Advertisement

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

  • Beat A. SchwendimannEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 635)

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.

Keywords

Concept map construction Case study Expert-novice comparison Talk-aloud protocol Science education Biology education 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Shavelson, R.J., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Wiley, E.W.: Windows into the mind. High. Educ. 49(4), 413–430 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 3.
    Novak, J.D., Gowin, D.B.: Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halford, G.S.: Children’s Understanding: The Development of Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Australia Hillsdale (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 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 PhenomenonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parnafes, O., diSessa, A.A.: Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn. 9(3), 251–280 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  10. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levine, R.: Cognitive Lab Report (Report Prepared for the National Assessment Governing Board). American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 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. 13.
    Baxter, G.P., Glaser, R.: Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educ. Measur.: Issues Pract. 17(3), 37–45 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Royer, R., Royer, J.: Comparing hand drawn and computer generated concept mapping. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach. 23(1), 67–81 (2004)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Inspiration (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wisdom Soft: AutoScreenRecorder 2.0. [Computer Software] (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 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. 19.
    Ariew, A.: Ernst Mayr’s ‘Ultimate/Proximate’ distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biol. Philos. 18(4), 553–565 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kinchin, I.M.: Concept mapping in biology. J. Biol. Educ. 34(2), 61–68 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations