Comparing Expert and Novice Concept Map Construction Through a Talk-Aloud Protocol
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.
KeywordsConcept map construction Case study Expert-novice comparison Talk-aloud protocol Science education Biology education
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.
- 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
- 4.Halford, G.S.: Children’s Understanding: The Development of Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Australia Hillsdale (1993)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
- 9.Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)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
- 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
- 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
- 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