Centrality metrics in network analysis as a tool for determining the level of abstraction of concepts within students’ conceptual structures
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54359/48gtcd95Keywords:
concept structure, levels of abstraction, concept maps, network analysis, cultural-historical theoryAbstract
This study examines concepts as systemic elements within a conceptual structure, drawing on the theoretical framework of L.S. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology. A key characteristic of concepts is their level of abstraction, which reflects their degree of generalization within a system. However, existing classification methods lack a unified approach, complicating empirical research. The current study aimed to explore network analysis metrics as a tool for distinguishing concepts of different levels within a concept structure. We analysed 242 concepts from conceptual maps created by experts and students in data analysis. First, a qualitative analysis was conducted using formal definitions and expert evaluations. Then, betweenness centrality and degree centrality metrics were applied to assess their effectiveness in distinguishing conceptual levels. The findings showed that betweenness centrality and normalized betweenness centrality significantly differed across levels: higher-level concepts had higher values compared to the basic and subordinate ones. Degree centrality varied depending on the classification method. When classified by definition, all group differences were shown to be significant. When classified by maps, differences were found only for the subordinate level. However, the number of incoming connections did not show distinguishing capability. Based on the results, it can be assumed that network analysis demonstrates potential not only in assessing the systemic characteristics of a conceptual structure but also in evaluating the role of individual concepts within it.
Downloads
References
APA dictionary of statistics and research methods. Ed. by S. Zedeck. — Washington: American Psy-chological Association, 2014.
Corter J.E., Gluck M.A. Explaining basic categories: Feature predictability and information. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 1992, Vol. 111, No. 2, 291–303. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.291
Davydov, V.V. Types of Generalization in Learning. — Moscow: Pedagogika, 1972. (In Russian).
Estrada E. The structure of complex networks: theory and applications. — Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. First published in paperback. — 465 p.
Goldstone R.L., Kersten A., Carvalho P.F. Categorization and Concepts. Stevens’ Handbook of Ex-perimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. Ed. by J. T. Wixted. — Wiley, 2018. — Vol. 1, 1–43.
Isaev, E.I., Margolis, A.A., & Safronova, M.A. Developing Children’s Concepts in Mathematics and Natural Sciences in Elementary School: From Initial Representations to Scientific Concepts. Psycho-logical Science and Education, 2021, Т. 26, No. 6, 25–45. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2021260602 (In Rus-sian).
Kapuza A. How Concept Maps with and without a List of Concepts Differ: The Case of Statistics. Education Sciences, 2020, Vol. 10, No. 4, 91. DOI: 10.3390/educsci10040091
Kapuza A., Koponen I.T., Tyumeneva Y. The network approach to assess the structure of knowledge: Storage, distribution and retrieval as three measures in analysing concept maps. British Journal of Ed-ucational Technology, 2020, Vol. 51, No. 6, 2574–2591. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13003
Kholodnaya, M.A. The Psychology of Conceptual Thinking: From Conceptual Structures to Concep-tual Abilities. — Moscow: Institut psikhologii RAN, 2012.
Medin D.L. Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 1989, Vol. 44, No. 12, 1469–1481. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1469
Murphy G.L., Lassaline M.E. Hierarchical Structure in Concepts and the Basic Level of Categoriza-tion. Knowledge, concepts, and categories: Studies in cognition. Ed. by K. Lamberts. — Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997. — Vol. 1. — MIT Press ed.
Newman M. Networks. — Oxford University Press, 2018.
Novak J.D. Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1990, Vol. 27, No. 10, 937–949. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660271003
Rosch E. et al. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 1976, Vol. 8, No. 3, 382–439. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
Rosch E. Principles of Categorization. Cognition and categorization. Ed. by E. Rosch, B. B. Lloyd. — Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978.
Rubtsov V.V., Margolis A.A., & Guruzhapov V.A. On the Activity-Based Content of Psychological and Pedagogical Training of Modern Teachers for the New School. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2010, Т. 6, No. 4, 62–68. (In Russian).
Smith E.E., Medin D.L. Categories and Concepts. — Harvard University Press, 1981.
Talyzina N.F., Volodarskaya I.A., Butkin G.A. Mastering Scientific Concepts at School: A Textbook for Universities. 2nd ed. — Moskva: Yurait, 2024. (In Russian).
Tyumeneva Y., Kapuza A., & Vergeles K. Distinctive Ability of Concept Maps for Assessing Levels of Competence. Pilot study. Voprosy Obrazovaniya, 2017, Т. 4, 150–170. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2017-4-150-170 (in Russian)
Vygotsky, L.S. Thinking and Speech. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe iz-datel'stvo, 1934. (In Russian).
Zuckerman G.A., Obukhova O.L., Ryabinina L.A., & Shibanova N.A. Introducing Basic Concepts: In Search of the Missing Scaffolds. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2017, Т. 13, No. 4, 4–14. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2017130401 (in Russian).
Zuckerman G.A., Obukhova О.L. Education that leads to development of students as subjects of their own learning. Lomonosov Psychology Journal, 2024, Т. 47, No. 4, 129–149. DOI: 10.11621/LPJ-24-43 (in Russian).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
