Critiquing as an Alternative to Generating Concept Maps to Support Knowledge Integration Processes

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


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.


Concept 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.


  1. 1.
    Alters, B.J., Nelson, C.E.: Perspective: teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution 56(10), 1891–1901 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    Mayr, E.: Towards a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, p. 564. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hmelo, C.E., Holton, D.L., Kolodner, J.L.: Designing to learn about complex systems. J. Learn. Sci. 9(3), 247–298 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Penner, D.E.: Explaining systems: investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 37(8), 784–806 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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. 4 (2015). doi: 10.1002/tea.21244 Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G.: Using representational tools to support historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning. Technol. Pedag. Educ. 14(1), 25–41 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Osborne, R.J., Wittrock, M.C.: Learning science: a generative process. Sci. Educ. 67(4), 489–508 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Lehrer, R., Schauble, L.: Modeling natural variation through distribution. Am. Educ. Res. J. 41(3), 635–679 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shen, J.: Nurturing students’ critical knowledge using technology-enhanced scaffolding strategies in science education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 19(1), 1–12 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s10956-009-9183-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clark, D.B., Sampson, V.: Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45(3), 293–321 (2008). doi: 10.1002/tea.20216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cuthbert, A., Slotta, J.: Fostering lifelong learning skills on the world wide web: critiquing, questioning and searching for evidence. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27(7), 821–844 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guindon, R.: Designing the design process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Hum. Comput. Interact. 5(2), 305–344 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 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. 18.
    Linn, M.C., Hsi, S.: Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 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). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berland, L.K., Reiser, B.J.: Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Sci. Educ. 93(1), 26–55 (2009). doi: 10.1002/sce.20286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu, O.L., Lee, H.S., Linn, M.C.: Multifaceted assessment of inquiry-based science learning. Educ. Assess. 15(2), 69–86 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linn, M.C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., Chiu, J.L.: Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science 313(5790), 1049–1050 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Goel, A.K., Rugaber, S., Vattam, S.: Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: the structure, behavior, and function modeling language. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 23, 23 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu, L., Hmelo-Silver, C.E.: Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 1023–1040 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., Cañas, A.J.: Concept maps: experiments on dynamic thinking. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44(3), 448–465 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 30.
    Santhanam, E., Leach, C., Dawson, C.: Concept mapping: how should it be introduced, and is there evidence for long term benefit? High. Educ. 35(3), 317–328 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations