Research in Science Education

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 233–245 | Cite as

Probing personal knowledge: The use of a computer-based tool to help preservice teachers map subject matter knowledge

  • Brian Ferry


This paper reports on the use of a HyperCardTM-based tool to create and modify concept maps about science related subject matter. The tool was trialed with seventy-one preservice teachers who were planning to teach a science topic to a primary school class. Data gathered from interviews, journals and analysis of concept maps indicated that the concept mapping tool was easy to use because it generated little cognitive load and quickly became transparent to the users. This allowed preservice teachers to focus their attention upon the construction of their maps and to organise their cognitive frameworks into more powerful integrated patterns. It was also found that the process of concept map construction may enhance preservice teacher thinking about effective teaching.


Primary School Subject Matter Preservice Teacher Cognitive Load Effective Teaching 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armbruster, B. B. (1979).An investigation of the effectiveness of “mapping text” as a studying strategy for middle school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D. P. (1968).Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  3. Beyerbach, B. A. & Smith, J. M. (1990). Using a computerized concept mapping program to assess preservice teachers' thinking about effective teaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 961–971.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, J. H. (1991). Using visual organizers to focus on thinking.Journal of Reading, 34(7), 526–534.Google Scholar
  5. Fisher, K. M., Faletti, J., Patterson, H., Thornton, R., Lipson, J., & Spring, C. (1990). Computer-based concept mapping-SemNet software: A tool for describing knowledge networks.Journal of College Science and Technology, 19, 347–352.Google Scholar
  6. Goetz, E. T. & Armbruster, B. B. (1980). Psychological correlates of text structure. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.),Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Harlen, W. (1992).The teaching of science; Studies in primary science. London: David Fulton.Google Scholar
  8. Harlen, W., Macro, C., Schilling, M., Malvern, D., & Reed, K. (1990).Progress in primary science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Haywood, J., & Norman, P. (1988). Problems of educational innovation: The primary teacher's response to the microcomputer.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 4(1), 34–43.Google Scholar
  10. Heimlich, J. E., & Pittelman, S. D. (1986).Semantic mapping: Classroom applications. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  11. Holley, C. D., & Dansereau, D. F. (1984).Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Howell, D. C., (1992).Statistical methods in psychology (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jegede, O. J., Alaiyemola, F. F., & Okebukola, P. A. O. (1990). The effect of concept mapping on students' anxiety and achievement in biology.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 950–960.Google Scholar
  14. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). What are cognitive tools? In M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes, (Eds.),Cognitive tools for learning computers and system sciences (Vol. 81). Berlin: Springer-Verland in cooperation with NATO.Google Scholar
  15. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1995).Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. New York: Scholastic Press in collaboration with the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  16. Langfield-Smith, K. (1992). Exploring the need for a shared cognitive map.Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 349–369.Google Scholar
  17. Lederman, N. G., & Latz, M. S. (1995). Knowledge structures in the preservice teacher: Sources, development, interactions, and relationships to teaching.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  18. Lloyd, C. V. (1990). The elaboration of concepts in three biology textbooks: Facilitating student learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1019–1032.Google Scholar
  19. Margulies, N. (1991).Mapping inner space: Learning and teaching mind mapping. Tuscon, AZ: Zephyr Press.Google Scholar
  20. Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984).Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ramsden, P. (1992).Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. Gabel (Ed.),Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Wandersee, J. H. (1990). Concept mapping and the cartography of cognition.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 923–936.Google Scholar
  24. West, L. H., & Pines, A. L. (1985).Cognitive structure and conceptual change, Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992).Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations