Superiority of indirect methods in the elicitation of knowledge over direct ones

  1. Sánchez Manzano, María Jesús
  2. Fernández-Sánchez, Alfredo
Revista:
RAEL: revista electrónica de lingüística aplicada

ISSN: 1885-9089

Año de publicación: 2010

Número: 9

Páginas: 97-117

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: RAEL: revista electrónica de lingüística aplicada

Resumen

The aim of this research is to check whether indirect methods for dealing with the elicitation of knowledge are superior to direct ones in the domain of English as a foreign language. In this case subjects were asked about the core term in nine different lexical fields. This task was done with two questionnaires (direct elicitation technique) and with relatedness ratings (indirect elicitation technique) submitted to the Pathfinder algorithm. Results show the superiority of indirect methods over direct ones and the necessity of considering information empirically obtained. This knowledge allows us to reject our erroneous beliefs and also to ascertain which core vocabulary our students should master.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bajo, M. T and J. J. Cañas. 1992. Knowledge organization and memory retrieval. 5th Conference, European Society for Cognitive Psychology. Paris.
  • Bajo, M. T and J. J. Cañas. 1994. Métodos indirectos de adquisición del conocimiento. In P.
  • Adarraga and J. L. Zaccagnini (eds.), Psicología e Inteligencia Artificial. 211-240. Madrid: Trotta.
  • Beissner, K., D. H. Jonassen and M. Yacci. 1993. Structural Knowledge: Techniques for Representing, Conveying and Acquiring Structural Knowledge. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Bitter-Rijpkema, M., R. Martens and W. Jochems. 2005. Elicitation support requirements of multi-expertise teams. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 16: 133-154.
  • Boas, H. C., 2008. Identifying semantically relevant units of meaning. 26th International AESLA Conference. Almería.
  • Burge, J. E. 2008. Knowledge elicitation tool clasification. Artificial Intelligence Research Group, Worcester Polytechnic Institute. http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~jburge/thesis/kematrix.html, retrieved February 26, 2008.
  • Cañas, J. J., M. T. Bajo, R. Navarro, F. Padilla and M. C. Puerta. 1998. Representación mental y programación de ordenadores. Cognitiva 10: 239-255.
  • Computational Memory Lab. http://fechner.ccs.brandeis.edu/wordpools/kfpool.txt Cooke, N. J. 1992. Predicting judgment time from measures of psychological proximity.
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18: 640-653. Cooke, N. J. 1994. Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. International Journal of
  • Human-Computer Studies 41: 801-849. Cooke, N. M., F. T. Durso, R. W. Schvaneveld. 1986. Recall and measures of memory organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 12: 538-549.
  • Cooke, N. M. and R. W. Schvaneveldt. 1988. Effects of computer programming experience on network representations of abstract programming concepts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 29: 407-427.
  • Gammack, J. G. and R. M. Young. 1985. Psychological techniques for eliciting expert knowledge. In M. A. Brammer (ed.), Research and Development in Expert Systems. 105-112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibson, J. M., G. J. Bonath and G. College. 1997. Experts’ and novices’ mental models of an online catalog. Poster presented at the 38th Conference of The Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Goldsmith, T. E., P. J. Johnson, W.H. Acton. 1991. Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology 83: 88-96.
  • Gonzalvo, P., J. J. Cañas and M. T. Bajo. 1994. Structural representations in knowledge acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology 86: 601–616.
  • Housner, L. D., R. L. Gomez and D. C. Griffey. 1993. A Pathfinder analysis of expert-novice knowledge. Proceedings of the Meeting on the National American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 64: Supplement: A88- A89.
  • Johnson, P. J., T. E. Goldsmith and K. W. Teague. 1995. Similarity, structure, and knowledge: a representional approach to assessment. In P. D. Nichols, S. F. Chipman and R. L. Brennan (eds.), Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment. 221–249. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Kellogg, W. A. and T. J. Breen. 1990. Using Pathfinder to evaluate user and system models. In R. W. Schvaneveldt (ed.), Pathfinder Associative Networks: Studies in Knowledge Organization. 179-195. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Lin, C. 1997. Semantic network for vocabulary teaching. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities & Social Sciences 42: 43-54.
  • Márquez Sánchez, M. O. and D. Muñoz Cáceres. 1994. La entrevista. In P. Adarraga and J. L. Zaccagnini (eds.), Psicología e Inteligencia Artificial. 187-209. Madrid: Trotta.
  • McDonald, J. E., T. Dayton and D. R. McDonald. 1988. Adapting menu layout to tasks. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 28: 417-436.
  • Meara, P. 2007. Simulating word associations in an L2: The effects of structural complexity. Language Forum 33: 13-31.
  • Pitarque, A. and J. C. Ruiz. 1997. Representación del conocimiento estructural tras el entrenamiento en esquemas procedimentales. Psicológica 18: 11-21.
  • Richards J. C., R. Schmidt, H. Kendricks and Y. Kim. 2002. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. London: Longman.
  • Rowe, A. L., N. J. Cooke, E. P. Hall and T. L. Halgren. 1996. Toward an on-line knowledge assessment methodology: Building on the relationship between knowing and doing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2: 31-47.
  • Sánchez, M. J., L. M. González and M. L. Escobar. 2003. Los campos semánticos. Su formación. XXVII International Conference of AEDEAN. Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca.
  • Schvaneveldt, R.W. 1990. Pathfinder Associative Networks: Studies in Knowledge Organization. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Schvaneveldt, R.W., F. T. Durso and D. W. Dearholt. 1989. Network structures in proximity data. In G. H. Bower (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. 249–284. New York: Academic Press.
  • Schvaneveldt, R.W., F. T. Durso, T. E. Goldsmith, T. J. Breen, N. M. Cooke, R. G. Tucker and J. C. De Maio. 1985. Measuring the structure of expertise. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 23: 699–728.
  • Thompson, L. A., R. L. Gomez and R. W. Schvaneveldt. 2000. The salience of temporal cues in the developing structure of event knowledge. American Journal of Psychology 4: 591-619.
  • Villachica, S. W., L. L. Lohr, L. Summers, N. Lowell, S. Roberts, M. Javeri, E. Hunt and C. Mahoney. 2001. A cognitive map of human performance technology: A study of domain expertise. Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development [and] Practice Papers 1-2: 437-444.
  • Vives Boix, G. and P. Meara. 1994. Word associations in Spanish. Vida Hispánica 10: 12-22. WordNet (Lexical Database of the English Language). http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgibin/webwn1.7.1
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet