Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing Expert and Novice Concept Map Construction Through a Talk-Aloud Protocol

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Innovating with Concept Mapping (CMC 2016)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 635))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1589 Accesses

Abstract

Concept map analysis usually focuses only on the final product. This case study used a talk aloud protocol to study the concept map construction processes of novices and experts. Three biology experts and three novices (9th/10th grade high school students) constructed a concept map from a given list of concepts. Findings suggest that final concept maps of high performing students cannot be distinguished from expert-generated maps. However, analysis of oral elaborations during the construction process revealed that experts often used the same link labels as novices but associated more complex knowledge with the label. Some final propositions would be considered incorrect without an oral explanation. Findings suggest extending concept map evaluation by complementing the final product with an analysis of intermediate stages and accompanying elaborations. Additionally, this study highlights that each expert created a different map and that there is no single best expert map.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Shavelson, R.J., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Wiley, E.W.: Windows into the mind. High. Educ. 49(4), 413–430 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bransford, J., Brown, A.L., Crocking, R.R.: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Expanded edn. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Novak, J.D., Gowin, D.B.: Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Halford, G.S.: Children’s Understanding: The Development of Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Australia Hillsdale (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P., Glaser, R.: Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cogn. Sci. 5, 121–151 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., Novak, J.D.: Meaningful learning in science: the human constructivist perspective. In: Handbook of Academic Learning: Construction of Knowledge. The Educational Psychology Series, pp. 405–447. Department of Biological Science, U North Carolina, Wilmington. Academic Press, US San Diego (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., Stein, M.K.: Functions, graphs, and graphing: tasks, learning, and teaching. Rev. Educ. Res. 60(1), 1–63 (1990). Special Issue: Toward a Unified Approach to Learning as a Multisource Phenomenon

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Parnafes, O., diSessa, A.A.: Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn. 9(3), 251–280 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Schultz, S.E., Li, M., Shavelson, R.J.: Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38(2), 260–278 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Levine, R.: Cognitive Lab Report (Report Prepared for the National Assessment Governing Board). American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ayala, C.C., Yin, Y., Shavelson, R.J., Vanides, J.: Investigating the cognitive validity of science performance assessment with think alouds: technical aspects. In: American Educational Researcher Association, New Orleans, LA (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Baxter, G.P., Glaser, R.: Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educ. Measur.: Issues Pract. 17(3), 37–45 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schwendimann, B.A., Linn, M.C.: Comparing two forms of concept map critique activities to facilitate knowledge integration processes in evolution education. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 53, 70–94 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Royer, R., Royer, J.: Comparing hand drawn and computer generated concept mapping. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach. 23(1), 67–81 (2004)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Inspiration (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wisdom Soft: AutoScreenRecorder 2.0. [Computer Software] (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Maton, K., Doran, Y.J.: Semantic Density: A Translation Device for Revealing Complexity of Knowledge Practices in Discourse, Part 1 - Wording, Onomázein, August 2016 (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ariew, A.: Ernst Mayr’s ‘Ultimate/Proximate’ distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biol. Philos. 18(4), 553–565 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Iverson, H., Yin, Y.: Towards the use of concept maps in large-scale assessments: exploring the efficiency of two scoring methods. In: NARST Conference (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cañas, A.J., Novak, J.D., Reiska, P.: Freedom vs. restriction of content and structure during concept mapping–possibilities and limitations for construction and assessment. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Concept Mapping, pp. 247–257 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Ayala, C.C., Shavelson, R.J.: Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 42(2), 166–184 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kinchin, I.M.: Concept mapping in biology. J. Biol. Educ. 34(2), 61–68 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Acton, W.H., Johnson, P.J., Goldsmith, T.E.: Structural knowledge assessment - comparison of referent structures. J. Educ. Psychol. 86(2), 303–311 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Marathe, S., Liu, L.: Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: expert–novice understanding of complex systems. J. Learn. Sci. 16(3), 307–331 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwendimann, B.A.: Making sense of knowledge integration maps. In: Ifenthaler, D., Hanewald, R. (eds.) Digital Knowledge Maps in Education: Technology Enhanced Support for Teachers and Learners. Springer, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research for this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation grant DRL-0334199 (“The Educational Accelerator: Technology Enhanced Learning in Science”). I thank my advisor Prof. Marcia C. Linn for her mentorship during the research for this paper and Prof. Pierre Dillenbourg for his support leading to the publication of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland

    Beat A. Schwendimann

Authors
  1. Beat A. Schwendimann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beat A. Schwendimann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst. for Human and Machine Cognition , Pensacola, Florida, USA

    Alberto Cañas

  2. Tallinn University , Tallinn, Estonia

    Priit Reiska

  3. Inst. for Human and Machine Cognition , Pensacola, Florida, USA

    Joseph Novak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Schwendimann, B.A. (2016). Comparing Expert and Novice Concept Map Construction Through a Talk-Aloud Protocol. In: Cañas, A., Reiska, P., Novak, J. (eds) Innovating with Concept Mapping. CMC 2016. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 635. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45501-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45501-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45500-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45501-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation