Skip to main content

Introducing Rigor in Concept Maps

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6208))

Abstract

Although concept maps have been found to be effective in science education research, these are critiqued for being informal due to informal usage of relation and attribute names thereby resulting in ambiguity. Refined concept mapping, a development over the regular concept mapping is an approach towards introducing rigor and parsimony in representing knowledge. The method proposed suggests to substitute the ambiguous relation names with well-defined relation names to concepts consistently while mapping a domain. We suggest the use of this method for introducing rigor in concept mapping and position it among the other models of knowledge representation in an inverse semantic spectrum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J., Novak, J.D. (eds.): Teaching Science for Understanding– A Human Constructivist View. Academic Press, USA (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sowa, J.: Concept mapping. Talk Presented at the AERA Conference, San Francisco (2006), http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/cmapping.pdf

  3. Kremer, R.: A Concept Mapping Tool to Handle Multiple Formalisms. In: Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Artificial Intelligence in Knowledge Management, pp. 86–93 (1997), http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/1997/SS-97-01/SS97-01-016.pdf

  4. Canas, A.J., Carvalho, M.: Concept Maps and AI: An Unlikely Marriage? In: Proceedings of SBIE: Simposio Brasileiro de Informatica Educativa, Manaus, Brasil (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kharatmal, M., Nagarjuna, G.: A Proposal to Refine Concept Mapping for Effective Science Learning. In: Canas, A.J., Novak, J.D. (eds.) Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping, San Jose, Costa Rica (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sowa, J.: Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, USA (1984)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. The Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies, http://www.obofoundry.org

  8. The OBO Relation Ontology, http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/

  9. Smith, B., Ceusters, W., Klagges, B., Kohler, J., Kumar, A., Lomax, J., Mungall, C., Neuhaus, F., Rector, A., Rosse, C.: Relations in Biomedical Ontologies. Genome Biology 6(5) (2005), http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46

  10. Winston, M., Chaffin, R., Herrman, D.: A Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations. Cognitive Science 11, 417–444 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brachman, R.: What IS-A Is and Isn’t: An Analysis of Taxonomic Links in Semantic Networks. IEEE Computer 16(10), 30–36 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kharatmal, M., Nagarjuna, G.: Exploring Roots of Rigor: A Proposal of a Methodology for Analyzing the Conceptual Change from a Novice to an Expert. In: Canas, A.J., Reiska, P., Ahlberg, M., Novak, J.D. (eds.) Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping, Tallinn, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kharatmal, M., Nagarjuna, G.: Refined Concept Maps for Science Education–A Feasibility Study. In: epiSTEME 3 Third International Conference on Review of Science, Technology and Mathematics Education, Mumbai, India (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Quine, W.: From a Logical Point of View. In: Nine Logico-Philosophical Essays. Harvard University Press, USA (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brewer, W., Samarapungavan, A.: Children’s Theories vs. Scientific Theories: Differences in Reasoning or Differences in Knowledge? In: Hoffman, Palermo (eds.) Cognition and the Symbolic Processes: Applied and Ecological Perspectives, pp. 209–232. Erlbaum, New Jersey (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Karmiloff-Smith, A.: Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. MIT Press, USA (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nagarjuna, G.: Layers in the Fabric of Mind: A Critical Review of Cognitive Ontogeny. In: Ramadas, J., Chunawala, S. (eds.) Research Trends in Science, Technology and Mathematics Education. Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Mumbai (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  18. McGuinness, D.: Ontologies Come of Age. In: Fensel, D., Hendler, J., Lieberman, J., Wahlster, W. (eds.) Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. MIT Press, USA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kharatmal, M., Nagarjuna, G. (2010). Introducing Rigor in Concept Maps. In: Croitoru, M., Ferré, S., Lukose, D. (eds) Conceptual Structures: From Information to Intelligence. ICCS 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6208. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_22

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-14196-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-14197-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics