as part of my ph.d. work in the area of refined concept map (RCM) in biology education, i am working on analyzing the school textbooks of 8, 9, 11 standards on the domain of cell biology. i mapped the domain of each 3 standards using the RCM method i.e. using a fixed and a minimal set of relation names for mapping the concepts. the hypothesis of the study was that even if the complexity in the domain increases with an increase in the number of concepts, but the relation names that provide meaning to these concepts would be a fixed and a minimal set. the following is a brief summary of the results:
std. no. of concepts no. of relation names
8 75 11
9 195 16
11 500 15
the most widely used relation names are: consists of, includes, comprised of, surrounded by, located in, has function, has attribute.
i am also analyzing the other components involved, such as the frequency of relation names, the no. of concepts connected to specific relation names, etc. across all the 3 standards.
it is really an interesting and exciting exercise which i enjoy working on.
June 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm |
[...] click here to know [...]
July 12, 2009 at 8:42 pm |
If the method is to use minimal set of relation names, then how will there be any increase? It will be interesting to know if the relation names counted are the names used in the text book or your paraphrasing?
July 13, 2009 at 12:32 pm |
the increase in relation names means an increase in the newer kinds of relation names for representing the newer dimensions. it is possible to come up with a constant number though.
actually the relation names are derived from my paraphrasing. the relation names from the textbook would definitely be a much larger number.
August 2, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
that is indeed the reason why the relations do not increase. what the study tell us is that though people do use different relation names, it is possible to use a minimal set without loss of meaning.
But, you infer something else.