Concept mapping vs. web page hyperlinks as an information retrieval interface - preferences of postgraduate culturally diverse learners.

Weideman, M. & Kritzinger, W.

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of The South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists (SAICSIT). 17-19 September. Johannesburg, South Africa.

Weideman, M. & Kritzinger, W. 2003. Concept mapping vs. web page hyperlinks as an information retrieval interface - preferences of postgraduate culturally diverse learners. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of The South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists (SAICSIT). 17-19 September. Johannesburg, South Africa. Online: http://web-visibility.co.za/website-visibility-digital-library-seo/

ABSTRACT
The principal objective of this research project was to determine if and to what extent cultural factors prescribe interface choices by learners. Concept mapping and standard hyperlinks were offered as choices for information retrieval interfaces. The methods employed were to identify a set of culturally divisive factors, and then to test two different interfaces with a group of culturally diverse, advanced learners. Some of the results had to be ignored due to small sample sizes. The remaining results indicated that most choices, almost irrespective of culture divisive factors, were made in favour of the concept mapping interface. This finding confirmed that of another author in the field. The primary conclusion reached is that concept mapping should be considered as the interface of choice to a knowledge repository to be used by Master's students in Information management.
REFERENCES
  1. ADSIT, K.I. 2002. Concept Mapping and Curriculum Design. http://www.utc.edu/Teaching-Resource- Center/concepts.html.
  2. ALLEN, B.S., HOFFMAN, R.P., KOMPELLA, J. AND STICHT, T.G. 1993. Computer based mapping for curriculum development. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations Technology, New Orleans, LA.
  3. AUSUBEL, D.P. 1968. Educational Psychology, A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. BARNETT, C. 2000. Governing Cultural Diversity in South African Media Policy. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 14(1), 51-65.
  4. BAEZA-YATES, R. AND RIBEIRO-NETO, B. 1999. Modern information retrieval. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.
  5. BIGNÉ, J.E., et al. 2002. The concept mapping approach in marketing: an application in the travel agencies sector. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 5(2), 87-95.
  6. BUSH, V. 1945. As we may think. http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm. BUTNER, R. 2001. Out of order: Hypertext's past, present and future. http://www.zdnet.com/yil/content/mag/9611/hyper9611.html.
  7. CANAS, A.J., et al. Using Concept Maps with Technology to Enhance Collaborative Learning in Latin America. http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/acanas/Publications/QuorumSoupST/SoupsST.htm.
  8. CANEN, A.G. AND CANEN, A. 2001. Looking at multiculturalism in international logistics: an experiment in a higher education institution. The International Journal of Educational Management 15(3), 145-152. CARNOT, M.J., DUNN, B. AND CANAS, A.J. 2003. Concept maps vs. web pages for information searching and browsing. http:www.coginst.uwf.edu/~acanas/Publications/CMapsVSWebPagesExp1/ CMapsVSWebPagesExp1.htm.
  9. CHANG, K.E., SUNG, Y.T. AND CHEN, S.F. 2001. Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 17, 21-33.
  10. CHANG, K.E., SUNG, Y.T. AND CHEN, I.D. 2002. The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education 71(1), 5-23.
  11. CICOGNANI, A. 2000. Concept Mapping as a Collaborative Tool for Enhanced Online Learning. Educational Technology & Society 3(3), 150-158.
  12. CLEVERDON, C.W., MILLS, J. AND KEEN, E.M. 1966. Factors determining the performance of indexing systems. Cranfield: Aslib Cranfield Research Project.
  13. COLLETT, P. 1999. Cultural diversity a plus for companies. Industrial and commercial Training 31(7), 81.
  14. COVER, R. 2001. Electronic text corpus of Sumerian literature. http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/etcsl.html.
  15. DE SIMONE, C., et al. 2001. Supporting the Learning Process with Collaborative Concept Mapping Using Computer- Based Communication Tools and Processes. Educational Research and Evaluation 7(2-3), 263-283.
  16. DYRUD, M.A. 1994. Mapping: a collaborative activity for fun and profit. The bulletin of the Association for Business Communication 57(2), 57-58.
  17. EDMONDSON, K.M. 1993. Concept mapping for the development of Medical Curricula. The annual Conference of the American Educational research Association, Atlanta, GA.
  18. ELLIS, D. 1996. Progress and problems in information retrieval. London: Library Association Publishing.
  19. ELMUTI, D. 2001. Preliminary Analysis of the Relationship Between Cultural Diversity and Technology in Corporate America. Equal Opportunities International 20(8).
  20. FONG, E.L.S. 1999. Concept mapping in the learning of the law of real property. HERDSA Annual International Conference. Melbourne. 12-15 July 1999.
  21. GAUDIN, S. 1999. The critical shortage of women in IT. Network World 11, 53-56.
  22. GREEK LIBRARIES. 2001. Libraries. http://www.libraries.gr/en_messop.htm.
  23. GUPTA, A. AND JAIN, R. 1997. Visual information retrieval. Communications of the ACM 40(5), 71-79. HUGHES, G. AND HAY, D. 2001. Use of concept mapping to integrate the different perspectives of designers and other stakeholders in the development of e-learning materials. British Journal of Educational Technology 32(5), 557-569.
  24. IMAI, M. 1986. Kaizen: The Key to Japan's Competitive Success. Random House, New York, NY. INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN MACHINE COGNITION (IHMC). http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/samples/index.html. JACKSON, E.B. 1971. The engineer as reluctant information user - a remedial plan. Proceedings of the International Conference on Training for Information Work, Rome, 430-434.
  25. KANE, M. AND MCMAHON, P.Q. 2002. Using Concept Mapping to Improve Health Care Decision Making. Health Care Biller, July.
  26. KIM, Y.C. et al. 2002. Physiology Tutorials Using Causal Concept Mapping. The 13th Midwest AI and Cognitive Science Conference, Chicago IL, 61-64.
  27. KINCHIN, I.M. 2001. If concept mapping is so helpful to learning biology, why aren't we all doing it? International Journal of Science Education 23(12), 1257-1269.
  28. LANCASTER, F.W. 1978. Information retrieval systems: characteristics, testing and evaluation. John Wiley, New York, NY.
  29. LANZING, J. 1997. The Concept Mapping Homepage. http://users.edte.utwente.nl/lanzing/cm_home.htm. LESSEM, R. 1990. Introduction. Managing in the Information society: Releasing Synergy Japanese Style, MASUDA, Y., Basil Blackwell, Oxford, i-xxv.
  30. MARCHAND, C. et al. 2002. An analysis, using concept mapping, of diabetic patients' knowledge, before and after patient education. Medical Teacher 24(1), 90-99.
  31. MARTIN, D.J. 1994. Concept mapping as an aid to lesson planning: a longitudinal study. Journal of Elementary Science Education 6(2), 11-30.
  32. NIGOHOSIAN, R.H. 1997. Scholarly Internet research: is it real? http://www.slcc.edu/b10/ecn274/ethic.html. NOVAK, J. D., GOWIN, D.B. AND JOHANSEN, G.T. 1983. The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education 67(5), 625-645.
  33. NOVAK, J.D. 1991. Clarify with concept maps: A tool for students and teachers alike. The Science Teacher 58(7), 45-49.
  34. ROBERTSON, S.E. 2001. Conflicting philosophies. http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/research/cisr/ser/ucla/node3.html. RUFFINI, M.F. 2002. Designing an On-Line Course Map Using Concept Mapping Techniques, 1-18. RUIZ-PRIMO, M.A. et al. 2001. On the Validity of Cognitive Interpretations of Scores From Alternative Concept- Mapping Techniques. Educational Assessment 7(2), 99-141.
  35. SARACEVIC, T. 1975. Relevance: a review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 26, 321-343.
  36. SARACEVIC, T. 1999. Information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50(12), 1051- 1063.
  37. SBA. 1997. The Value of Cultural Diversity. http://www.sba.gove/test/wbc/docs/starting/diversity.html.
  38. SPINK, A. AND LOSEE, R.M. 1996. Feedback in Information retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 31, 33-78.
  39. STURM, J.M. AND RANKIN-ERICKSON, J.L. 2002. Effects of Hand-Drawn and Computer-Generated Concept Mapping on the Expository Writing of Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 17(2), 124-139.
  40. SUNGUR, S., TEKKAYA, C. AND GEBAN, O. 2001. The Contribution of Conceptual Change Texts Accompanied by Concept Mapping to Students' Understanding of the Human Circulatory System. Middle East Technical University. School Science and Mathematics 101(2), 91-101.
  41. TONTA, Y.A. 2001. Failure analysis in document retrieval systems: a critical review of studies. http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~tonta/yayinlar/phd/bolum-3.htm.
  42. TROCHIM, W.M.K., COOK, J.A. AND SETZE, R.J. 1994. Using Concept Mapping to Develop a Conceptual Framework of Staff's Views of a Supported Employment Program for Persons with Severe Mental Illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62(4), 766-775.
  43. TROCHIM, W.M.K. 2003. An Introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/research/epp1/epp1.htm.
  44. VAN SCHIE, J.P. 2002. Visualization tools for knowledge management. http://www.observetory.com/conceptmappingsvs1.htm.
  45. WILLSON, M., WILLIAMS, D. AND ADAMCZYK, P. 1994. Evaluating Science INSET through Concept Mapping. British Journal of In-service Education 20(1),121-130.
Full text of Conference Proceedings No 0122: Concept mapping vs. web page hyperlinks as an information retrieval interface - preferences of postgraduate culturally diverse learners.

Digital Library with full-text of academic publications on website visibility, usability, search engines, information retrieval

Back to Home page