Identifying cross-domain distinguishing features of cognitive structure

Abstract

Our research aims to identify domain-specific similarities and differences of externalized cognitive structures. Cognitive structure, also known as knowledge structure or structural knowledge, is conceived as the manner in which an individual organizes the relationships of concepts in memory. By diagnosing these structures precisely, even partially, the educator comes closer to influencing them through instructional settings and materials. Our assessment and analysis of cognitive structures is realized within the HIMATT tool, which automatically generates four quantitative indicators for the structural entities of written text or causal maps. In our study, participants worked on the subject domains biology, history, and mathematics. Results clearly indicate different structural and semantic features across the three subject domains. Additionally, we found that written texts and causal maps seem to represent different structure and content across the three subject domains when compared to an expert's representation. We conclude with a general discussion, instructional implications and suggestions for future research.

Research on Organization of Mathematics Knowledge in Good Mathematical Cognitive Structure

“…Hence, overall, the connections in MCS of outstanding students must be more than that in MCS of medium and general students. This result obviously supported some former views (Wang and Wang, 2004;Ifenthaler, 2011). However, they were still a little different, because the former research did not explain the situation of connections with higher tightness degree.…”

“…However, it was obviously inconvenient to conduct quantitative analysis (Zhang and Chen, 2000;Ifenthaler et al, 2001). So the researchers developed some new methods, such as flow-map method (Anderson and Demetrius, 1993) , the technique of "establishment by the subject" (Liu, 1994;Enger, 1996;Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson, 1997;Ruiz-Primo et al, 2001;Lavigne, 2005;Shavelson et al, 2005;Muller et al, 2008;Lindstrom & Sharma, 2011), the method of "Pathfinder Associative Networks" (Casas et al, 2011;Geeslin & Shavelson, 1975;Jonssen et al, 1993;Fenker, 1975;Preece, 1976;Wainer & Kaye, 1974), and the method with HIMATT (Ifenthaler, 2011). After verifying by practice, it could be found these new methods were feasible, they promoted the quantitative research to cognitive structure and made the understanding of MCS to be more distinct and profound.…”

Terminology Entries (Alphabetical Presentation)

“…The emphasis on prerequisite knowledge has led to research on the role prior knowledge plays in acquiring new skills (Woodward & Galagedera, 2006). The study of the hierarchal arrangement of intellectual skills has in fl uenced new research in knowledge structures (Ifenthaler, 2011). The study of knowledge structures has in fl uenced efforts in knowledge mapping (Chong, 2009;Hay & Kinchin, 2008) which has ultimately improved the design of curriculum.…”

Long-term conceptual retrieval by college biology majors following model-based instruction

“…CSs may be domain specific (Ifenthaler, ) with large differences in semantic knowledge for each domain. In a comparison of the CSs of university students in biology, history, and math, Ifenthaler () noted the CS for biologists was larger, more integrated, and more web‐like relative to the other disciplines.…”

“…41). The CS, also called a knowledge structure, represents students' organization of biological concepts stored in their long‐term memory (Ifenthaler, ; Ifenthaler et al, ; Jonassen, Beissner, & Yacci, ).…”