May 20, 2011
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 substitution of 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 other models of knowledge representation in an inverse semantic spectrum. This paper was presented at the 18th ICCS 2010 conference.
Now in continuation, we have proposed to develop a primer (guide, tutorial) that can be used to apply RCM as a methodology for representing knowledge. This has been accepted at the CSLTA 2011 workshop to be held in conjunction with the 19th ICCS 2011 conference.
In this paper, a rationale and proposal for developing a primer for teaching-learning of conceptual structures is presented. The skills required and developed by an engagement of constructing and analyzing conceptual structures are richer and easier to be dealt with in school education. The teaching-learning context of CS is fundamental and important enough to introduce the topics from logic, philosophy, computer science and linguistics. A proposal is made for the formation of a special interest group for the primer. More about the paper.
The framework of the primer comprises of Units (lesson plans) with specific Learning Objectives. We suggest that the primer can serve as a guide to areas such as knowledge representation, conceptual structures, etc.
August 9, 2010
i have been working in the area of refined concept maps for science education. so far we have communicated our research in conferences on science education, concept mapping, etc.
recently, our work got published in Springer’s LNAI book. the paper ‘introducing rigor in concept maps’ was presented in the 18th international conference on conceptual structures 2010 at kuching, malaysia. the paper talks about applying rigor by focusing on relation names, the re-representation of sentences to propositions in RDF triples format, and how the refined concept mapping methodology can act as a bridge between informal and formal models of knowledge bases.
Meena Kharatmal & Nagarjuna G.: Introducing rigor in concept maps. In M. Croitoru, S. Ferre, and D. Lukose (Eds.), ICCS 2010, LNAI 6208, pp. 199-202, Springer Verlag 2010.
- HBCSE for providing with funding support for the conference
- ICCS 2010 for providing sponsorship for tutorials and workshops
June 16, 2010
being a phd student and getting to know that my research work is being cited by peers is good news!
google scholar shows it all.
cheers to peers!
check out papers on refined concept mapping from the publications page of my blog.
February 18, 2010
as part of annual research meet in HBCSE, I presented the current work of my ph.d. It was mainly focussing on “to determine a fixed set of relation names to represent secondary school level cell biology”. The abstract can be read from here. there were useful inputs and comments on the work.
the presentation depicted the number of concepts at 8,9,11 standards and the number of relation names required to link these concepts.
November 24, 2009
I have been always thinking to publish our research work for an Indian audience. Atleast in India, the community of educationists, teachers, etc., get to know what we are working on. With this objective, I had
submitted some preliminary findings of my Ph.D. work to an Indian Journal. The following research paper has been published in the Indian Educational Review (a journal published by NCERT).
Kharatmal M. (2009): Concept Mapping for Eliciting Students’ Understanding of Science. Indian Educational
Review. 45(2), pp.31-43.
The article is on display in our library. I have also uploaded the article which can be downloaded from the publications page of my blog
September 12, 2009
Today, discussion over lunch made me curious to find out who decides the changes in the scientific terms that are used in the textbook.
We were discussing about the Marathi Vishwakosh Project that HBCSE is involved in. In the early years of HBCSE, V G Kulkarni (Founder Director, HBCSE) instigated the project on language in science. Since then, there are a few members who are working in this area.
Deshmukh explained the volumes of work that the project is coming up with. It has been decided to bring a separate volume for biology subject and produce it in three parts. Related to the scientific terminology, he mentioned that a few scientific terminology in marathi textbook has been changed and hence the members have to pay heed to the latest usage of the term. He gave two instances of such change: the marathi term for auricle has been changed from karnika to alind; for ventricle it has been changed from javanika to nilay; the other instance of marathi term for skull has been changed from kavati to karkara. I was anxious to know why the name of the terms got changed, who decides that such change is required in textbook, what is the rationale behind it. May be the textbook bureau decides about these changes. Jayashree too agreed, and she added that it could be that they want to give a more specific word for a very specialized part.
But i am not yet convinced. Can a name of a scientific term change over a period of time. Well of course, if the meaning that is implied to it changes. But in this case, atleast the meanings of auricle, ventricle, skull are not yet changed, and their english names of terms are still the same. So what makes the marathi language textbook bureau to change it. Then we thought we should check the bodies/organizations who possibly could be involved in this work. We all headed to the library, and referred a few books related to Vishwakosh, Paribhasha Granth, etc. We could find atleast two bodies who have been involved in this work since the 1970s: Bhasha Sanchalanalay (Directorate of Language); and Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya-Sanskriti Mandal (Maharashtra State Board of Literature and Culture). Perhaps one can write/meet these people and find out more.
As i am also interested in the language of science, all this discussion has made me more curious, and i am into finding out as to who decides the changes in the scientific terms and what is the rationale behind it.
June 30, 2009
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.