Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Effectiveness of Collaborative Mind Mapping in Hong Kong Primary Science Classrooms

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a quasi-experimental study that evaluated the effectiveness of collaborative mind mapping in three Hong Kong primary schools. More than 200 grade 4 students, divided into three pedagogical groups, participated in a variety of science learning activities with the aid of a mind map and/or collaborative group work. The results of diagnostic tests reveal the synergy of peer collaboration and mind mapping to be more effective than either collaboration or mind mapping alone in enhancing students’ scientific achievement. Analysis of the students’ science discourse and follow-up interviews indicates that collaborative mind mapping fosters learning motivation and facilitates the joint construction of conceptual knowledge in science. Recommendations are made for the integrative use of graphic organisers and group work, and implications for future research on science teaching in Hong Kong and elsewhere are further discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Hong Kong, primary 6 (or grade 6) students sit a school-leaving examination to enter secondary school. Their examination scores are then classified by the system operated by the Education Bureau (i.e., secondary school places allocation mechanism) into bands 1, 2 and 3 (from the highest to lowest levels of academic performance).

  2. The effect size calculations in the current study were performed based on partial-η2 values (Cohen, 1973). Cohen (1988) provided estimates of what constitutes a small (0.01), medium (0.06) and large (0.14) effect for partial-η2.

References

  • Alt, D. (2018). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, ICT efficacy, ICT professional development and ICT practices enacted in their classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.020

  • Anthony, G., & Hunter, R. (2017). Grouping practices in New Zealand mathematics classrooms: Where are we at and where should we be? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 52(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-016-0054-z.

  • Araujo, R. C., & Gadanidis, G. (2020). Online collaborative mind mapping in a mathematics teacher education program: A study on student interaction and knowledge construction. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(5), 943–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01125-w.

  • Balim, A. G. (2013). The effect of mind-mapping applications on upper primary students’ success and inquiry-learning skills in science and environment education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 22(4), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2013.826543

  • Bawaneh, A. K. (2019). The effectiveness of using mind mapping on tenth grade students’ immediate achievement and retention of electric energy concepts. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 123–138.

  • Buzan, T. (2018). Mind map mastery: The complete guide to learning and using the most powerful thinking tool in the universe. Watkins.

  • Budd, J. W. (2004). Mind maps as classroom exercises. The Journal of Economic Education, 35(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.35.1.35-46

  • Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300506.

  • Chen, J., Wang, M., Grotzer, T. A., & Dede, C. (2018). Using a three-dimensional thinking graph to support inquiry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1239–1263. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21450

  • Chen, Y. C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M. H. (2006). Junior secondary science teachers’ understanding and practice of alternative assessment in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher professional development. Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education, 6(3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1991). Analogies from the philosophy and sociology for understanding classroom life. Science Education, 75(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1973). Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447303300111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Curriculum Development Council (2011). General Studies for primary schools: Curriculum guide (Primary 1 – Primary 6). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Bureau. from https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/kla/general-studies-for-primary/gs_p_guide-eng_300dpi-final%20version.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2022.

  • Dhindsa, H. S., Makarimi-Kasim, & Anderson, O. R. (2011). Constructivist-visual mind map teaching approach and the quality of students’ cognitive structures. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(2), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9245-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dogruer, S. S., & Akyuz, D. (2020). Mathematical practices of eighth graders about 3D shapes in an argumentation, technology, and design-based classroom environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1485–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10028-.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, Y., Zhu, S., & Li, W. (2021). Promoting sustainable creativity: An empirical study on the application of mind mapping tools in graphic design education. Sustainability, 13(10), Article 5373. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105373.

  • Erduran, S., & Garcia-Mila, M. (2015). Fostering teachers’ development in scientific argumentation. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 427–440). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, D. C. L., & Liang, T. (2019). Fostering critical thinking through collaborative group work: Insights from Hong Kong. Springer.

  • Gillies, R. M. (2019). Promoting academically productive student dialogue during collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2021). Framing oneself and one another as collaborative contributors in small group argumentation in a science classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(3), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10071-z.

  • Harfitt, G., Fung, D., & Liang, T. (2019). Promoting good practice in small classes: Lessons learnt from small class teaching professional development programmes in Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Research, 96, 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.10.005.

  • Hsu, P. S., Lee, E. M., Ginting, S., Smith, T. J., & Kraft, C. (2019). A case study exploring non-dominant youths’ attitudes toward science through making and scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(Suppl. 1), S185–S207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09997-w.

  • Hu, X., Leung, F. K., & Chen, G. (2018). School, family, and student factors behind student attitudes towards science: The case of Hong Kong fourth-graders. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.014.

  • Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Malmberg, J. (2020). Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation during collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 70, Article 101090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.004.

  • Jbeili, I. M. (2013). The impact of digital mind maps on science achievement among sixth grade students in Saudi Arabia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1078–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.435

  • Keleş, Ö. (2012). Elementary teachers’ views on mind mapping. International Journal of Education, 4(1), 93–100. http://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v4i1.1327

  • Keppell, M., & Carless, D. (2006). Learning-oriented assessment: A technology-based case study. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940600703944

  • Kim, N. J., Vicentini, C. R., & Belland, B. R. (2021). Influence of scaffolding on information literacy and argumentation skills in virtual field trips and problem-based learning for scientific problem solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10145-y.

  • Kutnick, P., & Blatchford, P. (2014). SPRinG at key stage 1: Effective group work with young children. In Effective group work in primary school classrooms, professional learning and development in schools and higher education (Vol. 8, pp. 81–101). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6991-5_4

  • Leeds, A. J., Kudrowitz, B., & Kwon, J. (2019). Mapping associations: Exploring divergent thinking through mind mapping. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 7(1–2), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1463178.

  • Liang, W., & Fung, D. (2020). Development and evaluation of a WebQuest-based teaching programme: Students’ use of exploratory talk to exercise critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 104, Article 101652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101652.

  • Liang, T., & Fung, D.C.L. (2021). Fostering critical thinking in English-as-a-second-language classrooms: Challenges and opportunities. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 39, Article 100769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100769.

  • Liang, W., & Fung, D. (2022). Designing STEM education in small class teaching environments: The Hong Kong experience. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00643-8.

  • Liu, Y., Tong, Y., & Yang, Y. (2018). The application of mind mapping into college computer programming teaching. Procedia Computer Science, 129, 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.03.047.

  • Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in science. from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/. Accessed 8 Jan 2022.

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson.

  • Park, J., Tang, K. S., & Chang, J. (2021). Plan-Draw-Evaluate (PDE) pattern in students’ collaborative drawing: Interaction between visual and verbal modes of representation. Science Education, 105(5), 1013–1045. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21668.

  • Polat, Ö., & Aydın, E. (2020). The effect of mind mapping on young children’s critical thinking skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, Article 100743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100743.

  • Piaget, J. (1932). The moral development of the child. Kegan Paul.

  • Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., Shekell, C., Cian, H., & Jacques, L. (2020). Connected learning in STEAM classrooms: Opportunities for engaging youth in science and math classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1441–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10034-z.

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008a). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276.

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008b). Differences in the ways more and less successful groups engage in argumentation: A case study. Paper presented at the National Research in Science Teaching International Conference. Baltimore, MD.

  • Slavin, R. E., Sheard, M., Hanley, P., Elliott, L., Chambers, B., & Cheung, A. (2013). Effects of cooperative learning and embedded multimedia on mathematics learning in key stage 2: Final report. from https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Power%20Teaching%20Maths%20Evaluation%20-%20final%20report%20April%202013.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2022.

  • Stokhof, H., de Vries, B., Bastiaens, T., & Martens, R. (2020). Using mind maps to make student questioning effective: Learning outcomes of a principle-based scenario for teacher guidance. Research in Science Education, 50(5), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9686-3.

  • Stokhof, H., de Vries, B., Bastiaens, T., & Martens, R. (2019). Mind map our way into effective student questioning: A principle-based scenario. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9625-3.

  • van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work: Students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small-group interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258.

  • Vuopala, E., Näykki, P., Isohätälä, J., & Järvelä, S. (2019). Knowledge co-construction activities and task-related monitoring in scripted collaborative learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.03.011.

  • Volet, S., Seghezzi, C., & Ritchie, S. (2019). Positive emotions in student-led collaborative science activities: Relating types and sources of emotions to engagement in learning. Studies in Higher Education, 44(10), 1734–1746. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665314.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press.

  • Waitzkin, H. (1993). Interpretive analysis of spoken discourse: Dealing with the limitations of quantitative and qualitative methods. Southern Journal of Communication, 58(2), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417949309372895.

  • Wong, S. L. (2011). Capitalising on the participation of Hong Kong in TIMSS: Promoting teachers’ assessment skills. The Newsletter of the East-Asian Association for Science Education, 4(3), 7.

  • Wu, T. T., & Chen, A. C. (2018). Combining e-books with mind mapping in a reciprocal teaching strategy for a classical Chinese course. Computers & Education, 116, 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.012.

  • Zheng, X., Johnson, T. E., & Zhou, C. (2020). A pilot study examining the impact of collaborative mind mapping strategy in a flipped classroom: Learning achievement, self-efficacy, motivation, and students’ acceptance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3527–3545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09868-0.

  • Zhu, N., & Chang, L. (2019). Education and parenting in China. In E. Sorbring & J. E. Lansford (Eds.), School systems, parent behavior, and academic achievement (pp. 15–28). Springer.

Download references

Funding

General Research Fund of Hong Kong (17601918).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong, Room 323, Runme Shaw Building, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Dennis Fung & Tim Liang

Authors
  1. Dennis Fung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Fung.

Appendix. The student interview protocol

Appendix. The student interview protocol

Question 1: How did the learning approaches (i.e., individual learning with mind mapping, collaborative learning without mind mapping, and the integration of collaborative learning and mind mapping) used in class affect your (or your classmates’) acquisition of science knowledge? Please explain briefly.

Question 2: In what ways did mind mapping and/or collaborative group work facilitate your understanding of science concepts?

Question 3: Did you (or your classmates) feel motivated to participate in the classroom activities during the teaching intervention?

Question 4: Would you prefer to continue using the learning approach adopted in your class or to change to other methods of learning?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fung, D., Liang, T. The Effectiveness of Collaborative Mind Mapping in Hong Kong Primary Science Classrooms. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 21, 899–922 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10279-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10279-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation