1: 1 Learning Technology to Support Collaborative Concept Mapping: A Case Study of Social Studies Lesson in Elementary School

This paper reports a study to investigate the effects of collaborative concept mapping of a 1:1 (one-device-per-student) digital learning environment, comparing with a1:m (one-device-to-many-students) environment in terms of three aspects: students' overall learning gains, knowledge retention and quality of the concept maps. Participants were 6th-grade students from an elementary school. Guided by the methodology of quasi-experimental research, we adopted Group Scribbles (GS) 1.0 in our empirical study. We evaluated these two settings in the Social Studies course, assessing the quality of the collaboratively constructed concept maps and students' learning attitudes. The results indicated that although little difference in the concept map scores between students engaged in the two settings was found, the standard deviations of the 1:1 groups had been greater than those of the 1:m groups. According to our analysis, the reason of the greater differences in the performances among individual 1:1 group members would be that the levels of group bonding had a greater influence on the effectiveness of their collaborations. Due to space limitations, the interviews and questionnaires data will not present in this paper.

[1]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective , 2006 .

[2]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  The Social Construction of Scientific Concepts or the Concept Map as Device and Tool Thinking in High Conscription for Social School Science , 1992 .

[3]  Wolff‐Michael Roth.  Student Views of Collaborative Concept Mapping: An Emancipatory Research Project. , 1994 .

[4]  Heinz Ulrich Hoppe,et al.  One-to-One Technology-Enhanced Learning: an Opportunity for Global Research Collaboration , 2006, Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn..

[5]  Yannis A. Dimitriadis,et al.  Ink, Improvisation, and Interactive Engagement: Learning with Tablets , 2007, Computer.

[6]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  The Social Construction of Scientific Concepts or the Concept Map as Conscription Device and Tool for Social Thinking in High School Science. , 1992 .

[7]  Katherine M. Edmondson,et al.  Chapter 2 – Assessing science understanding through concept maps , 2005 .

[8]  Douglas R. Barnes,et al.  Communication and learning in small groups , 1977 .

[9]  Chee-Kit Looi,et al.  Group Scribbles to Support Knowledge Building in Jigsaw Method , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[10]  E. Plotnick.  Concept Mapping: A Graphical System for Understanding the Relationship between Concepts. ERIC Digest. , 1997 .

[11]  H. Mintrop,et al.  Fostering constructivist communities of learners in the amalgamated multi‐discipline of social studies , 2004 .

[12]  J. Mintzes,et al.  Assessing science understanding : a human constructivist view , 2005 .

[13]  Joseph D. Novak,et al.  Learning How to Learn , 1984 .

[14]  Paul Cooper,et al.  Effective teaching and learning : teachers' and students' perspectives , 1996 .

[15]  A. King.  Enhancing Peer Interaction and Learning in the Classroom Through Reciprocal Questioning , 1990 .

[16]  Joseph D. Novak,et al.  Learning creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools , 1998 .

[17]  R. F. Kempa,et al.  Learning from group work in science , 1995 .

[18]  Miguel Nussbaum,et al.  Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[19]  Jeremy Roschelle,et al.  Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..