Beyond the Repertory Grid: New Approaches to Constructivist Knowledge Acquisition Tool Development
By J. Bradshaw, K. Ford, J. Adams-Webber, J. Boose. 1993
Personal construct theory provides both a plausible theoretical foundation for knowledge acquisition and a practical approach to modeling. Yet, only a fraction of the ideas latent in this theory have been tapped. Recently, several researchers have been taking another look at the theory, to discover new ways that it can shed light on the foundations and practice of knowledge acquisition. These efforts have led to the development of a new generation of constructivist knowledge acquisition systems: DDUCKS, ICONKAT, and KSSn/KRS. These tools extend repertory grid techniques in various ways and integrate them with ideas springing from complementary perspectives. New understandings of relationships between personal construct theory, assimilation theory, logic, semantic networks, and decision analysis have formed the underpinnings of these systems. Theoretical progress has fostered practical development in system architecture, graphical forms of knowledge representation, analysis and induction techniques, and group use of knowledge acquisition tools.
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- George Leu
- Hussein A. Abbass
- David F. Feldon
- Swagatam Das
- Tea Robic
- Ferrante Neri
- Ponnuthurai Nagaratnam Suganthan
- Jingqiao Zhang
Citations in the corpus
- A multi-disciplinary review of knowledge acquisition methods: From human to autonomous eliciting agents (2016, methodology): “Methods in this family include “rating and ranking” [57, 93], repertory grid [26], sorting [184, 57], event co-occurence [49], and correlation/covariance [49].”
- Cognitive task analysis (2009, background): “Among the many types of knowledge elicitation methods, variations of structured and semi-structured interviews are most commonly involved in CTA because they are relatively easy to use and require less training than more formal methods such as protocol analysis (Ericsson and Simon, 1993) or the use ”