Abstract
Concept maps consist of nodes that represent concepts and links that represent relationships between concepts. Various studies have shown that concept mapping fosters meaningful learning. However, little is known about the specific cognitive processes that are responsible for such mapping effects. In a thinking-aloud study, we analyzed the relations between cognitive processes during concept mapping as well as the characteristics of the concept maps that the learners produced and learning outcomes (38 university students). To test whether differences in learning outcome are due to differences in general abilities, verbal and spatial abilities were also assessed. In a cluster-analysis two types of ineffective learners were identified: ‘non-labeling mappers’ and ‘non-planning mappers’. Effective learners, in contrast, showed much effort in planning their mapping process and constructing a coherent concept map. These strategies were more evident in students with prior concept-mapping experience (‘advanced beginners’) than in those who had not used this learning strategy before (‘successful beginners’). Based on the present findings, suggestions for a direct training approach (i.e., strategy training with worked-out examples) and an indirect training approach (i.e., supporting the learners with strategy prompts) were developed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amer, A. A. (1994). The effect of knowledge-map and underlining training on the reading comprehension of scientific texts. English Specific Purposes, 13, 35–45.
Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (1999). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 [Intelligence-Structure-Test 2000]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. W. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181–214.
Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Combining fading with prompting fosters learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774–783.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2004). Writing learning protocols: Prompts foster cognitive and metacognitive activities as well as learning outcomes. In P. Gerjets, J. Elen, R. Joiner, & P. Kirschner (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning (pp. 193–200). Tübingen, Germany: Knowledge Media Research Center.
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence. Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & Chen, S.-F. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 21–33.
Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & Chen, I.-D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 5–23.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
Chularut, P., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248–263.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1998). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.
Hauser, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2006). Supporting concept mapping for learning from text. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 243–249). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hilbert, T. S., Renkl, A., Kessler, S, & Reiss, K. (2006). Learning from heuristic examples: An approach to foster the acquisition of heuristic skill in mathematics. In G. Clarebout, & J. Elen (Eds.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity. Advances in studying and designing computer-based powerful learning environments (pp. 135–144). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., & Woods, A. L. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77, 95–111.
Hübner, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2006). Prompting cognitive and metacognitive processing in writing-to-learn enhances learning outcomes. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 357–362). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lambiotte, J. G., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Effects of knowledge maps and prior knowledge on recall of science lecture content. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 189–201.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29–52.
Novak, J. D. (1995). Concept maps to facilitate teaching and learning. Prospects, 25, 95–111.
O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (2000). Interactive effects of prior knowledge and material format on cooperative teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 101–118.
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86.
Rafferty, C. D., & Fleschner, L. K. (1993). Concept mapping: A viable alternative to objective and essay exams. Reading, Research, and Instruction, 32, 25–33.
Reader, W., & Hammond, N. (1994). Computer-based tools to support learning from hypertext: Concept mapping tools and beyond. Computers Education, 22, 99–106.
Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out-example principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rewey, K. L., Dansereau, D. F., Skaggs, L. P., & Hall, R. H. (1989). Effects of scripted cooperation and knowledge maps on the processing of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 604–609.
Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455–467.
Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–241.
Schwonke, R., Hauser, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2006). Enhancing computer-supported writing of learning protocols by adaptive prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 77–92.
Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of research in teaching (pp. 230–245). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In C. M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Acknowledgements
We thank our student research assistants Annelie Rothe, Sebastian Sommer, and Marco Wittmann for their assistance in the transcription of the thinking-aloud protocols and in the analysis of the data. We also thank Marcia Neff and Aimee Holmes for proofreading.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hilbert, T.S., Renkl, A. Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: what characterizes good and poor mappers?. Instr Sci 36, 53–73 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9022-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9022-9