Abstract
Current research points to Personal Meaning Mapping (PMM) as a method useful in investigating students’ prior and current science knowledge. However, studies investigating PMM as a method for exploring specific knowledge dimensions are lacking. Ensuring that students are able to access specific knowledge dimensions is important, especially in science teaching outside the classroom, where “hands-on” approaches and experiments are often part of teaching and require procedural knowledge, among other things. Therefore, this study investigates PMM as a method for exploring specific knowledge dimensions in formal science education integrating teaching outside the classroom. We applied a case study design involving two schools and four sixth-grade classes. Data were collected from six students in each class who constructed personal meaning maps and were interviewed immediately after natural science and technology lessons in the classroom, and again after experiencing teaching outside the classroom. Maps and interviews were analysed drawing on Bloom’s revised taxonomy of educational objectives. Our findings show that PMM is highly useful for identifying and activating factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge and the subcategories of knowledge within these dimensions as well as metacognitive self-knowledge. However, as a method for identifying and activating procedural knowledge, it seems limited. Our analysis thus provides a novel understanding of the rigor of PMM for analysing students’ science knowledge, which is of relevance for educators and researchers within science education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375–404.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Annevirta, T., & Vauras, M. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in primary grads: A longitudinal study. Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(2), 257–282.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bowker, R., & Jasper, A. (2007). Don’t forget your leech socks’! Children’s learning during an Eden Education Officer’s workshop. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(1), 135–150.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–1388.
Bueddefeld, J. N. H., & Van Winkle, C. M. (2016). The role of post-visit action resources in facilitating meaningful free-choice learning after a zoo visit. Environmental Education Research. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1198952.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.
Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190.
Falk, J. H. (2003). Personal meaning mapping. In G. Caban, C. Scott, J. H. Falk, & L. Dierking (Eds.), Museums and creativity: A study into the role of museums in design education. Sydney: Powerhouse Publishing.
Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors’ agendas on museum learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 41(2), 107–120.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
García-Rodicio, H., & Sánchez, E. (2014). Does the detection of misunderstanding lead to its revision? Metacognition and Learning, 9(9), 265–286.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Judson, E. (2012). Learning about bones at a science museum: Examining the alternate hypotheses of ceiling effect and prior knowledge. Instructional Science, 40, 957–973.
Kim, M., & Dopico, E. (2016). Science education through informal education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(2), 439–445.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Larsson, S. (2009). A pluralist view of generalization in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 32(1), 25–38.
Lelliott, A. D. (2008). Data collection outside and inside the classroom: Personal meaning mapping. http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/4482/Lelliott%20paper%20sent%20pdf.txt?sequence=1.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226–232.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.
Randler, C., Kummer, B., & Wilhelm, C. (2012). Adolescent learning in the zoo: Embedding a non-formal learning environment to teach formal aspects of vertebrate biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 384–391.
Rennie, L., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 112–120.
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M., Sanders, K., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. London: National Foundation for Educational Research and King’s College London. http://www.fieldstudiescouncil.org/documents/general/NFER/A_review_of_research_on_outdoor_learning.pdf.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: SAGE.
Stavrova, O., & Urhahne, D. (2010). Modification of a school programme in the Deutsches Museum to enhance students’ attitudes and understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2291–2310.
Tran, N. A. (2011). The relationship between students’ connections to out-of-school experiences and factors associated with science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1625–1651.
Vanides, J., Yin, Y., Tomita, M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Araceli, M. (2005). Using concept maps in the science classroom. Science Scope, 28(8), 27–31.
Warwick, P., & Siraj-Blatchford, J. (2006). Using data comparison and interpretation to develop procedural understandings in the primary classroom: Case study evidence from action research. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 443–467.
Wehry, S., Monroe-Ossi, H., Cobb, S., & Fountain, C. (2012). Concept mapping strategies: Content, tools, and assessment for human geography. Journal of Geography, 111(3), 83–92.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study as a serious research strategy. Science Communication, 3(1), 97–114.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by funding from the Danish Ph.D. Council of Educational Research [grant number 14732].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hartmeyer, R., Bølling, M. & Bentsen, P. Approaching multidimensional forms of knowledge through Personal Meaning Mapping in science integrating teaching outside the classroom. Instr Sci 45, 737–750 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9423-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9423-3