Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critiquing as an Alternative to Generating Concept Maps to Support Knowledge Integration Processes

  • 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:

Abstract

As constructing concept maps from scratch can be time consuming, this study explores critiquing given concept maps with deliberate errors as an alternative. A form of concept map that distinguishes between different levels, called Knowledge Integration Map (KIM), was used as an assessment and embedded learning tool. The technology-enhanced biology unit was implemented in four high school science classes (n = 93). Student dyads in each class were randomly assigned to the KIM generation (n = 41) or critique (n = 52) task. Dyads in the generation group created their own connections from a given list of concepts, while dyads in the critique group received a concept map that included commonly found errors. KIMs in both groups consisted of the same concepts. Findings indicate that generating or critiquing KIMs can facilitate the construction of cross-level connections. Furthermore, results suggest that critiquing concept maps might be a more time-efficient alternative to generating concept maps from scratch.

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. Alters, B.J., Nelson, C.E.: Perspective: teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution 56(10), 1891–1901 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. Mayr, E.: Towards a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, p. 564. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hmelo, C.E., Holton, D.L., Kolodner, J.L.: Designing to learn about complex systems. J. Learn. Sci. 9(3), 247–298 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Penner, D.E.: Explaining systems: investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 37(8), 784–806 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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. 4 (2015). doi:10.1002/tea.21244

    Google Scholar 

  7. Linn, M.C., Davis, E.A., Eylon, B.-S.: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In: Linn, M.C., Davis, E.A., Bell, P. (eds.) Internet Environments for Science Education, pp. 47–72. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  8. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G.: Using representational tools to support historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning. Technol. Pedag. Educ. 14(1), 25–41 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Osborne, R.J., Wittrock, M.C.: Learning science: a generative process. Sci. Educ. 67(4), 489–508 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chi, M.T.H.: Self-explaining: the dual processes of generating inference and repairing mental models. In: Advances in Instructional Psychology: Educational Design and Cognitive Science, vol. 5, pp. 161–238. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L.: Modeling natural variation through distribution. Am. Educ. Res. J. 41(3), 635–679 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shen, J.: Nurturing students’ critical knowledge using technology-enhanced scaffolding strategies in science education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 19(1), 1–12 (2010). doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9183-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Clark, D.B., Sampson, V.: Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45(3), 293–321 (2008). doi:10.1002/tea.20216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cuthbert, A., Slotta, J.: Fostering lifelong learning skills on the world wide web: critiquing, questioning and searching for evidence. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27(7), 821–844 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Guindon, R.: Designing the design process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Hum. Comput. Interact. 5(2), 305–344 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwendimann, B.A.: Scaffolding an integrated understanding of biology through dynamic visualizations and critique-focused concept mapping. In: Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hoadley, C., Kirby, J.: Socially relevant representations in interfaces for learning. In: Kafai, Y.B., Sandoval, W.A., Enyedy, N., Nixon, A.S., Herrera, F. (eds.) Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, pp. 262–269. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Linn, M.C., Hsi, S.: Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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, pp. 17–40. Springer, New York (2014). https://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/learning+%26+instruction/book/978-1-4614-3177-0

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Berland, L.K., Reiser, B.J.: Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Sci. Educ. 93(1), 26–55 (2009). doi:10.1002/sce.20286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cañas, A.J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Gómez, G., Eskridge, T., Arroyo, M. Carvajal, R.: CmapTools: a knowledge modeling and sharing environment. In: Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain, Editorial Universidad Pública de Navarra (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tsui, C., Treagust, D.: Evaluating secondary students’ scientific reasoning in genetics using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32(8), 1073–1098 (2010). http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/09500690902951429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu, O.L., Lee, H.S., Linn, M.C.: Multifaceted assessment of inquiry-based science learning. Educ. Assess. 15(2), 69–86 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Linn, M.C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., Chiu, J.L.: Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science 313(5790), 1049–1050 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goel, A., Chandrasekaran, B.: Functional representation of designs and redesign problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 1388–1394 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Goel, A.K., Rugaber, S., Vattam, S.: Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: the structure, behavior, and function modeling language. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 23, 23 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu, L., Hmelo-Silver, C.E.: Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 1023–1040 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., Cañas, A.J.: Concept maps: experiments on dynamic thinking. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44(3), 448–465 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D., Pollock, J.E.: Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. ASCD, Alexandria (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Santhanam, E., Leach, C., Dawson, C.: Concept mapping: how should it be introduced, and is there evidence for long term benefit? High. Educ. 35(3), 317–328 (1998)

    Article  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). Critiquing as an Alternative to Generating Concept Maps to Support Knowledge Integration Processes. 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_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45501-3_4

  • 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