From: AAAI Technical Report SS-93-01. Compilation copyright © 1993, AAAI (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.
SUPPORTING
THE CREATMTY CYCLE
THROUGH VISUAL
LANGUAGES
BRIAN R. GAINES and MILDRED L. G. SHAW
KnowledgeScience Institute
University of Calgary
Calgary Alberta T2N 1N4 Canada
Abstract: The application of visual language tools for knowledgeacquisition and modelingto the support
of student’s creative processes has been investigated. Suchtools have potential application to both phases
of the creativity cycle, the transition from loose divergent thinking to focusedconvergentthinking, and the
converse transition wherebyreceived knowledgeis deconstructed through detecting anomalies and making
overt the underlying tacit presuppositions. This paper outlines this modelof creative dynamics, gives an
overview of past applications of visual languages, such as concept maps, in a range of disciplines, and
illustrates their use by graduate research students developingtheir research frameworks.
1. Introduction
This paper summarizesthe manydifferent forms of concept
mapused in different disciplines, gives an overview of how
This paper presents a progress report on ongoingresearch on
we see them supporting creative processes, and reports some
using knowledgeacquisition and modeling tools to support
creative processes (Shaw and Gaines, 1982). At the AAAI empirical studies of students on a recent Cognitive Science
course using KMapto develop their ideas.
Workshopon Creativity in 1991 we presented some early
studies of graduate students on a Cognitive Science course
2. KnowledgeModeling in the Creativity Cycle
using repertory grid tools to develop their research ideas
Barron, who has authored a number of major encyclopedia
(Shaw and Gaines, 1992). We also gave these students
articles on creativity, has described what he sees as the
access to another knowledge modeling tool recently
current consensusof the nature of creativity:
developed at that time which provided graphic support of a
"1. Creativity is an ability to respondadaptively to the needs
visual language for KL-ONE-styleknowledgerepresentation
for new approachesand newproducts. It is essentially the
systems (Gaines, 1991). The students exported their
ability to bring somethingnew into existence purlx~efuUy,
repertory grids and derived rules to this tool, and were also
though the process mayhave unconscious, or subliminally
able to use it for direct knowledgeentry. One student in
conscious, as well as fully conscious components. Novel
particular developedelaborate knowledgestructures for his
adaptation is seen to be in the service of increased
PhDresearch in this tool and commentedthat he found it
flexibility and increased powerto growand/or to survive.
more effective in developing his research ideas than a
2.
The "somethingnew"is usually a product resulting from a
conventional text outliner--it was a visual idea outliner. We
process
initiated by a person. There are three modes in
becameinterested in investigating this type of tool as a
which creativity may easily be studied: as product, as
support for creative thinking, and realized that the students’
process, as person.
using it had not adopted the KL-ONE
semantics. They had
used the shapes and connections to create concept mapsthat
3. The defining properties of these new products, processes,
were expressive and useful to them in thinking, but had no
and persons, are their originality, their aptness, their
formal semantics (or, at least, did not have those originally
validity, their adequacyin meeting a need, and a rather
intended).
subtle additional property that may be called, simply,
fitness---esthetic fitness, ecological fitness, optimum
form,
Concept maps, as used in education (Novak and Gowin,
being
"right"
as
well
as
original
at
the
moment.
The
1984), have already been used as knowledge acquisition
emphasis
is
on
whatever
is
fresh,
novel,
unusual,
tools (McNeese, Zaff, Peio, Snyder, Duncanand McFarren,
ingenious, clever, and apt.
1990). and are generated by Cognosys, a text analysis tool
4.
Such creative products are quite various, of course: a
developed for knowledge modeling (Woodward, 1990).
novel
solution to a problemin mathematics; an invention;
the knowledge modeling research, we were concerned with
the
discovery
of a new chemical process; the composition
refining the maps into well-defined formal knowledge
of
a
piece
of
music,
or a poem,or a painting; the forming
structures. In the creativity research, we becameinterested in
of
a
new
philosophical
or religious system; an innovation
supporting concept maps in general and developed a tool,
in
law;
a
fresh
way
of
thinking about social problems; a
KMap,that allows the visual syntax of most commonforms
breakthrough
in
ways
of
treating or preventing a disease;
of concept mapto be emulated.
the devising of new ways of controlling the minds of
155
others; the invention of mightynewarmaments,both of
offense and defense; newwaysof taxing the citizens of a
country by its government;or simplya changein manners
for multitudes of people in a specific period of time."
(Barren, 1988)
be original. On the other hand, loose construing is
characterizedby a person’s"preposterousthinking"(p. 529)
whichis unformulatedand often preverbal. The structured
alternation of these processes is what weperceive as the
creativity underlyingintelligent behavior.
Thereis priraafacievalidity of knowledge
modelingtools to
Support
through
support these creative processes from the literature on
kingandSpedly
Concepts
scientific development,
changeand revolution. For example,
Torretti, in analyzingthe developmentof modernphysics,
PrOCeSSeS
considersthe dynamicsof conceptualschemato be the basic
framework
within whichall other activities can be located.
Clarification
Organization
In particular, he analyzesin detail the essential limits to
Convergence
conceptualinnovationthat providecontinuity in scientific
Loose
Cons~uaion~ Creativity
TightConstruction~
development,
noting that:
"C1. Someconcepts are immune
to change,and they provide
Cycle
Associational
Definitional
Contextual
Logical
a stable referenceto decisivefacts.
Informal
Formal
C2. The new concepts are arrived at through internal
PrOCOSSeS
criticism of the old, by virtue of which the facts
Support
through
Supportthrough
Deconstruction
Hyperrnedia
Representation
Comparison Know~edge
purportedlyreferred to by the earlier modeof thoughtare
Systems
Systems
Criticism
effectivelydissolved.
C3. Referenceto facts does not dependon the conceptsby
Support
through
Knowledge
Modeling
Systems
usedto
whichthey are grasped."(Torreui, 1990)
DetectAnomalies
andTacit Presuppositions
Tools that provide meansto makethese relations between
Figure l Creativity cycle and its support
concepts moreovert and operational should have a role in
the creative processof conceptualtransformation.
Figure1 illustrates the natureof the creativity cycleandthe
Barren, Torretti, and manyothers, describe the phenomena types of processinvolvedin it, together with the roles that
of creativity, but what are its underlying psychological wehave designed the associated computer-basedtools to
processes?Oneof the first psychologiststo consider the play in supporting these processes. Notethat wesee that
phase of the cycle that is divergent and deconstructiveas
relationship between the convergent and divergent
knowledgeprocesses of creativity within a cognitive equal in importance to that which is convergent and
constructive. It is as importantto be able to deconstrncta
frameworkwas George Kelly whose personal construct
throughcritical
theorypresentsa personas exploringhis or her environment, well-establishedbase of receivedknowledge
collecting data about the worldand constructinga personal processesthat can start a newcreativity cycle, as it is to be
reality from which to view it (Kelly, 1955). Personal able to clarify and formalizeideas into theories. Becoming
construct theory has been the basis of manyknowledge awareof anomaliesand tacit preconceptionsis a stimulusto
acquisition and modeling methodologies. The theory the creation of newapproaches,experiments,interpretations
encompassesboth the extensional, case-based methodology and theories. This is not only important to experienced
of tools basedon the repertory grid, and the intensional, researchers but also to newgraduate students wherethe
concept-based methodologyof tools supporting term- weight of received wisdomis often the most significant
subsumptionknowledgerepresentation systems(Gaines and burden impedingtheir establishing their ownresearch
directionsandidentities.
Shaw,1993).
Kelly analyzes the dynamics of change in a person’s
construct system in terms of a creativity cycle in which
convergentand divergent thinking alternate. A system of
personal constructs is not fixed, but mayvary from one
occasionto another:
"Thereare typical shifts in the sequenceof construction
which people employ in order to meet everyday
situations .... TheCreativityCyclehas to do with the way
in whicha person develops new ideas." (Kelly, 1955,
pp.514-515)
Kelly sees convergence/divergence as a sequence of
loosening and tightening of constructions. A person who
uses only light construingmaybe very productivebut cannot
Creativityis part of a cyclic process.Eachphaseof the cycle
is different in nature and requires its ownsupport. At one
time one may be clarifying and substantiating one’s
preconceptions, at another attempting to identify and
demolish them. Different tools and techniques maybe
appropriateto different parts of the cycle, andthe sametools
maybe used in very different ways dependenton whether
the objectiveis a transition fromdivergenceto convergence,
or the converse.
3. Visualizationin the CreativityCycle
It is no coincidencethat the wordsimageand imagination
havethe sameroots. It has beenknownfromearly times that
visual imageryplays a significant role in the creative
156
processes of manypeople. Hadamard’s
studies in the 1940s
showedthe significant role of imageryin creative thinking,
andmanycase studies of geniusrecount vivid imagesas the
precursorsto significant newideas (Hadamard,
1945). This
has led to a specialist literature on the role of imageryin
creative thought processes, such as Arnheim’s Visual
Thinking(Arnheim,1969)andMiller" s lmageryin Scientific
Thought(Miller, 1984).
empirically to analyze organizational decision making
(Eden, Jones and Sims, 1979), social systems (Banathy,
1991)and the policies of political leaders (Hart, 1977).
linguistics, GraesserandClark havedevelopedan analysis of
argumentformsin text in terms of structured conceptmaps
with eight node types and four link types (Graesser and
Clark, 1985), and Woodward
has developedtools to extract
such mapsfrom text (Woodward,1990). In the philosophy
of science, Toulmindeveloped a theory of scientific
argumentbased on typed concept maps(Toulmin,1958) that
is regarded as one of the major themesof the rhetoric of
western thought (Golden, Berquist and Coleman,1976).
the history of science, the dynamicsof conceptmapshave
beenusedto represent the processesof conceptualchangein
scientific revolutions(Nersessian,1989;Thadgard,1992).
The availability of low-cost, high-performancegraphic
workstationsand personalcomputershas madeit possible to
supportvisual thinkingprocessesin a variety of waysacross
a wide range of disciplines, and again has led to a major
literature on visualization such as the annualIEEEmeetings
with this theme (Kaufman,1990; Nielson and Rosenblum,
1991).Thereis also a large andgrowingliterature on the use
of computer-basedtools to support visual languageswith Hypertextsystemsthat display overviewsof nodesand links
formalsemanticsfor the specification of a widevariety of provide a natural tool for the computersupport of concept
structures(Glinert, 1990).
mapdevelopment(Smolensky,Bell, Fox, King and Lewis,
1987), and specific tools to do so have been developed
The studies reported here are concerned with the
(Streitz,
Hannemann
and Thiiring, 1989; Bernstein, 1992).
applicability of visual languagesdevelopedin artificial
Frames, semantic networks and hypertext structures have
intelligence research to the supportof creative processes.
been compared(Travers, 1989), and Jonassen has shown
Semanticnetworks began as qualitative modelsof human howthe elicitation of semantic networks maybe used to
memoryprocesses (Quillian, 1968) and have been refined structure hypertext(Jonassen,1990). Avariety of techniques
over this period to becomehighly formal visual languages
representing knowledgestructures based on sound and and computer-basedtools have also been developedfor the
analysis of concept maps.Whenthey represent the strict
completedenotational or intensional semantics (Gaines,
semanticsof a visual languagefor knowledge
representation,
1991). Examplesinclude SNePs(Shapiro, 1979), Conceptual
it is appropriateto use deductiveinferenceenginesto draw
Graphs(Sowa,1984), and various visual languagesfor KLlogical conclusionsfromthe maps(Sowa,1991). Leishman’s
ONE(Brachman and Schmolze, 1985). More pragmatic computationof analogical relations as constrainedpartial
examplesinclude the graphic user interfaces for knowledge
entry, editing andvisualization in commercial
tools such as correspondences mayalso be used with such knowledge
structures (Leishman,1989). Manycognitive mapsrepresent
KEE, ARTand NEXPERT.Nosek and Roth have shown influencesandcausal relations and maybe treated as visual
that users comprehendvisual languagerepresentations of
languagesspecifyingqualitative simulationswhichmaythen
knowledge structures better than they do textual
be analyzedusing constraint-based reasoning, or logics of
representations(NosekandRoth, 1990).
uncertain reasoning (Kosko, 1986; Zhang,Chenand King,
Suchdevelopments
in artificial intelligenceare paralleled in 1992). Evengeneral conceptmapscan be analyzedin terms
other disciplines by the development
of visual languagesfor of their structure of their link relations (Cropper,Edenand
’concept maps’, ’cognitive maps’and argumentforms that Ackermann,1990).
are visually remarkablysimilar to those cited above,but do
4 SomeExperimentswith KMap
not have the formal semantics. In education, Ausubel’s
theories of the role of conceptual structures in learning KMap
is a generalizedvisual languagetool that providesa
(Ausubel and Robinson, 1969) led Novakto develop
user interface and data structures for creating, editing,
systemof concept maps(Novak,1977) that has been widely analyzing and exporting typed graphs with directed and
appliedin the evaluationof students’ learningin the school undirected links. The user interface allows KMapto be
system (Novakand Gowin, 1984). There is nowa wide tailored to particular requirementsby specifying the node
variety of different forms of concept mapthat have been types required, and associating with visual interface
applied in education (Lambiotte, Dansereau, Cross and characteristics suchas shape,color andtext attributes. KMap
Reynolds, 1989). They have also been used as tools to recognizesa variety of user interface items, suchas menus
support the interviewing process in knowledgeacquisition andbuttons, that neednot be specified in advance,andthis
from experts, for example in the Wright-Patterson
enablesits interface to be tailored by specifyingdifferent
development
of the pilot’s associate (McNeese
et al., 1990). interface resourcesrather than modifying
code. Thespecified
In management,Axelrod proposed cognitive maps as a types and interface then allow graphsto be generatedusing
meansof representing the conceptualstructures underlying these node types together with lines and arrows as links.
decision making(Axelrod, 1976), and these have beenused Linksmaybe labeled usingspecifiedlink label nodetypes.
157
Objective
Pr~
of
motivation
underlyingthe
aim
Aim
J
Overallaimofl
carrying out J
research J
I
/ Objective
/Determination
of
re(1ulres ~ current state of the
art relatingto the
aim
leads
to
Objective
Critical analysis
of the current
state of theart
t
p
t
I
/
q~- A.ctlvlty. J
requires
l Pvaluation
or ~
_j
statea3fthej
Activity
~1~
Developmentof
detailed
research
objectives
Activity I
requires
I Activ"YJ
J Attendance at J
-(H seminars,
/ workshops & J
/ conferences J
I Activity J
I ....
I
~ P, nalysls.oT J
~
j - J r~.Ssearcn
I
I
Activity
J Synthesis of
"7 frameworkfor
J research issues
Activity
Clear statement
of objectivesof
existing research
Activity
Clear statement
of achievements
& problems
~_~
uires
leads
to
Objective
Evaluationof
research
implementation
readingof J
literatureJ
~J Detailed
J
"I discussion with ~ requires
specialist
J
J
researchers
/
J
Activity
J
/I
/ I Development of a /
requires ---114
conceptual ~ requires
J frameworkfor J researcharea
~.J
¯
Activity
Discussions
with other
researchers
research
"-l"requires
l Activity
leads
to
Objective
Research
implementation
basedon the
design
requires
/ J Close reading J
/J of relevant
J
/
J literature
leads
to
Objective
Research
design basedon
the analysis
~,
~J Definition of an
-I area of
~ requires
1[
/
/
Activity
Intense
personal
research
activity
Activity
Projectionof
next steps
Activity
Documentation
of
researchactivities
and outcomes
requires ~ t
Activity
Critical analysisof
ownresearch and
comparisonwith
stateof art
leads
to
requires -
;[ Activity
’ ObJelJrctive J
JConclusions and ~ requires - - J Imaginative
~ projection of
Jfuture directions I J worthwhile
J of research
l
Jdeveiopmants
Figure 2 Conceptmapon carrying out graduate research
158
Activity
Clear statement
of basisof
evaluation
KMap
itself supportsall the interactivegraphicalcapabilities maps. Examplesof Toulmin’s and Gowin’sconcept maps
for editing, printing and so on. It supports an interwere discussed and madeavailable, but the tool was
application communication
protocol enabling other programs otherwisepresented as an open-endedgrapher with links to
to makeuse of the graphs, and to interact with the users HyperCardso that nodes could be annotated. A HyperCard
throughthe graphs. Henceit maybe used as a front end to stack supportingsuch annotation was providedso that the
manyother systems such as conceptual graph and KL-ONE studentsdid not haveto programan appropriateprotocol.
deductive systems, qualitative simulation systems, and
KMapwas fully utilized by all the students, both
Petrinet andcatego~’y-theoretic
proofsystems.
individually and in conjunction with others discussing,
KMap
mayalso be used moreinformally to specify concept amending,or developingalternatives to, the primaryconcept
mappingenvironments,and to developconcept mapswithin maps developed. The students all developed their own
them. It is this type of use that wehave explored with systemsof nodetypes and styles, taking little note of the
graduate students on a cognitive science course. The examplesprovided. The node types introduced seem to be
objective wasnot only to see howthe availability of such very domainspecific, legitimately so, and this is itself a
tools affected their researchactivities, but also to see what lesson for future design. Onelimitation of previousconcept
use they madeof the open-endedconcept mapenvironment mapsis that even whennodetyping is supported, it is not
development
tools. This contrasts with other applicationsin dynamicandthere is no explicit relation betweentypes. The
¯ education wherethe form of concept mapsis specified in open endedstudent use suggests that node types should be
advance.
treated as a full type lattice. This does not appearto be an
artifact of the computingbackground
of the students, since
Figure 2 showsan exampleconceptmapon writing a thesis
the types used are morethose suggested by common
sense
which we developed and supplied to incoming graduate
than data structure theory, but the conclusion should be
students. Three node types have been defined, Aim,
tested with users with other backgrounds.
ObjectiveandActivity, togetherwith twolink types, requires
and leads to. A rectangular shapehas beenused to identify Figure 3 showsa typical exampleof a large concept map
nodes, and an unboxedshape to identify links. The type producedby a student involved in groupwaredevelopment.
nameof a node is shownat the top--this is an optional The students used two pagemonitors, and someof the maps
interfacefeature.
producedwere large, requiring several pages of printout
whenput into their reports. Figure 4 showsthe right hand
In the Fall of 1992, werepeated the previously reported
side of the samemapso that the content maybe examined.
experiment(Shawand Gaines, 1992) in whichstudents in
cognitive science course used knowledgeacquisition and This student hadused roundedcorner box to indicate fairly
modeling
tools to investigate their ownresearchideas. Eight concreteexemplars.Thecluster of exemplarsof hypertexton
students again used repertory grids and visual languages the right of Figure 4 forms a natural set of elementsfor
individually and in conjunctionwith supervisors and other repertory grid elicitation, and the concept mapsproveda
researchers. This time the visual languageediting tool was very natural wayof dividing up an overall domaininto
KMap
and we did not imposeany semantics on the concept coherentsub-domains
that couldbe studiedin moredetail.
Figure3 Overallstructureof a conceptmap
on Issuesrelatingto collaborative
hypertext
development
159
platform
( PtontWorks
e.g
interactive
experilentotion
( Intermedia)
Hyper :ard )
e.g
.~ Showcase
~~
Alternate
Reality
1
)
e.g
K~t
C L.E.G.O )
HyperTIES
Aids
phonetic
~
e.g
Type and
# of
rinks
L
~~/ei
~{E’ulB~otk°r
}
C Referentio, y {Bidt~eCntk~°n°t} l Organizationat
Figure4 Righthandside of conceptmaponIssuesrelatingto collaborative
hypertextdevelopment
Figure 5 showsan alternative approachadoptedby another Multimediadigital publication supports ’active documents’
studentin expressinghis ideas aboutthe legal protectionof containing not only text and pictures but also operational
computersoftware. Hedevelopedfour separate maps,the top modelsfor visualization, animation,simulation, deduction,
level one shownas an overall view of the issues in the experimentationand alternative analyses. This will lead to
domain,and three linked ones about patents, copyrightsand major changesin scholarly publication in the next decade
trade secrets. This student is developinga knowledge-based(Gaines, 1992, 1993). Weare already seeing parallel
system to modelsoftware protection issues, and saw the publicationof booksandjournal articles as passiveprint on
concept maps as a natural first stage in knowledge paperto satisfy existing publicationoutlets, and as active
elicitation. Fromone perspective, a knowledge-based
system electronic documents on CD-ROM
to support improved
developeris not a typical user andthis type of approachmay scientific communication
(Claerbout and Dellinger, 1991;
haveno general validity. However,
this type of application Gainesand Shaw,1992). Fromthis perspective, one can see
raises the intriguing questionas to whetherall researchers the tools that weare providingto studentsas the forerunners
might not eventually becomeinterested in makingtheir
of electronic publication tools providinga moreexpressive
research results operationalas knowledge-based
systems.
medium
for the disseminationof knowledge.
160
protected
by
Figure5 Toplevel conceptmapon the protectionof computer
software
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
This paper has provided a progress report on a research
activity concernedwith the use of knowledgeacquisition and
modeling tools to support creative processes in scholarly
research. It would be inappropriate to attempt to draw
significant conclusions from the informal studies reported.
Wedo not knowwhether our students’ creative processes are
being affected by the tools used. Moreover,we do not know
how to measure this in a meaningful way. Wehave to rely
on the primafacie validity of the approach and on subjective
evaluation. This is not particularly satisfactory from a
research perspective, and it wouldbe useful to develop and
test morespecific hypothesesrelated to theories of creativity
such as those of Kelly (1955) and Kim(1991).
This work was funded in part by the Natural Sciences and
EngineeringResearch Council of Canada. Wewish to thank the
1992 class of CPSC679, Cognitive Processes in Artificial
Intelligence.
Meanwhile, to tools builders, the support of scholarly
research processes offers a very interesting application of
knowledgeacquisition and modeling tools. Once scholarly
publications are made available through interactive
electronic mediait will becomepossible to actively support
the creative processes of those reading them. That is, what
we nowsee as specialist tools for knowledgeacquisition and
modeling, when embeddedin interactive documents, will
become part of the routine publication process. This
application of artificial intelligence research to the general
processes of knowledgedissemination is very attractive.
References
Arnheim,R. (1969). Visual Thlnk|ng. Berkeley, California,
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Ausubel,D.P. and Robinson,F.G. (1969). SchoolLearning. New
York,Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Axelrod,R. (1976). Structure of Decision.Princeton,NewJersey,
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Banathy,B.H. (1991). Cognitive mappingof educational systems
for future generations. WorldFutures30(1) 5-17.
Barton, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. The Nature of
Creativity. pp.76-98. Cambridge,UK,CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Bernstein, B. (1992). Euclid: Supporting collaborative
argumentation with hypertext. Department of Computer
Science,Universityof Coloradoat Boulder.
Brachman,R.J. and Schmolze,J. (1985). Anoverviewof the KLONEknowledgerepresentation system. Cognitive Science9(2)
171-216.
Claerbout, J.F. and DeUinger,J.A. (1991). StanfordExploration
Project: SEP-CD-I: (1) Earth Soundings Analysism
Processing versus Inversion; (2) Anlsotropic Seismic Wave
161
Propagation; (3) Progress Reports SEP-72 and SEP-70. Palo
Alto, California, Stanford University Press.
Cropper, S., Eden, C. and Ackermann,F. (1990). Keeping sense
accounts using computer-based cognitive maps. Social Science
Computer Review 8(3) 345-366.
Eden, C., Jones, S. and Sims, D. (1979). Thinking in
Organizations. London, Macmillan.
Gaines, B.R. (1991). An interactive visual language for term
subsumption visual languages. IJCAI’91: Proceedings of the
Twelfth International
Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence.
pp.817-823. San Mateo, California, Morgan
Kaufmann.
Gaines, B.R. (1992). Social dynamics of scholarly publication.
AAAI-92 Workshop on Communicating Scientific
and
Technical Knowledge.pp.l-8. Menlo Park, California, AAAI.
Gaines, B.R. (1993). Anagenda for digital journals: the sociotechnical infTastrucmre of knowledgedissemination. Journal of
Organizational Computing to appear.
Gaines, B.R. and Shaw, M.L.G. (1992). Documents as expert
systems. Research and Development in Expert Systems IX.
Proceedings of British Computer Society Expert Systems
Conference.
pp.331-349.
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge
University Press.
Gaines, B.R. and Shaw, M.L.G. (1993). Basing knowledge
acquisition tools in personal construct psychology. Knowledge
Engineering Review8(1) to appear.
Glinert’ I.P., Ed. (1990). Visual Programming Environments:
Paradigms and Systems. Los Alamitus, California, IEEE
ComputerSociety Press.
Golden, J.L., Berquist, G.F. and Coleman, W.E. (1976). The
Rhethoric
of Western Thought. Dubuque, Idaho,
Kendall/Hunt.
Graesser, A.C. and Clark, L.F. (1985). Structures and Procedures
of Implicit Knowledge.NewJersey, Ablex.
Hadamard,J. (1945). An Essay on the Psychology of Invention
the Mathematical Field. Princeton, NewJersey, Princeton
University Press.
Hart, J.A. (1977). Cognitive mapsof three latin american policy
makers. World Polltks 30(1) 115-140.
Jonassen, D.H. (1990). Semantic net elicitation:
tools for
strucmrin8 hypertext. Hypertext: State of the Art. pp.142-152.
Oxford, UK,Intellect.
Kaufman,A., Ed. (1990). Visualization’90: Proceedings of the
First IEEE Conference on Visualization.
Los Alamitos,
California, IEEEComputerSociety press.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New
York. Norton.
Kim, S.H. (1991). A formal model of creative decision making.
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 8(1) 5365.
Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal
Man-MachineStudies 24(1) 65-75.
Lambiotte, J.G., Dansereau, D.F., Cross, D.R. and Reynolds, S.B.
(1989). Multirelational
semantic maps. Educational
Psychology Review 1(4) 331-367.
Leishman, D. (1989). Analogy as constrained
partial
correspondence over conceptual graphs. Proceedings of
KR’89: First International
Conference on Principles of
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. pp.223-234. San
Mateo, California, MorganKauffman.
McNeese,M.D., Zaff, B.S., Peio, K.J., Snyder, D.E., Duncan, J.C.
and McFarren, M.R. (1990). An Advanced Knowledge and
Design Acquisition Methodology for the Pilot’s Associate.
Harry G Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
Miner, A.I. (1984). Imagery in Scientific Thought. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, M1Tpress.
Nersessian, N.J. (1989). Conceptual change in science and
science education. Synthese 80(1) 163-184.
Nielson, G.M. and Rosenblum, L., Ed. (1991). Visualization’91:
Proceedings
of the Second IEEE Conference
on
Visualization.
Los Alamitos, California, IEEE Computer
Society Press.
Nosek, J.T. and Roth, I. (1990). A comparisonof formal knowledge
representations as communicationtools: predicate logic vs
semantic network. International
Journal of Man-Machine
Studies 33(227-239)
Novak, J.D. (1977). A Theory of Education. Ithaca, Illinois,
Cornell University Press.
Novak, J.D. and Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning HowTo Learn.
NewYork, CambridgeUniversity Press.
Quillian, M.R. (1968). Semantic memory.Semantic Information
Processing. pp.216-270. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT
Press.
Shapiro, S.C. (1979). The SNePSsemantic network processing
system. Associative Networks: Representation and Use of
Knowledge by Computers. pp.179-203. NewYork, Academic
Press.
Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (1982). Tracking the Creativity
Cycle with a Microcomputer. International Journal of ManMachine Studies 17(1) 75-85.
Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (1992). Mapping creativity with
knowledge support tools. AAAI-91Workshopon Creativity:
Models, Methods and Tools. pp.32-45.
Menlo Park,
California, AAAI.
Smolensky, P., Bell, B., Fox, B., King, R. and Lewis, C. (1987).
Constraint-based hypertext for argumentation. Proceedings of
Hypertext’87. pp.215-245. NewYork, ACM.
Sown, J.F. (1984). Conceptual Structures:
Information
Processing in Mindand Machine. Reading, Massachusetts,
Adison-Wesley.
Sown" J.F., Ed. (1991). Principles of Semantic Networks:
Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge. San
Mateo, California, Morgan-Kauf~nan.
Streitz, N.A., Hannemann"J. and Th0ring, M. (1989). Fromideas
and arguments to hyperdocuments:travelling through activity
spaces. Proceedings of Hypertext’89. pp.343-364. NewYork,
ACM.
Thadgard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton, New
Jersey, Princeton University press.
Torretti, R. (1990). Creative Understanding: Philosophical
Reflections on Physics. Chicago, University of Chicagopress.
Toulmin" S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK,
CambridgeUniversity press.
Travers, M. (1989). A visual representation for knowledge
structures. Proceedings of Hypertext’89. pp.147-158. New
York, ACM.
Woodward,B. (1990). Knowledgeengineering at the front-end:
defining the domain. KnowledgeAcquisition 2(1) 73-94.
Zhang, W.R., Chert, S.S. and King, R.S. (1992). A cognitive-mapbased approach to the coordination of distributed cooperative
agents.
IEEE Transactions
on Systems,
Man and
Cybernetics SMC-22(1) 103-114.
162