Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06845333 = product of:
  0.13690665 = sum of:
    0.13690665 = product of:
      0.2738133 = sum of:
        0.2738133 = weight(_text_:maps in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2738133 = score(doc=4341,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.30008528 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05340313 = queryNorm
            0.9124516 = fieldWeight in 4341, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Eleven middle school children constructed hierarchical maps for two science categories selected from two Web directories, Yahooligans! and KidsClick! For each category, children constructed a pair of maps: one without links and one with links. Forty-tour maps were analyzed to identify similarities and differences. The structures of the maps were compared to the structures employed by the directories. Children were able to construct hierarchical maps and articulate the relationships among the concepts. At the global level (whole map), children's maps were not alike and did not match the structures of the Web directories. At the local levels (superordinate and subordinate), however, children shared similarities in the conceptual configurations, especially for the concrete concepts. For these concepts, substantial overlap was found between the children's structures and those employed in the directories. For the abstract concepts the configurations were diverse and did not match those in the directories. The findings of this study have impl!cations for design of systems that are more supportive of children's conceptual structures.

0.052074213 = product of:
  0.104148425 = sum of:
    0.104148425 = product of:
      0.20829685 = sum of:
        0.20829685 = weight(_text_:maps in 6667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20829685 = score(doc=6667,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.30008528 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05340313 = queryNorm
            0.69412553 = fieldWeight in 6667, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How knowledge is organized in human memory is of interest to both information science and cognitive science. The current information retrieval (IR) systems can be improved if we understand which conceptual structures could facilitate users in information processing and seeking. This project examined twenty-two cognitive maps on ten research topics generated by ten experts and eleven non-experts. Experts were those who had completed a research project on the topic prior to participating in this study, while non-experts were from the same academic department who were familiar with the topic but had not conducted any in-depth research on it. A research topic can be represented by a vocabulary and the relationships among the terms in the vocabulary. A cognitive map visualizes the vocabulary and its configuration in a plane. We observed that experts did not generate the maps much faster than non-experts. Both experts and non-experts modified the given vocabulary by either adding or dropping terms. The dominant configuration for the maps was top-down, while five maps were orientated in left-right or radical structure (from a center). Experts tended to use problem-oriented approach to organize the vocabulary while non-experts often applied discipline-oriented hierarchical structure. Despite of many differences in vocabulary and structure by individuals, there are terms clustered in a similar ways across maps indicating an agreed-upon semantic closeness among these terms