Paper presented at the AREA 2007, Chicago, IL.
Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2008). Highly integrated model assessment technology and tools. In Kinshuk, Sampson, D. G., Spector, J. M., Isaias P. & Ifenthaler D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS international conference on cognition and exploratory learning in the digital age (pp. 18–28). Freiburg: IADIS.
Preece, P. F. W. (1976). Mapping cognitive structure: A comparison of models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(1), 1–8. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.68.1.1.
Quillian, M. R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing (pp. 216–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Renkl, A., & Gruber, H. (1995). Erfasung von Veränderung: Wie und wieso? Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie, 27(2), 173–190.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three model of learning. In R. L. Klatzky & J. W. Cotton (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37–53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scheele, B., & Groeben, N. (1984). Die Heidelberger Struktur-Lege-Technik (SLT). Eine Dialog-Konsens-Methode zur Erhebung subjektiver Theorien mittlerer Reichweite. Weinheim: Beltz.
Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Seel, N. M. (1991). Weltwissen und mentale Modelle. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Seel, N. M. (1999). Educational diagnosis of mental models: Assessment problems and technology-based solutions. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 14(2), 153–185.
Seel, N. M. (2001). Epistemology, situated cognition, and mental models: ‘Like a bridge over troubled water’. Instructional Science, 29(4–5), 403–427. doi:10.1023/A:1011952010705.
Shavelson, R. J. (1972). Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure in Physics education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 225–234. doi:10.1037/h0032652.
Shavelson, R. J. (1974). Methods for examining representations of a subject-matter structure in student memory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(3), 231–249. doi:10.1002/tea.3660110307.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1975.tb01010.x.
Shute, V. J., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2008). Using an evidence-based approach to assess mental models. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 23–42). New York: Springer.
Snow, R. E. (1989). Toward assessment of cognitive and conative structures in learning. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 8–14.
Snow, R. E. (1990). New approaches to cognitive and conative assessment in education. International Journal of Educational Research, 14(5), 455–473.
Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 263–331). New York: ACE/Macmillan.
Spector, J. M., Dennen, V. P., & Koszalka, T. A. (2006). Causal maps, mental models and assessing acquisition of expertise. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 3(2), 167–183.
Spector, J. M., & Koszalka, T. A. (2004). The DEEP methodology for assessing learning in complex domains (Final report to the National Science Foundation Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
Taber, K. S. (2000). Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education & Training, 22(4), 399–417.
Tennyson, R. D., & Cocchiarella, M. J. (1986). An empirically based instructional design theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 40–71.
Willett, J. B. (1988). Questions and answers in the measurement of change. Review of Research in Education, 15, 345–422.
Young, M. J. (1998). Quantifying the characteristics of knowledge structure representations: A lattice-theoretic framework. Los Angeles, CA: CRESST.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
-
H1.1: the organization of the externalized cognitive structures changes during the learning process.
-
H1.0: the organization of the externalized cognitive structures does not change during the learning process.
-
H2.1a: the numbers of semantic correct vertices of the externalized cognitive structures become more similar to the expert structure during the learning process.
-
H2.0a: the numbers of semantic correct vertices of the externalized cognitive structures have no or only little similarity to the expert structure.
-
H2.1b: the numbers of semantic correct propositions of the externalized cognitive structures become more similar to the expert structure during the learning process.
-
H2.0b: the numbers of semantic correct propositions of the externalized cognitive structures have no or only little similarity to the expert structure.
-
H3.1: the development of the organization of the externalized cognitive structures influences the course learning outcomes.
-
H3.0: the development of the organization of the externalized cognitive structures has no or only little influence on the course learning outcomes.
Appendix 2
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ifenthaler, D., Masduki, I. & Seel, N.M. The mystery of cognitive structure and how we can detect it: tracking the development of cognitive structures over time. Instr Sci 39, 41–61 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9097-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9097-6