Advertisement

Student Views of Concept Mapping Use in Introductory Tertiary Biology Classes

  • Cathy Buntting
  • Richard Kevin CollEmail author
  • Alison Campbell
Article

Abstract

Introductory tertiary level science classes (i.e., at the university or post-compulsory school level) including those for biology face increasing diversity in intake. Previous research has indicated university level teachers assume a certain level of prior knowledge which may or may not be possessed by such students. This report focuses on the use of concept mapping in introductory biology tutorial classes. The research findings suggest that the students found the use of concept mapping enjoyable and that it can enhance meaningful learning for topics that require students to link concepts.

Key Words

concept mapping introductory biology prior knowledge tertiary level 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamczyk, P., Willison, M. & Williams, D. (1994). Concept mapping: A multi-level and multi-purpose tool. School Science Review, 76(275), 116–124.Google Scholar
  2. Arnaudin, M.W., Mintzes, J.J., Dunn, C.S. & Shafer, T.S. (1984). Concept mapping in college science teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 14(2), 117–121.Google Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Hart, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Barenholz, H. & Tamir, P. (1992). A comprehensive use of concept mapping in design instruction and assessment. Research in Science and Technological Education, 10(1), 37–52.Google Scholar
  5. Black, P. (1998). Assessment by teachers and the improvement of students’ learning. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 811–822). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Brandt, L., Elen, J., Hellemans, J., Heerman, L., Couwenberg, I., Volckaert, L. & Morisse, H. (2001). The impact of concept mapping and visualization on the learning of secondary school chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1303–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brophy, J. (2002). Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints, Vol. 9. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  8. Buntting, C., Coll, R.K. & Campbell, A. (2004). Introductory biology courses at university: Gaps between lecturer assumptions and student reality. In D.B. Zandvliet (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (pp. 1–19). Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  9. Coll, R.K. (1997). Teaching industrial and applied chemistry at the University of Waikato: Using the workplace as the classroom. Education Today, 47(4), 50–53.Google Scholar
  10. Coll, R.K. (2000). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding: A cross-age study. EdD thesis, Curtin University of Technology (available from http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020513.142708/).
  11. Coll, R.K. (in press). The role of models, mental models and analogy in chemistry and teaching. In P. Aubusson, A. Harrison & S.M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Coll, R.K., France & Taylor (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dalgety, J., Coll, R.K. & Jones, A. (2003). The development of the Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 649–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawson, C. (1993). Chemistry in concept. Education in Chemistry, 30(May), 73–75.Google Scholar
  15. Dearing, R. (1997). Report of the inquiry into higher education. London: HSMO.Google Scholar
  16. Douvdevany, O., Dreyfus, A. & Jungwirth, E. (1997). Diagnostic instruments for determining junior high school science teachers’ understanding of functional relationships within the living cell. International Journal of Science Education, 19(5), 593–606.Google Scholar
  17. Erickson, G.L. & Meyer, K. (1998). Performance assessment tasks in science: What are they measuring? In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 845–865). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Fensham, P.J. (1980). Constraint and autonomy in Australian secondary science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12, 186–206.Google Scholar
  19. Fensham, P.J. (1992). Science education at first degree level. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 505–514.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, K.M., Wandersee, J.H. & Moody, D.E. (2000). Mapping biology knowledge. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Garnett, P.J., Garnett, P.J. & Hackling, M.W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research, and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.Google Scholar
  22. Gates, S.M., Augistine, C.H., Benjamin, R., Bikson, T.K., Kaganoff, T., Levy, D.G., Moini, J.S. & Zimmer, R.W. (2002). Ensuring quality and productivity in higher education: An analysis of assessment practices. Retrieved 18 July, 2005 from ERIC Digest, ED468727 2002-00-00.Google Scholar
  23. Gitomer, D.H. & Duschl, R.A. (1998). Emerging issues and practices in science assessment. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 791–810). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Good, T. & Brophy, J. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Good, R.G., Wandersee, J.H., & St. Julien, J. (1993). Cautionary notes on the appeal of the new ‘ism’ (constructivism) in science education. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp.71–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 420–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heinze-Fry, J.A. & Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74, 461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horton, P.B., McConney, A.A., Gallo, M., Woods, A.L., Senn, G.J. & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77(1), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huai, H. (1997). Concept mapping in learning biology: Theoretical review on cognitive learning styles. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3/4), 325–340.Google Scholar
  32. Kinchin, I.M. (2000). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34(2), 61–68.Google Scholar
  33. Kings, C.B. (1990). Development in science and technology education: Some cross-cultural perspectives. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(3), 39–45.Google Scholar
  34. Laugksch, R. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(10), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laws, P.M. (1996). Undergraduate science education: A review of research. Studies in Science Education, 28, 1–85.Google Scholar
  36. Lomask, M.S., Baron, J.B. & Greig, J. (1998). Large-scale science performance assessment in Connecticut: Challenges and resolutions. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 823–844). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Massey University (2004). 10 year plan. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University. Retrieved 26 February 2004 from http://sfp.massey.ac.nz/Library/ 10%20Year%20Plan%20-word%20document.doc
  38. Merriam, S.B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Millar, R. (1989). Constructive criticisms. International Journal of Science Education, 11(special issue), 587–596.Google Scholar
  40. Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.Google Scholar
  41. Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Concept mapping for meaningful learning. In J.D. Novak & D.B. Gowin (Eds.) Learning how to learn (pp. 15–54). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. O’Donovan, B., Price, M. & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Okebukola, P.A. (1992). Can good concept mappers be good problem solvers in science? Educational Psychology, 12(2), 113–129.Google Scholar
  44. Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (1997). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education (4th ed.). Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.Google Scholar
  46. Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education (5th ed.). Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.Google Scholar
  47. Roth, W.-M. (1994). Student views of collaborative concept mapping: An emancipatory research project. Science Education, 78(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sade, D. & Coll, R.K. (2003). Technology and technology education: Views of some Solomon Island primary teachers and curriculum development officers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmid, R.F. & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 78–85.Google Scholar
  50. Shulman, L.S. (1997). Disciplines of inquiry in education: A new overview. In R.M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (2nd ed.), (pp. 3–69). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  51. Sizmur, S. & Osbourne, J. (1997). Learning processes and collaborative concept mapping. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1117–1135.Google Scholar
  52. Slotte, V. & Lonka, K. (1999). Spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith, K.M. & Dwyer, F.M. (1995). The effect of concept mapping strategies in facilitating student achievement. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
  54. Taber, K.S. (1995). Development of student understanding: A case study of stability and lability in cognitive structure. Research in Science and Technological Education, 13(1), 89–99.Google Scholar
  55. Taber, K.S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597–608.Google Scholar
  56. Tamir, P. (1998). Assessment and evaluation in science education: Opportunities to lean and outcomes. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 761–789). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  57. Tobin, K. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Trochim, W.M. (1999). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.Google Scholar
  59. University of Waikato (n.d.). Statement of Objectives & Profile 2003–2005. Retrieved 2 February 2003, from http://www.waikato.ac.nz/profile/.
  60. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wandersee, J.H. & Fisher, K.M. (2000). Knowing biology. In K.M. Fisher, J.H. Wandersee & D.E. Moody, Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 39–54). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  62. Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J. & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  63. Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  65. Willson, M. & Williams, D. (1996). Trainee teachers’ misunderstandings in chemistry: Diagnosis and evaluation using concept mapping. School Science Review, 770(280), 107–113.Google Scholar
  66. Yarden, H., Marbach-Ad, G. & Gersoni, J.M. (2004). Using the Concept Map Technique in Teaching Introductory Cell Biology to College Freshman. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cathy Buntting
    • 1
  • Richard Kevin Coll
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alison Campbell
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Science & Technology Education ResearchUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations