The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaboratively-constructed computer-based concept maps

The researchers investigated the comparative effects of individually-constructed and collaboratively-constructed computer-based concept mapping on middle school science concept learning. One hundred and sixty one students completed the entire study. Using prior science performance scores to assure equivalence of student achievement across groups, students were assigned to three groups: a self-selected study strategy group, an individual-concept mapping group, and a collaborative pairs - concept mapping group. Collaboratively and individually-constructing computer-based concept maps had equally positive effects on seventh grade middle school science concept learning as measured on a comprehension test. However, the students who collaboratively constructed concept maps created significantly higher quality concept maps than those who individually constructed concept maps indicating deeper conceptual understanding.

[1]  D. Jonassen,et al.  Concept mapping as cognitive learning and assessment tools , 1997 .

[2]  Leandro Madrazo,et al.  Collaborative Concept Mapping in a Web-Based Learning Environment: A Pedagogic Experience in Architectural Education. , 2002 .

[3]  Sharan B. Merriam,et al.  Qualitative research and case study applications in education , 1998 .

[4]  Lauren Cifuentes,et al.  Student-Generated Visualization as a Study Strategy for Science Concept Learning , 2006, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[5]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning , 1999 .

[6]  Brian P. Coppola,et al.  Promoting Student Learning in a Large General Chemistry Course. , 2004 .

[7]  Lauren Cifuentes,et al.  Visualization for Middle School Students’ Engagement in Science Learning , 2004 .

[8]  Lauren Cifuentes,et al.  Using Computers to Individually-generate vs. Collaboratively-generate Concept Maps , 2007, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[9]  Regina Royer,et al.  Comparing Hand Drawn and Computer Generated Concept Mapping , 2004 .

[10]  Lauren Cifuentes,et al.  Visualization for Construction of Meaning during Study Time. , 2001 .

[11]  Helen C. Barrett.  Strategic Questions: What To Consider When Planning for Electronic Portfolios. , 1998 .

[12]  Lynne Anderson-Inman,et al.  Computer-Based Concept Mapping: Active Studying for Active Learners. , 1993 .

[13]  F. Fischer,et al.  Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools , 2002 .

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

[15]  C. Teddlie,et al.  SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research , 2010 .

[16]  David S. Brown.  High School Biology: A Group Approach to Concept Mapping , 2003 .

[17]  R. Emerson,et al.  Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes , 1995 .

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

[19]  Lev Vygotsky.  Mind in society , 1978 .

[20]  B. Daley.  Facilitating Learning with Adult Students Through Concept Mapping , 2002 .

[21]  Noreen M. Webb,et al.  Assessing students in small collaborative groups , 1997 .

[22]  Olugbemiro J. Jegede,et al.  Cognitive preference and learning mode as determinants of meaningful learning through concept mapping , 1988 .

[23]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping: new perspectives for the teacher , 1994 .

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

[25]  D. Jonassen.  Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design Model , 1994 .

[26]  G. Erkens,et al.  Collaborative Concept Mapping: Provoking and Supporting Meaningful Discourse , 2002 .

[27]  Petrus A.M. Kommers,et al.  Concept Mapping as a Medium of Shared Cognition in Computer-Supported Collaborative Problem Solving , 2002 .

[28]  John Woodward.  Book Review: Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking , 2000 .