Critiquing as an Alternative to Generating Concept Maps to Support Knowledge Integration Processes
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.
KeywordsConcept map Assessment Concept map generation Concept map critique Collaboration Comparison study Knowledge integration map 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.
- 3.Mayr, E.: Towards a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, p. 564. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1988)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
- 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
- 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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