Premium
Semantic networking: The new kid on the block
Author(s) -
Fisher Kathleen M.
Publication year - 1990
Publication title -
journal of research in science teaching
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.067
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1098-2736
pISSN - 0022-4308
DOI - 10.1002/tea.3660271008
Subject(s) - computer science , semantic network , homogeneous , semantic web , concept map , space (punctuation) , human–computer interaction , data science , artificial intelligence , operating system , physics , thermodynamics
This article briefly describes the SemNet ™ software and some of its uses as an educational and research tool, with emphasis on the similarities and differences between concept mapping and semantic networking. A semantic network captures (in part) each concept's position in psychological space, identifying both the other concepts to which it is connected and the nature of the links that bind them. Computer‐based semantic networks differ from paper‐and‐pencil maps in that they are n ‐dimensional; each concept can be linked to many other concepts; relations are bidirectional; representations can include images, text, and sound; and nets can be very large. Disadvantages of SemNet ™ networks include (a) the difficulties in obtaining a clear overview and (b) the homogeneous nature of the representations, in which all links look alike. Advantages include the ability to integrate ideas across a large knowledge base, the ease and rapidity of net creation, the ease with which elements (concepts, relations, or propositions) can be found within nets, and the utility of nets as self‐study tools. Concept mapping and semantic networking are complementary strategies that can be used effectively in tandem to help students learn, to help teachers teach, and to support cognitive research.