Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Incorporating Concept Mapping in Project-Based Learning: Lessons from Watershed Investigations

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept map tool set forth by Novak and colleagues is underutilized in education. A meta-analysis has encouraged teachers to make extensive use of concept mapping, and researchers have advocated computer-based concept mapping applications that exploit hyperlink technology. Through an NSF sponsored geosciences education grant, middle and secondary science teachers participated in professional development to apply computer-based concept mapping in project-based learning (PBL) units that investigated local watersheds. Participants attended a summer institute, engaged in a summer through spring online learning academy, and presented PBL units at a subsequent fall science teachers’ convention. The majority of 17 teachers who attended the summer institute had previously used the concept mapping strategy with students and rated it highly. Of the 12 teachers who continued beyond summer, applications of concept mapping ranged from collaborative planning of PBL projects to building students’ vocabulary to students producing maps related to the PBL driving question. Barriers to the adoption and use of concept mapping included technology access at the schools, lack of time for teachers to advance their technology skills, lack of student motivation to choose to learn, and student difficulty with linking terms. In addition to mitigating the aforementioned barriers, projects targeting teachers’ use of technology tools may enhance adoption by recruiting teachers as partners from schools as well as a small number that already are proficient in the targeted technology and emphasizing the utility of the concept map as a planning tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baitz I (2009) Concept mapping in the online learning environment: a proven learning tool is transformed in a new environment. Int J Learn 16:286–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown J, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18:32–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell L, Williams-Rossi D (2012) The way they want to learn. Sci Teacher 79(1):52–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Cañas A, Hill G, Lott J (2003) Support for constructing knowledge models in CmapTools (Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 93-02). Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Pensicola, http://cmap.ihmc.us/Documentation/WhitePapers.php. Accessed 12 November 2011

  • Cassata A, French L (2006) Using concept mapping to facilitate metacognitive control in preschool children. In: Cañas A, Novak J (eds) Concept maps: theory, methodology, technology. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on concept mapping, San José, Costa Rica, http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2006Papers/cmc2006-p144.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2011

  • CmapTools Documentation (n.d.) Description of various collaboration features of CmapTools, http://cmap.ihmc.us/Documentation. Accessed 12 November 2011

  • Colley K (2008) Project-based science instruction: a primer. The Sci Teacher 75(8):33–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebenezer J, Kaya O, Ebenezer D (2011) Engaging students in environmental research projects: perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. J Res Sci Teach 48:94–116. doi:10.1002/tea.20387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fallik O, Eylon BS, Rosenfeld S (2008) Motivating teachers to enact free-choice project-based learning in science and technology (PBLSAT): effects of a professional development model. J Sci Teacher Educ 19:565–591. doi:10.1007/s10972-008-9113-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glesne C (1999) Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. Addison Wesley Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J, Mishra P, Koehler M (2009) Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: curriculum-based technology integration reframed. J Res Technol Educ 41:393–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewson P (2007) Teacher professional development in science. In: Abell S, Lederman N (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Routledge, New York, pp 1179–1203

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung D, Looi C, Koh T (2004). Situated cognition and communities of practice: first-person “lived experiences” vs. third-person perspectives. Educ Technol Soc 7(4):193–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson CC (2006) Effective professional development and change in practice: barriers science teachers encounter and implication for reform. Sch Sci Math 106:150–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen D (2000) Computers as mindtools for schools. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly J, Stetson R (2010) Making a difference: using concept maps in professional development. Southeastern Teacher Educ J 3(1):5–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopcha TJ (2010) A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educ Tech Res Dev 58:175–190. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9095-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang L, Ebenezer J, Yost D (2010) Characteristics of preservice teachers’ online discourse: the study of local streams. J Sci Educ Technol 19:69–79. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9179-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markham T (with Larmer J, Ravitz J) (2006). Project based learning: a guide to standards-focused project based learning for middle and high school teachers, 2nd edn. Buck Institute for Education, Novato

  • McLellan H (1994) Situated learning: continuing the conversation. Educ Technol 34(8):7–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Micheals S, Shouse A, Schweingruber H (2007) Ready, set, science!. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2006) Learning to think spatially. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit JC, Adesope OO (2006) Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 76:413–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak JD (2003) The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learning. Cell Biol Educ 2:122–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak JD (2010) Learning, creating, and using knowledge, 2nd edn. Routlege, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak JD, Cañas AJ (2008) The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, http://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.htm. Accessed 12 November 2011

  • Patton M (2002) Qualitative evaluation and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Rye JA (2001) Enhancing teachers’ use of technology through professional development on electronic concept mapping. J Sci Educ Technol 10:223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science Educators Troubled by State of Science Education (2012) NSTA reports 23(5):9

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski M, Morrell P (2009) Situated cognition and technology. Int J Learn 15(12):55–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Tergan SO, Gräber W, Neumann A (2006) Mapping and managing knowledge and information in resource-based learning. Innovat Educ Teach Int 43:327–336. doi:10.1080/14703290600973737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ueckert CW, Gess-Newsome J (2008) Active learning strategies: three activities to increase student involvement in learning. Sci Teacher 75(10):48–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Weizman A, Shwartz Y, Fortus D (2008) The driving question board. Sci Teacher 75(9):33–37

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding support was provided by the National Science Foundation (GEO 0807249). The authors are grateful to Mr. Todd Ensign and Mr. Stefan Smolski for their contributions to this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Rye.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rye, J., Landenberger, R. & Warner, T.A. Incorporating Concept Mapping in Project-Based Learning: Lessons from Watershed Investigations. J Sci Educ Technol 22, 379–392 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9400-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9400-1

Keywords

Navigation