Metacognition Learning DOI 10.

1007/s11409-011-9084-6

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms
Regina Jucks & Elisabeth Paus

Received: 10 December 2010 / Accepted: 7 November 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Learning from texts requires reflection on how far one has mastered the material. Learners use such metacognitive processes to decide whether to engage in deeper learning activities or not. This article examines how the lexical surface of specialist concepts influences their mental representation. Lexical encodings that are the concise wordings of a concept (e.g., tension headache or migraine for specific types of headache) provide immediate access to the underlying content. To understand learning contents appropriately, learners have to work on such lexical covers to gain insight into the underlying semantic meaning. It was assumed that a technical terms origin (either German or classical Latin/ Greek) is used systematically as a hint for further elaboration. 41 college students rated the difficulty, familiarity, competence, accessibility, and their knowledge of 17 Germanlanguage (GL) terms and their classical language (CL) synonyms. The influence of word frequency was controlled. As expected, results showed that GL terms were perceived to be less difficult than CL terms. Consequently, comprehension of these terms was rated more highly. Analyses of how lexical encoding influenced accuracy of participants comprehension judgments showed that participants comprehension ratings were less accurate for GL terms. Theoretical and practical implications for learning from written information are discussed. Keywords Technical terms . Perceived difficulty . Feeling of knowing . Conceptual understanding . Metacognition . Word comprehension Typically, people construct their knowledge about specific topics on the basis of written materials. The new media provide broad access to specialist information from a multitude
R. Jucks : E. Paus University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany R. Jucks (*) Institute of Psychology in Education, Westflische Wilhelms-Universitt Mnster, Fliednerstrae 21, 48149 Muenster, Germany e-mail: jucks@uni-muenster.de

R. Jucks, E. Paus

of fields (Goldberg et al. 2003; MacArthur 2006)each with its own technical vocabulary. For instance, readers looking for health information on the Internet are likely to come across texts including words such as serotonin, transmitters, or blood pressure. Learning from such materials requires several cognitive and metacognitive learning activities (Pressley and Gaskins 2006). Interactive text comprehension models (Kintsch 1998; Perfetti 1999) emphasize the interplay of bottom-up word recognition processes and top-down comprehension processes. In general, reading activity starts bottom-up with the identification of individual words, and empirical findings confirm that this process is essential for reading comprehension (Just and Carpenter 1992; Verhoeven and Van Leeuwe 2008). However, word identification involves more than just rapid word retrieval. Increased decoding speed of words does not automatically lead to increased comprehension (Perfetti 2007). Following the lexical quality hypothesis (Perfetti 2007; Perfetti and Hart 2002), reading comprehension is also determined by word knowledge, that is, the extent to which the reader s knowledge of a given word represents the words form, meaning constituents (definitional and contextual knowledge), and use. The effort learners make to grasp the meaning of a word depends on specific word features. Some words are easy to map to existing knowledge. For instance, in order to catch the meaning of the technical term high blood pressure a learner might reflect on the three components high, blood and pressure and spontaneously decide that the term is known. It is only after a successful word identification process that top-down processing comes into play by connecting the word to a continuously updated representation of the text. In this second step, learners construct situation models about the contents to be learned. This article aims to identify conditions that foster the acquisition of learning contents from text materials. In particular, it focuses on the lexical encoding of specialist concepts as a potential word feature that indicates the complexity of a words meaning and thus impacts on the learner s perceived comprehension. On a metacognitive level, this should influence how much effort a learner perceives as necessary to gain sufficient word comprehension. We assume that a learner s mental representation of the meaning of a certain technical concept (e.g., the chronically increased pressure of blood in arterial vessels) is triggered by its lexical encoding that has either a native-language (in our case, German) root (e.g., Blutdruck [blood pressure]) or a root from the classical languages Greek or Latin (e.g., Hypertonie [hypertension]).

What does a word tell us? Words as indicators Beyond their function as carriers of semantic meaning, words often provide hints about a speaker s or writer s attitudes, properties, and so forth. A specific word (or the avoidance of it) might indicate ones attitude toward polarizing topics such as the Iraq war, genetic engineering, or abortion. Imagine the sentence The baby is killed within the first week. The use of the words baby and killed allow us to assume that the sender of the message does not approve of abortion. Another example can be found in analyses of speeches held by political leaders (Hogenraad and Garagozov 2010). Based on a model proposed by McClelland (1975), the risk of conflict between their countries was forecasted by the observed gap between power words (increasing) and affiliation words (decreasing). Likewise, the use of linguistic markers of tentativeness (perhaps) in journalistic articles has also been shown to influence a reader s perception of the scientists or journalists credibility (Jensen 2008).

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms

Words can also serve as indicators of the conceptual richness of the underlying meaning (Paus and Jucks 2011). Research in the domain of expert-layperson communication has shown differences in individual assumptions about specialist vocabulary. Experts and laypersons dictionaries have both different encodings for the same content (as in the example above, blood pressure and hypertension) and same encodings referring to different concepts (e.g., assimilation in biological and psychological jargon). Jucks and colleagues (Bromme et al. 2005; Jucks and Bromme 2007) have shown that experts are often not fully aware of laypersons conceptual representations. If laypersons use a technical term (e.g., migraine) it not necessarily means that they understand its underlying concept. This points to a difference between the factual knowledge about a technical concept and the perceived difficulty of that concept. In the German language, many technical terms have Greek or Latin roots particularly those introduced into German over the last 400 years. However, they also have synonyms of German origin. In his categorization of German technical terms, Bromme (1996) differentiates between everyday language terms with a specific technical usage and loan words originating from the classical languages Greek or Latin. This makes it possible to differentiate between more technical technical terms (classical language terms, CL) and more common technical terms (German language terms, GL). Nevertheless, all these terms belong to the German language (are native German terms) they differ only in the origin of their word stem. The CL terms are listed in the German dictionary of foreign terms, the Fremdwrterduden (Wermke et al. 2001); the GL terms are not. However, both encode technical concepts that have to be understood if one is to gain access to the particular specialist domain. Laypersons might particularly recognize the need for a deep and thorough understanding of technical terms when they have a Latin or Greek root (Paus and Jucks 2011). However, both laypersons and experts may fail to recognize that technical terms on the threshold to everyday language have a different meaning within the specific field compared to that in general language use (e.g., Schorling and Saunders 2000). Using GL technical terms raises the risk of learners not becoming aware of the complexity of their underlying meaning. As a result, they may fail to perceive the need to engage in a deeper elaboration of the terms underlying concepts and not gain sufficient understanding of the domain to which it refers. This article addresses how university students go about evaluating a technical terms difficulty. It tests the hypothesis that the surface features of a word (its colloquialism) impact on the assessment of its semantic depth. Hence, it is expected that technical terms in the German language with Greek or Latin roots will be thought to have a broader and deeper background than their synonyms with a German origin. However, in the German language, words with a Greek or Latin root are typically used less frequently than words with a German origin. Hence, the present study has to consider the frequency of occurrence of specialist vocabulary. Word frequency can be measured either by objective word frequency counts (e.g., the British National Corpus, BNC) or by native-speaker judgments. Although older studies indicate a high level of agreement between the two measures (see Backman 1976, pp. 9194; Tryk 1968, pp.7478), whether subjective judgments can be a reliable substitute for corpus data remains controversial. Alderson (2007) investigated different methods of assessing word frequency judgments and found only moderate correlations across the different measuresindicating that objective and subjective frequency measures cannot be equated. Therefore, we use an objective measure of word frequency in this study.

R. Jucks, E. Paus

Hence, while controlling for word frequency, this study aims to test the effect of lexical encoding on the perception of difficulty of technical terms. Our first hypothesis is: 1. CL terms will be perceived to be more difficult than GL terms.

Technical terms and the perceived feeling of knowing What are the processes that potentially underlie comprehension judgments of technical terms in a text? Subjective monitoring of ones own knowledge influences the systematic regulation of learning processes and, thus, of memory performance (Koriat and Goldsmith 1996). In the context of such metacognitive evaluation processes, Koriat (2000) has differentiated between monitoring activities based on an explicitly inferential process (judgment of knowing) and ones based on sheer subjective feelings (feeling of knowing). When reading a text, learners come across several technical terms. We assume that their decision whether or not to elaborate more on the terms semantic meaning depends on rather intuitive evaluation processes. According to the feeling of knowing approach (FOK, see Brown 1991; Koriat and Levi-Sadot 2001; Schwartz 1998), people have a feeling about whether or not knowledge contents are familiar to them, even when they cannot recall them at that particular moment. Hence, FOK is assumed to draw on conscious rather than unconscious processes (Schwartz 2006). Two models have been introduced to explain FOK: The cue familiarity model and the accessibility model. The cue familiarity model (Reder 1987; Schwartz and Metcalfe 1992) postulates that the FOK estimation is determined by the overall familiarity of a certain pointer that serves to cue the target itself. For example, when respondents are asked Who composed Swan Lake? the familiarity of the term Swan Lake impacts on their perceived ability to answer the question. The accessibility model (Koriat 1993; Koriat 1994) postulates that this evaluation is determined by the perceived accessibility of information relating to the target (whether or not that information is correct being largely irrelevant). In this case, the FOK is influenced by all information related to the answer Tchaikovsky that is activated simultaneously (e.g., ballet, the Bolshoi Theatre, The Nutcracker). Koriat and Levi-Sadot (2001) have shown more recently that the models of cue familiarity and accessibility, originally thought to be mutually exclusive, are in fact interconnected. It is only when a term is perceived to be highly familiar that participants initiate a deliberate search for the targetand that the amount of potentially accessible information related to the target thus impacts on FOK. The FOK literature focuses on the ability to recall factual knowledge (e.g., a name). In the present study, however, the models were applied to the feeling of knowing about technical terms with more comprehensive underlying knowledge structures. Learners can be expected to report greater familiarity with GL termseven if they do not know them from the specialist contextbecause these terms are easy to retrieve from memory. For example, they may rate the term Kleinhirn [literally, little brain] as being familiar, simply because they know the individual subwords klein [little] and Hirn [brain] (see also above). In contrast, people tend to be exposed to CL terms, such as the synonym Zerebellum [cerebellum], only within the specialist field in question. The meaning of these terms cannot be inferred in the same way. In line with the FOK approach, we can also predict that, due to the higher perceived familiarity of GL terms, learners will perceive information relating to GL terms to be more accessible than information relating to CL terms. Koriat and Levi-Sadot (2001) also point out that the amount of potentially accessible information related to a term influences its subjectively perceived comprehension only if the term is perceived to be familiar. Learners may thus intuitively think they understand GL

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms

terms better than CL terms because their meaning is easier to infer from their components (e.g., Zucker [sugar] + Krankheit [disease]). Because Koriat and Levi-Sadot (2001) have argued that FOK is influenced solely by the number of associations activated and not by their accuracy, we expected participants to produce longerbut not higher quality explanations for GL than for CL terms. This study also aimed to cast light on the extent to which the lexical encoding of a specialist concept impacts on feeling of knowing. Based on the assumption that learners judge GL terms to be more familiar and that they are further able to access more information relating to these terms, our second hypothesis is: 2. FOK is higher for GL terms and the explanations produced for these terms will be longer than those produced for CL terms.

Accuracy of comprehension judgments How accurate are learners ratings when they monitor their comprehension of technical vocabulary? In general, peoples knowledge assessments tend to be inaccurate. This might be because they base their judgments primarily on subjective feelings influenced by their experiences that even persevere after biased judgments have been corrected explicitly (Nussinson and Koriat 2008). In particular, many studies have shown that inaccuracy is often due to overestimation. In the field of text comprehension, for instance, readers often have problems recognizing that they have failed to grasp the content of a text (illusion of knowing, Glenberg and Epstein 1985; Glenberg et al. 1982). Furthermore, people tend to overestimate the generality of their own knowledge when asked to anticipate the knowledge of others (overestimation hypothesis; see, e.g., Bromme et al. 2001; Hayes and Bajzek 2008). The extent of overestimation often depends on the type of knowledge concerned. The understanding of complex knowledge structures usually presupposes not only knowledge of facts but also includes the ability to intelligibly explain such contents to another person, which is called explanatory knowledge (Mills and Keil 2004; Rozenblit and Keil 2002). Research indicates that people tend to overestimate their level of this kind of knowledge in particular (illusion of explanatory depth, Rozenblit and Keil 2002). The researchers distinguished between complex causal knowledge (e.g., knowledge about the tidal system) and less complex knowledge (e.g., knowledge about cooking pasta). The findings showed that participants assessments of their complex causal knowledge became accurate only after they have tried to explain the concept in question. In contrast, their assessments of less complex knowledge were immediately much more correct. Several factors influence peoples subjective evaluations of their ability to provide explanations (Rozenblit and Keil 2002). In contrast to simple nominations or descriptions of knowledge contents, explanations are complex hierarchical systems with no explicit starting or end points. Thus, there is no explicit criterion for evaluating the completeness and correctness of a given explanation. Rather, the quality of an explanation is defined in terms of conclusiveness and traceability, two attributes that are difficult for a person to estimate. As explanations of technical terms are reproduced less frequently than, for example, facts or stories, it may be even harder for learners to estimate their knowledge. Finally, learners often acquire their knowledge in a specific context. Even if a term is understood correctly in that context, it will not necessarily be understood reliably or explained properly in other contexts. These findings are also relevant in the context of gauging comprehension of specialist vocabulary: To comprehend the meaning of a certain term requires more than being simply

R. Jucks, E. Paus

able to define it. Here, comprehension includes understanding the underlying complex knowledge structure and being able to explain this information to a recipient. In this study, we were interested in the accuracy of FOK judgments. In line with the idea that people base their comprehension judgments on subjective feelings (Nussinson and Koriat 2008) rather than on consideration of the knowledge and skill required to understand the term, we expected comprehension ratings for specialist terms with a German root to be less accurate than those for terms with a classical root. For the latter one subjective evaluation should be more correct, because the encoding serves as a pointer towards the complexity. Additionally, we assumed that participants would overestimate their understanding of specialist terms in general, because they should underestimate the difficulty of being able to explain complex knowledge structures. In particular, based on the idea that FOK is higher for GL terms, but that objective explanations of these terms are not of better quality, we predicted that participants would be more overconfident when gauging their comprehension of technical terms of German origin than for terms of classical origin. Hence, the third and fourth hypotheses are: 3. FOK judgments for GL terms will be less accurate than those for CL terms. 4. Comprehension of the meaning of specialist terms will be generally overestimated. In particular, comprehension ratings on the meaning of GL specialist terms will be overestimated.

Method Participants and design Participants were 41 psychology students (29 female) from a German university with a mean age of 25.59 years (SD =4.92). Thirty-six were German native speakers, two had spoken German as their second native language since childhood, and three had spoken German for more than 15 years. The independent variable encoding of technical terms was conceptualized as German language (GL) versus classical language (CL).

Material Selection of technical concepts We selected 17 technical concepts that could be encoded with words of either Greek/Latin or German origin (see Table 1). Based on the entries in technical dictionaries (Hcker and Stapf 2004; Hildebrandt 2004; Wilpert 2001; Woll et al. 2000), all term pairs were defined as synonyms encoding the same underlying technical concepts. Terms were selected according to the following criteria: First, both terms in each pair of synonyms had separate entries in the specified technical dictionaries. To avoid ambiguity, we further ensured that the terms selected could be assigned explicitly to one single technical domain. Finally, we checked that all terms were listed in the major German-language spelling dictionary, the Duden (Wermke et al. 2004). The 17 pairs of synonyms comprised 5 from the field of medicine, 4 from psychology, 4 from business administration, and 4 from linguistics and literary studies. Other word features To ensure that effects were due to differences in the lexical encoding, we also looked at other word features that might potentially influence our results, namely, word frequency, word length, and number of syllables. As mentioned above, word frequency can be assumed to influence the mental representation of specialist vocabulary.

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms Table 1 List of the 17 technical concepts encoded in terms of either Latin/Greek or German origin Latin/Greek Diabetes (diabetes) Konsum (consumption) Repression (repression) Disposition (disposition) Ikon (icon) Deskription (description) Zerebellum (cerebellum) Alliteration (alliteration) Injektion (injection) German Zuckerkrankheit (sugar disease) Verbrauch (use) Verdrngung (blocking) Veranlagung (proneness) Bild (picture) Beschreibung (account) Kleinhirn (little brain) Stabreim (head rhyme/initial rhyme) Spritze (jab/shot)

Generalisation (generalization) Verallgemeinerung (sweeping statement) Garantie (guarantee) Epigramm (epigram) Management (management) Konkurrent (competitor) In German, these pairs of terms can be used synonymously, whereas in English their meaning can vary substantially Konsilium (consultation) Genus (genus) Perzeption (perception) Gewhrleistung (warranty) Sinngedicht (short poem with a twist) Unternehmensfhrung (company leadership) Wettbewerber (challenger) Beratung (advice) Gattung (kind) Wahrnehmung (awareness)

This feature was determined with the University of Leipzigs word frequency database (http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de) that reports frequency in terms of frequency classes. A class describes the relative frequency of a word in relation to der [the]the most frequently used word in German. Specifically, if a word is allocated to frequency class N, then der occurs approximately 2 N times more frequently than that word (see appendix for details of word frequencies). Frequency classes have proved to be a stable and reliable indicator of word frequency (Alderson 2007). For our set of terms, the average word frequency was M =13.94 (SD =3.36) for GL terms and M =15.41 (SD =4.12) for CL terms. We determined word length by counting the number of letters in each term. The means were M =10.29 (SD =4.87) for GL terms and M =9.12 (SD =2.50) for CL terms. Finally, we counted the number of syllables for each term. GL terms had M =3.29 (SD =1.36) and CL terms M =3.35 (SD =1.06) syllables. Procedure Participants were asked to rate the difficulty (technicality and complexity), familiarity, and comprehension of the 17 technical terms on a 5-point scale (see below). The terms accessibility as well as participants objective knowledge of the technical terms was then assessed by two open questions (for a detailed description of all variables, see Dependent Measures below). Afterwards, they were asked to report the following demographic data: age, gender, degree program, number of semesters studied, occupational and educational qualifications, knowledge of foreign languages, and whether German was their native language. Data were collected in a lecture room at the University of Frankfurt. Version A (see below) of the questionnaire was randomly distributed to 21 participants; version B to 20

R. Jucks, E. Paus

participants. The participants completed the questionnaires without any time constraints. Participation was rewarded with 7 Euro or 1 course credit point. On average, participants required about 50 min to complete the experiment. Dependent measures Two versions of the questionnaire were constructed, each including only one encoding of each of the 17 concepts. In Version A, the order of words (9 CL terms and 8 GL terms) was randomized. Version B presented the synonyms for these words in the same sequence, resulting in 9 GL terms and 8 CL terms. Two measures were administered to assess how the lexical encoding of the concepts influenced their mental representation. Perceived difficulty Participants rated the perceived difficulty of technical terms on the following two 5-point scales ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly): Categorization. They had to rate whether or not each term was a technical term. Complexity. They had to rate the item This term needs to be explained to be understood. Feeling of knowing In line with the feeling of knowing approach, participants were first asked to rate their perceived familiarity with each technical term. Based on the cue familiarity model (Koriat and Levi-Sadot 2001), this item allowed us to examine whether participants indeed judged GL terms to be more familiar than CL terms. According to the accessibility model (Koriat and Levi-Sadot 2001), the accessibility of information related to a concept is reflected by the number of related terms identified. Therefore, participants were asked to note down all terms they could think of that related to each term given. To assess the subjective evaluation of comprehension, participants had to rate whether they felt that they had comprehended each technical term on the same 5point scale as above. Accuracy of comprehension judgments Participants were asked to give explanations of technical terms with the following question: What does the term XY mean exactly? Please give a brief explanation. The number of words used to explain each technical term was counted using Microsoft Word. To objectively assess the completeness and correctness (quality) of participants explanations, they were matched to an optimal explanation of the respective technical term. These optimal explanations were based on the following objective criteria: first, how far they included the definitions provided in the technical dictionaries; second, whether and how the concepts were illustrated with examples (e.g., for diabetes, Patients are not allowed to eat a lot of sugar or carbohydrates) (see Appendix B). Two independent raters judged the percentage of overlap between the explanation given and the optimal explanation for each technical term. These percentages were then transformed into a 5-point scale to make them comparable to the subjective comprehension measures (with 120%=1, 2140%=2, 4160%=3, 6180%=4, and 81100%=5). Interrater reliability was satisfactory for the quality of explanations of GL terms ( =0.76, p =.01) and CL terms ( =0.85, p <.001) (Krippendorf 2004). Note that raters were not blind to the experimental condition, because they had to see the terms when judging their explanations. To reduce rating bias as far as possible, we did not inform raters of the causal direction of the hypotheses.

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms

Results Unless otherwise indicated, analyses were performed using SPSS, and the underlying statistical assumptions of the methods applied were met. To identify the specific effect of lexical encoding on mental representations and subjective FOK, we first checked whether our dependent measures correlated with other features of the terms. There were no significant correlations for either word length (all r <.21, p >.05) or the number of syllables (all r <.24, p >.05). However, word frequency correlated significantly with categorization (r = .54), complexity (r = .56), familiarity (r =.45), accessibility (r =.51), perceived comprehension (r =.44) and number of words used in the explanation (r =.45). All correlations were significant on the .01 level. Note that we used the inverted word frequency scale to facilitate interpretation of results (i.e., a positive correlation indicates a positive relation between word frequency and the dependent variable). Hence, all further analyses used the adjusted values for all dependent variables that correlated with word frequency. Therefore, the influence of word frequency was partialled out and analysis was performed with the regression-based nonstandardized residual scores of each dependent variable. We then performed a subject and an item analysis within each statistical analysis to be able to generalize on both levels. In a subject analysis, data points are computed by collapsing over subjects; whereas in an item analysis, they are computed by collapsing over items (see Raaijmakers et al. 1999, p. 418). Typically, both F values are then included to compute F (or min F) as a test statistic for significance (see, for details, Clark 1973). Analysis with participants is labelled F1 and with items as F2. We chose this procedure, because our design nested items under the treatment variables, therefore ruling out the use of other strategies (such as matching materials or using counterbalanced lists) to assure generalization on the term level (see Raaijmakers 2003; Raaijmakers et al. 1999). Note, that half-tailed p values were reported for univariate analyses, because solely directional hypotheses were tested.

Perceived difficulty Our first hypothesis was that the difficulty participants associate with a term depends on its origin. Specifically, we expected classical language (CL) terms to be perceived to be more technical and more complex. A multivariate analysis with the within-subject factor type of encoding and the two dependent measures of perceived difficulty yielded a strong main effect, F1(2, 39)=134.84, p <.001, p2 =.87; F2 (2, 15)=16.88, p <.001, p2 =.68; min F(2, 21)=15.00, p <.001. Univariate analysis showed that CL terms were more clearly categorized as being technical, F1(1, 40)=165.27, p <.001, p2 =.81; F2(1, 16)=31.78, p <.001, p2 =.67; min F(1, 24)= 26.65, p <.001, and perceived to be more complex, F1(1, 40)=205.43, p <.001, p2 =.84; F2(1, 16)=32.17, p <.001, p2 =.67; min F(1, 23)=27.81, p <.001, than German language (GL) terms (see Table 2 for all means and standard deviations of the dependent variables).

Feeling of knowing Our second assumption addressed feeling of knowing (FOK). Given that GL terms were rated to be more familiar than CL terms, and that participants were able to access more information concerning these terms, we expected perceived comprehension ratings to be

R. Jucks, E. Paus Table 2 Means and standard deviations of all dependent variables for subject and item analyses Classical origin Variable Subject analysis Perceived difficulty Categorization as technical termb Complexityb Feeling of knowing Familiarityb Accessibilityb Comprehension judgmentsb Length of explanationb Quality of explanation Item analysis Perceived difficulty Categorization as technical termb Complexityb Feeling of knowing Familiaritya Accessibilitya Comprehension judgmentsa Length of explanationa Quality of explanation
a

German origin SD M SD

4.26 3.98 4.35 2.84 4.15 8.95 2.38

0.57 0.53 0.46 1.43 0.51 2.98 0.61

2.87 2.94 4.72 4.72 4.62 10.96 2.95

0.77 0.63 0.29 0.29 0.33 3.15 0.50

4.27 4.06 4.35 1.08 4.11 9.01 2.36

0.80 0.77 0.83 1.01 1.02 3.00 0.74

2.82 3.07 4.71 1.60 4.60 10.76 2.82

1.02 0.99 0.70 1.30 0.72 3.63 0.69

p <.05. b p <.001

higher for GL terms, and more words to be used in explanations of these terms. In contrast, we did not expect any difference in the quality of explanations. As predicted, GL terms were rated as being more familiar, F1(1, 40)=31.92, p <.001, p2 =.42; F2(1, 16)=3.19, p =.05, p2 =.17; min F(1, 26)=2.90, p <.05, and participants accessed more information relating to these terms than to CL terms, F1(1, 40)=34.26, p <.001, p2 =.46, F2(1, 16)=6.16, p =.02, p2 =.28; min F(1, 23)=5.22, p <.05. In line with the findings of higher familiarity and information accessibility of GL terms, there was a main effect for comprehension judgments, F1(1, 40)=36.53, p <.001, p2 =.48; F2(1, 16)=4.12, p =.03, p2 =.26; min F(1, 21)=3.70, p <.05, with GL terms being rated as better understood than CL terms. Furthermore, a main effect emerged for length of explanation, F1(1, 40)=39.28, p <.001, p2 =.49; F2 (1, 16)=7.62, p =.01, p2 =.32; min F (1, 24)=6.38, p <.05, with more words being used to explain GL than CL terms. However, in line with our assumptions, there was no difference in the quality of explanations, F1(1, 40) =16.74, p <.001, p2 =.30; F2(1, 16)=2.57, p =.12, p2 =.07; min F(1, 22)=2.23, p >.05.

Accuracy of comprehension judgments Furthermore, we analyzed whether participants comprehension ratings were in agreement with their actual knowledge. We expected participants FOK judgments of GL terms to be

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms

less accurate than those for CL terms. Thus, we first examined the effects of lexical encoding on the accuracy of knowledge estimation by computing gamma correlations between the subjective and objective comprehension measures for each type of encoding. An ANOVA of the averaged gammas revealed a main effect of encoding, F1 (1, 30)=19.79, p <.001, p2 =.40; F2 (1, 16)=4.17, p =.03, p2 =.21; min F (1, 22)=3.44, p <.05. Specifically, the mean correlations between subjective and objective comprehension measures were higher for CL terms, r =.25 on the item level and r =.65 on the subject level, than for GL terms, r =.07 on the item level and r =.46 on the subject level, indicating that FOK judgments for GL terms were indeed less accurate than those for CL terms. We further analyzed in more detail whether participants overestimated their comprehension of specialist vocabulary. Therefore, we first looked at how well participants explanations matched the optimal explanation of the concepts in order to determine participants actual comprehension. On average, only 53% of the full semantic meaning underlying the technical terms independently of encoding were explained (M =2.64, SD = 0.55 for subjects and M =2.65, SD =0.80 for items, on a five point-scale). In contrast, comprehension ratings were much higher (with M =4.38, SD =0.35 for subjects and M = 4.36, SD =0.82 for items). We tested for differences between subjective comprehension ratings and quality of explanation with an ANOVA for repeated measures with the withinfactor type of understanding (objective vs. subjective). There was a main effect of understanding, F1(1, 40)=580.61, p <.001, p2 =.94; F2(1, 16)=251.63, p <.001, p2 =.94; min F(1, 32)=175.24, p <.001. Thus, subjective comprehension ratings were indeed higher than participants real ability to explain the terms underlying semantic meaning. In particular, we expected participants to overestimate their comprehension of the meaning of technical terms with a German origin. To test this assumption, we computed the differences between objective quality measures and subjective comprehension ratings on the subject and on the item level, and then computed an ANOVA for repeated measures with the within-factor difference between subjective and objective measures. However, term origin did not have an effect on overestimation, F1(1, 40)=1.00, p =.32, ns.; F2(1, 16)=0.18, p =.68, ns.; min F(1, 23)=0.15, p >.05.

Discussion Overall, the empirical findings supported our hypotheses on the impact of the linguistic encoding of technical concepts on aspects of their mental representation.

Perceived difficulty and feeling of knowing Our findings showed that CL terms were categorized more clearly as technical than GL terms. Furthermore, CL terms were perceived to be more complex. These findings support the idea that the linguistic surface of a word impacts on peoples beliefs about a words difficulty. Based on the cue familiarity and accessibility models introduced by Koriat and Levi-Sadot (2001), we further hypothesized that GL terms would be rated as being more familiar, and that participants would be able to access more information related to these terms. Our findings confirmed these hypotheses. In line with the findings of higher familiarity and better accessibility, we expected participants subjective evaluations of their comprehension of GL terms to be higher. Additionally, we compared the number of words generated to explain each term. This approach is based on the idea that people provide

R. Jucks, E. Paus

longer explanations of terms that seem more familiar to them. Our findings confirmed that participants showed higher FOK for GL terms than for CL terms. In accordance with their subjective FOK, moreover, participants produced more words in their explanations of GL terms. Nevertheless, these explanations were not of better quality than the ones for CL terms. Because we controlled for the influence of word frequency, the differences observed in perceived familiarity, accessibility, and subjective evaluation of comprehension cannot be attributed to the more frequent usage of GL terms or to participants higher exposure to these terms (e.g., through diverse media in everyday life). Rather, it seems that specific features of the encoding itself influence how terms are perceived. One possible explanation is that recipients think they can create an explanation of GL terms because they already know the termor elements of it. To further clarify how lexical encoding impacts on perceived familiarity, accessibility, and perceived comprehension, future research should investigate the role of letter-based and phonological familiarity in familiarity ratingsfor example, whether the sounds used in a certain category of terms are more familiar and therefore easier to decode. Indeed, recent research has indicated that people base their familiarity ratings on the perceived familiarity of the letters in a word (Algarabel et al. 2010). Phonological familiarity can thus also be expected to impact on familiarity ratings of technical terms.

Accuracy of comprehension judgments We were interested in how far learners are able to gauge their comprehension of specialist vocabulary accurately. Our results showed a specific effect of lexical encoding on the accuracy of comprehension judgments: For technical terms with a Greek/Latin origin, the relationship between subjective comprehension rating and actual explanation quality was higher than for terms with a German origin. Apparently, learners are better able to distinguish what they know from what they do not know for CL than for GL technical terms. This type of metacognitive error can have different consequences with regard to text comprehension. If people underestimate what they know about a particular term, they might interrupt the reading process too often to elaborate a terms meaningresulting in potential negative costs for reading fluency and coherence. In contrast, overconfidence in subjective evaluations could prevent learners from further elaboration activities that are necessary in text comprehension and learning (e.g., Hulstijn 2001; Verspoor and Lowie 2003). To deal with the issue of over- and underestimation in more detail, we investigated whether learners tended to overestimate their comprehension of technical vocabulary in general and of technical terms with a German origin in particular. Results showed that participants generally overestimated their comprehension of the meaning of the technical terms. That might be due to the fact that they have to gauge their ability to explain a term (Rozenblit and Keil 2002). This should be very difficult for learners, because they are not fully aware of the complexity behind the lexical surface of technical terms. In general, learners might accept their current comprehension as being correct too quicklythus resulting in insufficient understanding. However, the present results do not show a specific influence of lexical encoding on overconfidence: Learners do not particularly overestimate their knowledge of technical terms with a German root more strongly. However, perhaps the findings would be different, if technical terms were contextually embedded. When, for instance, reading a text, learners come across words that are unfamiliar to them. Typically, they try to infer the meaning of these terms from context to avoid disrupting the reading process. Beyond positive effects of

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms

this strategy (e.g., Ittzs 1991; Nagy 1997), inferring meaning from context too easily might produce misconceptions about the meaning of terms and also lead to worse retention performance (Mondria and Wit-de Boer 1991). Here, the costs of overestimation could lie in the tacit acceptance of inaccurate inferences about the meaning of terms, which, in turn, could reduce further elaboration activities. Future research could investigate more systematically how lexical encodings and contextual features interact. If, for instance, the context is very rich and redundant, people pay less attention to a single word (Mondria and Wit-de Boer 1991). Our previous findings concerning subjective comprehension judgments have shown that it is particularly technical terms with a German origin that fail to transport the complexity of the underlying meaning. Therefore, the specific effect of overconfidence might occur only in a specific context. Finally, further research can benefit from embedding technical terms in more realistic settings such as university learning scenarios, and examining their specific role in comprehension evaluations.

Conclusion In summary, this study served two main purposes: First, it placed the FOK model within a broader frame of reference. Whereas most recent studies on FOK have investigated the retrieval of knowledge of facts, our results indicate that the processes underlying FOK can be generalized to terms that transport more complex knowledge contents (e.g., explanatory knowledge; Rozenblit and Keil 2002). Second, our results indicate that the lexical encoding of technical concepts influences peoples comprehension judgments. When GL terms are used in specialist contexts, learners may not be aware of the deeper underlying meaning. However, using CL terms may complicate or even hinder understanding. Hence, research needs to investigate the specific contexts in which each kind of encoding is warranted. To understand specialist information in texts appropriately (e.g., to understand the conceptual meaning underlying a technical term), people have to reflect on the accuracy on their comprehension ratings of specialist vocabulary. One approach to support learners in developing a more complete and precise understanding of technical concepts could be metacognitive prompting (see Jucks et al. 2007). In general, metacognitive prompts are questions or hints that induce metacognitive activities during the learning process. Prompts are designed to overcome superficial processing (King 1992). In particular, reflection prompts (Davis 2003) target learners reflection on their own learning process and provide them with possibilities how to use different prompts. Prompts can be implemented in different ways. Within the new technologies, they are often used in computer-supported settings (Chen et al. 2009; Stadtler and Bromme 2008). When dealing with specialist information, learners could be provided with reflection prompts asking them to think about their understanding of the particular technical terms. Alternatively, learners could first be asked to actually explain the term before they reflect on their comprehension. Based on such metacognitive evaluations, learners could then be offered support for further mental elaboration of the concepts. Our findings need to be replicated in larger samples of participants from different specialist fields. The relation between FOK judgments and perceived expertise in a field should also be investigated. People who perceive themselves as being experts in a field should also have higher subjective knowledge evaluations of terms assigned to that field. Hence, the level of expertise can be expected to impact on the accuracy of FOK judgments. Furthermore, terms from different fields need to be investigated.

R. Jucks, E. Paus

Last but not least, research should investigate whether the present findings can be transferred to other languages. In English, for example, it is possible to distinguish between English words with a Latin origin (e.g., management) and fully Latin words (e.g., genus). Other languages such as Italian have even stronger CL roots. Hence, the type of language people speak originally may well influence their perception of different encodings of technical concepts. Further research should therefore examine whether the categorization of word origin used in this study also applies to other languages. From an applied perspective, one field heavily influenced by the encoding of technical concepts is computer-supported collaborative learning. Virtual discourse plays an important role in knowledge co-construction in these learning environments (Hkkinen and Jrvel 2006; Mkitalo et al. 2005). When communicating virtually (or face to face), learning partners tend to use recently introduced words; in other words, they adapt linguistically to each other (Jucks et al. 2008). This process is called lexical alignment (Pickering and Garrod 2004). As shown in this study, the meaning transported by a technical term may depend on its encoding. Using the same technical terms in collaborative learning situations may therefore bear the risk that meaning is exchanged only on a superficial level, and that the underlying deeper meaning is not discussed (Paus and Jucks 2008). Hence, GL terms may fail to transport the complexity of the underlying meaning, whereas use of CL terms may imply a level of expert knowledge that does not exist. To conclude, the linguistic encoding of technical concepts plays a pivotal role in individual knowledge representation and can thus be expected to influence engagement in learning and, as a result, learning processes.
Acknowledgments The authors thank Lena Opitz, Stefanie Diener, Katharina Seiler and Franziska Thon for support with data collection and analysis and Jonathan Harrow for English language editing. This research was funded by a grant awarded to the first author within Special Priority Program SPP 1409 of the German Research Foundation (DFG; JU 471-2/1).

Appendix A. Word Frequencies for All Terms Investigated

Word frequency Class N* German language terms Zuckerkrankheit Verbrauch Verdrngung Veranlagung Bild Beschreibung Kleinhirn Stabreim Spritze Verallgemeinerung Gewhrleistung Sinngedicht Unternehmensfhrung Wettbewerber 16 11 14 14 8 12 18 19 14 17 14 21 13 11 Classical language terms Diabetes Konsum Repression Disposition Ikon Deskription Zerebellum Alliteration Injektion Generalisation Garantie Epigramm Management Konkurrent 13 11 14 13 20 21 21 11 15 19 12 20 9 11

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms Beratung Gattung Wahrnehmung 11 13 11 Konsilium Genus Perzeption 14 18 20

*N =frequency class (word) f (most frequent word)/2 N A high value indicates low word frequency; a low value, high word frequency

Appendix B. Optimal explanations for the 17 technical concepts

Psychological technical terms Perzeption/Wahrnehmung

Es handelt sich hierbei um den Vorgang und das Ergebnis einer Reizverarbeitung. In der Regel ist Perzeption/ Wahrnehmung bewusst und an das Erleben gekoppelt. Es gibt aber auch unbewusste Perzeption/ Wahrnehmung. Empfindungen sind Elemente der Perzeption/Wahrnehmung. Unter Perzeption/ Wahrnehmung versteht man das Abbild einer objektivrealen Umwelt durch eine Person. Sie schliet auch Vorstellungen, Vergegenwrtigungen und Nachbilder mit ein. Perzeption/Wahrnehmung wird oft mit Bemerken oder Auffassung gleichgesetzt. Perception/awareness is the process itself and the outcome of processing a stimulus. Although perception/awareness is usually conscious and linked to experience, it also exists in nonconscious forms. Sensations/feelings are elements of perception/awareness. Perception/awareness is considered to be a persons copy of an objectively real environment. It also includes imaginations, visualizations, and afterimages. Realization and recognition are often used as synonyms for perception/awareness. Unter Disposition/ Veranlagung wird eine bestimmte Bereitschaft oder Fhigkeit verstanden, die einer Person ermglicht bestimmte seelische oder krperliche Inhalte auszuleben. Man spricht deshalb manchmal auch vom Seelenvermgen oder aber auch von der Reaktionsbasis. Es wird zwischen erworbener und angeborener Disposition/ Veranlagung unterschieden. Es gibt reflex-, trieb-und instinktgebundene Dispositionen/ Veranlagungen. Dispositionen/ Veranlagungen bestehen insgesamt relativ konstant ber die Zeit. Disposition means a certain readiness or ability enabling a person to live out a specific mental or physical content. This is why it is sometimes called basis of reaction as well. A distinction is drawn between acquired and inherent disposition. Dispositions can be reflexive, urge-driven, and instinct-related. On the whole, dispositions are relatively persistent over time. Der Begriff Repression/Verdrngung stammt aus der Psychoanalyse und wurde einst von Sigmund Freud eingefhrt. Man versteht darunter den elementarsten Abwehr-mechanismus des Ichs bei dem tabuisierte oder bedrohliche Inhalte und Vorstellungen oder Triebbedrfnisse von der bewussten Wahrnehmung des Menschen ausgeschlossen werden. Im Gegensatz zu einem nur vorbergehenden Aufschub eines Triebbedrfnisses handelt es sich bei der Repression/ Verdrngung um eine unbewusste Unterdrckung eines Triebbedrfnisses. Bei einer Psychoanalyse sollen die verdrngten Inhalte wieder zugnglich gemacht und somit bearbeitet werden knnen. Repression/displacement is originally a psychoanalytic term introduced by Sigmund Freud. It describes the most elementary self-defence mechanism that excludes taboo and threatening contents and ideas or instinctive needs from human consciousness. In contrast to the temporary delay of an instinctive need, repression/displacement means an unconscious suppression of an

Perception/awareness

Disposition/ Veranlagung

Disposition/proneness

Repression/Verdrngung

Repression/blocking

R. Jucks, E. Paus instinctive need. Psychoanalysis can provide access to the repressed contents and a possibility of dealing with them. Generalisation/Verallgemeinerung Grundstzlich wird Generalisation/Verallgemeinerung als Schluss von einem Teil auf das Ganze gesehen. Pawlow unterschied zwischen der Generalisation/ Verallgemeinerung eines Reizes (hnliche Tne lsen die gleiche Reaktion aus) und der Generalisation/Verallgemeinerung einer Reaktion (auf einen Reiz folgen unterschiedliche Reaktionen). Darber hi-naus gibt es die sekundre Generalisation/ Verallgemeinerung, die besagt, dass Reize bestimmter Sinnesgebiete dieselbe Reaktion auslsen. Generalisation/ Verallgemeinerung zeigt sich auch im Zusammenhang mit bertragungseffekten, z.B. wenn ein Mensch auf verschiedene Reizsituatio-nen immer ein konstantes Verhalten zeigt. Als bertragung von positiven oder negativen Vernderungen auf andere Bereiche ist sie auch im Rahmen von Psychotherapien bekannt. Generalization is viewed as a deduction from a part to the whole. Pavlow distinguished between generalization of a stimulus (similar sounds provoke an equal reaction) and generalization of a reaction (different reactions to the same stimulus). There is also secondary generalization, meaning that stimuli to a certain field of the senses provoke the same reaction. Generalization can also be found in transfer effects when a person always exhibits the same behavior in different stimulus situations. In a psychotherapeutic context, generalization is the transfer of positive and negative changes to other areas.

Generalization/sweeping statement

Technical terms from German literary studies (Germanistische Begriffe) Deskription/ Beschreibung Unter Deskription/Beschreibung wird die Schilderung und ausmalende Wiedergabe eines Sachverhalts, eines Gegenstandes oder einer Person durch sprachliche Mittel verstanden. Es handelt sich hierbei um die Umsetzung eines gewonnenen Eindrucks in Sprache und dessen Weitervermittlung an Leser oder Hrer. Description/account A description is a language-based portrayal or depiction of an issue, an object, or a person. It is the transfer of an impression into language and its conveyance to a reader or listener. Eine Alliteration/ ein Stabreim ist eine literarische Stilfigur. Eine weitere Bezeichnung hierfr ist Anreim. Es werden zwei oder mehr bedeutungsschwere Wrter durch den gleichen Anlaut ihrer Silben-betonung hervorgehoben. Land und Leute wre ein Beispiel fr eine Alliteration/ einen Stabreim. An alliteration is a literary stylistic device. The syllables of two or more meaningful words are emphasized by repeating the same first consonant sound. For example, a peck of pickled peppers is an alliteration. Das Epigramm/Sinngedicht ist eine literarische Gattung zur einprgsamen Ausformung von Gefhlen, Stimmungen und geistreichen Gedanken. Man findet es in Form von Auf- oder Inschriften auf Geschenken und Grab- oder Denkmlern. Es dient der Wrdigung einer Person oder eines Gegenstandes oder der besonderen Deutung von Ereig-nissen. Als Gattung der Gedankenlyrik bieten Epigramme/Sinngedichte satirische, gesellschaftskritische und teils auch erotische Inhalte, die zu einer berraschenden, geistreich zugespitzten Sinndeutung des Berichteten in der Schlusspointe fhren. An epigram is a literary genre containing easily remembered descriptions of feelings, moods, and witty thoughts. You can find them, for example, as poetic inscriptions on tombs or public monuments. They serve to honor a person or an object or to particularly mark events. An epigram is a genre of reflective poetry and contains satirical, critical, and sometimes erotic elements that lead to a surprising witty interpretation at the end of the story. Ein Ikon/Bild ist eine Form sprachlich-bildlichen Ausdrucks als Mittel visueller Evokation in der Dichtung. Es handelt sich hierbei um eine an die Phantasie des Rezipienten appellierende Darstellung. Es werden Motive abgebildet, die realen Objekten visuell hnlich sind. Vogel wre beispielsweise ein Ikon/

Alliteration/ Stabreim

Alliteration/head rhyme

Epigramm/ Sinngedicht

Epigram/short poem with a twist

Ikon/ Bild

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms Bild fr leichter als Luft. Darber hinaus ist Ikon/Bild auch ein dramaturgisches Ersatzwort fr Akt oder Szene. Icon/picture An icon/image is a kind of verbal-visual expression used as a means of visual evocation in poetry. It is a form of presentation that appeals to the recipients imagination. The motives depicted visually resemble real objects. For example, bird could be an icon/image for lighter than air. Additionally, an icon/image can be the term in drama for an act or a scene. Das Cerebellum/ Kleinhirn ist der unterhalb der Hirnhauptslappen des Grohirns gelegene Teil des Gehirns. Es besteht aus den beiden Hemisphren und einem mittleren Teil, dem Kleinhirnwurm. Es enthlt vier Kerne. Das Cerebellum/ Kleinhirn ist durch afferente und efferente Bahnen mit dem Grohirn, dem Hirnstamm und dem Vestibularissystem verbunden. Es ermglicht die Zusammenfassung von Einzelbewegungen zu koordinierten Bewegungsablufen und dient der Aufrechterhaltung des statischen Gleichgewichts. The cerebellum is the part of the brain located below the occipital lobe of the cerebrum. It consists of two hemispheres and a central part called the cerebellar vermis. It contains four nuclei. The cerebellum is connected to the cerebrum, brain stem, and vestibular system via afferent and efferent nerves. It merges individual movements together to form coordinated sequences and serves to maintain static balance.

Medical technical terms Cerebellum/ Kleinhirn

Cerebellum/little brain

Diabetes/ Zuckerkrankheit Diabetes/ Zuckerkrankheit ist ein Krankheitsbegriff fr verschiedene Formen der Glukosestoffwechselstrung. Es handelt sich hierbei um eine endokrine Strung. Es herrscht dabei ein Mangel an Insulin im Krper vor. Es gibt verschiedene Typen dieser Krankheit. Diabetes mellitus Typ 1 tritt oft in der Kindheit auf und ist eine Autoimmunerkrankung. Typ 2 tritt eher bei lteren Menschen auf, die infolge einer erblichen Veranlagung, gefrdert durch bergewicht und Bewegungsmangel, eine Insulinresistenz entwickeln. Diabetes/sugar disease Diabetes is a clinical term for various forms of glucose metabolism disorder. It is an endocrine disorder in which the body is suffering from a lack of insulin. There are various forms: Diabetes mellitus type 1 is an autoimmune disease that often occurs in childhood. In contrast, diabetes mellitus type 2 is an insulin resistance that develops more often in older people as a result of a genetic disposition, being overweight, and a lack of physical activity. Genus/ Gattung Unter Genus/Gattung versteht man eine Kategorie der biologischen Systematik, die mehrere nah verwandte Arten enthlt. Der Genus/die Gattung bildet einen Teil des Artnamens. Ein Beispiel hierfr ist Homo in Homo sapiens. Genus is a category in the biological classification system containing several closely related species. The genus also forms part of the species name, for example homo in homo sapiens. Allgemein versteht man unter Konsilium/Beratung ein Gesprch bzw. einen anderweitig kommunikativen Austausch oder eine praktische Anleitung durch Fachpersonen, die zum Ziel hat, eine Aufgabe oder ein Problem zu lsen oder sich zumindest der Lsung anzunhern. Meist werden die Begriffe Konsilium/ Beratung im Sinne von jemandem in helfender Absicht beraten oder Ratschlge erteilen verwendet. Ein Beispiel hierfr ist die Beratung mehrerer rzte zur Klrung eines Krankheitsfalles. Consultation is a conversation or other type of communicative exchange or an experts practical advice designed to solve or at least approach a solution to a problem. Usually, this term is used in the sense of giving advice to someone with an helpful intention or to counsel someone. An example of consultation is gaining the advice of several physicians in order to clarify an illness. Hierbei handelt es sich um ein schnelles Einbringen bzw. das Instrument zum Einbringen von gelsten oder suspendierten Arzneimitteln in den Krper

Genus/kind

Konsilium/ Beratung

Consultation/Advice

Injektion/ Spritze

R. Jucks, E. Paus durch Einspritzen. Dies geschieht intravens (unter die Haut) oder intramuskulr (in die Haut). Injection/jab or shot The term injection describes a rapid input of dissolved or suspended drugs into the body. It can be either intravenous (under the skin) or intramuscular (into the skin). Unter Konsum/Verbrauch versteht man die aufzehrende Verwendung eines Gutes. Das Gut wird durch eine Ttigkeit weniger bzw. nimmt ab, das heit es wird verbraucht. Es handelt sich um den Konsum/Verbrauch und/oder die Nutzung materieller und immaterieller Gter durch Endverbraucher. Im volkswirtschaftlichen Sinne steht der Begriff fr den Kauf von Gtern des privaten Ge- oder Verbrauchs durch Konsumenten oder Haushalte. Im betriebswirtschaftlichen Bereich hingegen wird oft der Output von Gtern als Konsum bezeichnet. Consumption is seen as the exhaustive utilization of a good. When a good is reduced because of an action, it is consumed. This can be either the consumption and/or use of material or immaterial goods by end users. In economics, it means the purchase of goods for private use by consumers or households. In contrast, in the field of business management, consumption is often used to describe the output of goods.

Ttechnical terms from economics (Wirtschaftliche Begriffe) Konsum/ Verbrauch

Consumption/use

Konkurrent/ Wettbewerber Ein Konkurrent/Wettbewerber kann auch als Mitbewerber oder Rivale bezeichnet werden. Es handelt sich um Personen, die dasselbe Ziel erreichen wollen. Auch Personen, die in einer Prfung gegeneinander antreten werden als Konkurrenten/ Wettbewerber verstanden. Competitioner/challenger Opponent/competitor is another term for a rival or contestant. Opponents/ competitors want to achieve the same aim. It is also used to describe persons who are competing with each other in an exam. Unter Garantie/Gewhrleistung versteht man die Zusicherung der Gte eines Artikels. Es ist eine Art Versprechen, ein Produkt zu ersetzen bzw. fr Schden aufzukommen. Auch ein abstraktes Zahlungsversprechen einer Bank fr einen Garantieauftraggeber gilt als Garantie/Gewhrleistung. Guarantee/warranty is the assurance of the quality of a product. It is a kind of promise to replace a product or to compensate damage. It can also be a banks abstract promise of payment for a customer. Die Begriffe Management/Unternehmensfhrung bezeichnen die Leitung oder Steuerung eines Unternehmens. Es bezeichnet auch die Personengruppe, die leitende Aufgaben erfllt und alle Aufgaben, die diese Personen zu erfllen haben. Ein wichtiger Bereich des Managements/der Unternehmensfhrung ist die strategische Unternehmensfhrung, die sich mit den mittel- und langfristigen Erfolgspotenzialen einer Organisation beschftigt und strategische Ziele ausarbeitet. Management/leadership is a term for conducting or controlling a company. It describes the group of people who manage a company and all the tasks they have to perform. An important domain of management/leadership is strategic corporate management that handles a companys mid- and long-term potential for success and develops its strategic goals.

Garantie/ Gewhrleistung

Guarantee/warranty

Management/ Unternehmensfhrung

Management/company leadership

References
Alderson, J. C. (2007). Judging the frequency of English words. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 383409. doi:10.1093/applin/amm024. Algarabel, S., Pitarque, A., Toms, J. M., & Mazn, J. F. (2010). Explorations of familiarity produced by words with specific combinations of letters. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(2), 265285. doi:10.1080/09541440902767818.

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms Backman, J. (1976). Some common word attributes and their relations to objective frequency counts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 20, 175186. doi:10.1080/0031383760200112. Bromme, R. (1996). Fachbegriffe [Specialist terms]. In G. Strube (Ed.), Wrterbuch der Kognitionswissenschaft (p. 184). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Bromme, R., Rambow, R., & Nckles, M. (2001). Expertise and estimating what other people know: the influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 7(4), 317330. doi:10.1037//1076-898X.7.4.317-330. Bromme, R., Jucks, R., & Runde, A. (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated expert-laypersoncommunication: An overview and insights into the field of medical advice. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communicationand how they may be overcome (pp. 89118). New York: Springer. Brown, A. S. (1991). A review of the tip-of-the-tongue experience. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 204223. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.204. Chen, N.-S., Wei, C.-W., Wu, K.-T., & Udden, L. (2009). Effect of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners reflection levels. Computers in Education, 52, 283291. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.07. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335359. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(73) 80014-3. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91142. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(14), 702718. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.1-4.702. Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: failure in the selfassessment of comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 10(6), 597602. doi:10.3758/BF03202442. Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1). Available from http://www.jtla.org. Hcker, H., & Stapf, K. H. (2004). Dorsch Psychologisches Wrterbuch [Dorsch psychological dictionary]. Gttingen: Hans Huber. Hkkinen, P., & Jrvel, S. (2006). Sharing and constructing perspectives in web-based conferencing. Computers in Education, 47, 433447. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.015. Hayes, J. R., & Bajzek, D. (2008). Understanding and reducing the knowledge effect: implications for writers. Written Communication, 25(1), 104118. doi:10.1177/0741088307311209. Hildebrandt, H. (2004). PschyrembelKlinisches Wrterbuch [Pschyrembel clinical dictionary]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hogenraad, R. L., & Garagozov, R. R. (2010). Words of swords in the Caucasus: about a leading indicator of conflicts. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 16(1), 1128. doi:10.1080/10781910903479594. Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ittzs, I. (1991). Lexical guessing in isolation and context. Journal of Reading, 34, 360366. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40032076. Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: effects of hedging on scientists and journalists credibility. Human Communication Research, 34, 347369. doi:10.1111/ j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x. Jucks, R., & Bromme, R. (2007). Choice of words in doctorpatient communication: an analysis of healthrelated internet sites. Health Communication, 21(3), 267277. doi:10.1080/10410230701307865. Jucks, R., Schulte-Lbbert, P., & Bromme, R. (2007). Supporting experts written knowledge communication though reflective prompts on the use of specialist concepts. Zeitschrift fr Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215, 237247. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215.4.237. Jucks, R., Becker, B.-M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Lexical entrainment in written discourse: is experts word use adapted to the addressee? Discourse Processes, 45, 497518. doi:10.1080/0163830802356547. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122149. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note-taking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303323. doi:10.3102/ 00028312029002303. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100(4), 609639. doi:10.1037/0033295X.100.4.609.

R. Jucks, E. Paus Koriat, A. (1994). Memorys Knowledge of its own knowledge: The accessibility account of the feeling of knowing. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 115 135). Cambridge: MIT Press. Koriat, A. (2000). The feeling of knowing: some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control. Special issue of Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 149171. doi:10.1006/ccog.2000.0433. Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Memory metaphors and the real-life/laboratory controversy: correspondence versus storehouse conceptions of memory. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 167228. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00042114. Koriat, A., & Levi-Sadot, R. (2001). The combined contributions of the cue-familiarity and accessibility heuristics to feeling of knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 3453. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.34. Krippendorf, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411433. doi:10.1093/hcr/30.3.411. MacArthur, C. A. (2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 248274). New York: Guilford Press. Mkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Hkkinen, P., Jrvel, S., & Fischer, F. (2005). Epistemic cooperation scripts in online learning environments: fostering learning by reducing uncertainty in discourse? Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 603622. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.033. McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Halstead. Mills, C. M., & Keil, F. C. (2004). Knowing the limits of ones understanding: the development of an awareness of an illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87(1), 132. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2003.09.003. Mondria, J. A., & Wit-de Boer, M. (1991). The effects of contextual richness on the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(3), 249267. Available from http://ezproxy.uno.edu. Nagy, W. (1997). On the role of context in first-and second-language vocabulary learning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6483). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nussinson, R., & Koriat, A. (2008). Correcting experience-based judgments: the perseverance of subjective experience in the face of the correction of judgment. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 159174. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9024-2. Paus, E. & Jucks, R. (2008). Do we really mean the same? The relationship between word choices and computer mediated cooperative learning. In Kirschner, P. A., Prins, F., Jonker, V., & Kanselaar, G. (Eds.). International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a learning world. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for the Learning Sciences, (2), 172180. Paus, E., & Jucks, R. (2011). Depressive or just in a bad mood? Laypersons assumptions about their knowledge of medical vocabulary. Studies in Communication Sciences, 11(1), 5171. Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language processing (pp. 167208). London: Oxford University Press. Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357383. doi:10.1080/10888430701530730. Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Vehoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189213). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169225. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0436005X. Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. W. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: how can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition and Learning, 1, 99113. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-7263-7. Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2003). A further look at the language-as-a-fixed-effect-fallacy. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57(3), 141151. doi:10.1037/h0087421. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with The-languageas-a-fixed-effect-fallacy: common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416426. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2650. Reder, L. M. (1987). Strategy selection in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 90138. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(87)90005-3. Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26, 521562. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00078-2.

What makes a word difficult? Insights into the mental representation of technical terms Schorling, J. B., & Saunders, J. T. (2000). Is sugar the same as diabetes? A community-based study among rural African-Americans. Diabetes Care, 23(3), 330334. Schwartz, B. L. (1998). Illusory tip of the tongue states. Memory, 6, 623642. doi:10.1080/741943371. Schwartz, B. L. (2006). Tip-of-the-tongue states as metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 149158. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-9583-z. Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (1992). Cue familiarity but not target retrievability enhances feeling-ofknowing judgements. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 10741083. doi:10.1037//02787393.18.5.1074. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716737. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023. Tryk, H. E. (1968). Subjective scaling of word frequency. The American Journal of Psychology, 81, 170 177. doi:10.2307/1421261. Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: a longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407423. doi:10.1002/acp.1414. Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53(3), 547 586. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00234. Wermke, M., Klosa, A., Kunkel-Razum, K., & Scholze-Stubenrecht, W. (2001). Duden Das Fremdwrterbuch [Dictionary of foreign words]. Mannheim: Brockhaus. Wermke, M., Kunzel-Razum, K., & Scholze-Stubenrecht, W. (2004). DudenDie deutsche Rechtschreibung [German-language spelling dictionary]. Mannheim: Brockhaus. Wilpert, G. (2001). Sachwrterbuch der Literatur [Dictionary of literary terms]. Stuttgart: Alfred Krner Verlag. Woll, A., Vogl, G., & Weigert, M. (2000). Wirtschaftslexikon [Dictionary of economics] (9th ed.). Mnchen: Oldenbourg.