The Effects of a Collaborative Computer-based Concept Mapping Strategy on Geographic Science Performance in Junior High School Students
 
More details
Hide details
1
Institute of Education & Center of Teacher Education, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, Taiwan
2
National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Yu-Ming Lai   

Department of Earth Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, 88 Sec. 4, Ting-Chou Rd, Taipei 116, Taiwan
Ting-Kuang Yeh   

Department of Earth Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, 88 Sec. 4, Ting-Chou Rd, Taipei 116, Taiwan
Online publish date: 2017-08-11
Publish date: 2017-08-11
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(8):5049–5060
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This study explored the effects of a collaborative computer-based concept mapping strategy on Geographic Science learning outcomes in junior high school students. A quasi-experimental approach was applied to a sample of 85 9th grade students. Class instruction lasted for five weeks, with two classes each week. Using the quasi-experimental research approach, 27 students were assigned to a constructive activities group that received instruction without concept mapping assistance (NCM), 28 students were assigned to a group that received individual computer-based concept mapping (CBCM) assisted instruction, and 30 students were assigned to a group that received collaborative computer-based concept mapping (CCBCM) assisted instruction. We explored the impact of these methods of instruction on students’ memorization, understanding, and application of concepts and on their higher order cognitive ability. The findings revealed that the CCBCM and CBCM groups scored better than the NCM group on the post-test. On the retention test, the CCBCM group outperformed the NCM group on all subtests.
 
REFERENCES (40)
1.
Ausubel, D. P. (1977). The facilitation of meaningful verbal learning in the classroom. Educational psychologist, 12(2), 162-178.
 
2.
Aydin, S., Aydemir, N., Boz, Y., Cetin-Dindar, A., & Bektas, O. (2009). The Contribution of Constructivist Instruction Accompanied by Concept Mapping in Enhancing Pre-service Chemistry Teachers' Conceptual Understanding of Chemistry in the Laboratory Course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(6), 518-534.
 
3.
Basque, J., & Lavoie, M.-C. (2006). Collaborative concept mapping in education: Major research trends. In A. J. Cañas & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology: Vol. 1. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping (pp. 79 – 86). San Jose´: Universidad de Costa Rica.
 
4.
Beel, J., Langer, S., Genzmehr, M., & Gipp, B. (2014). Utilizing mind-maps for information retrieval and user modelling. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on User Modelling, Adaption, and Personalization. 8538, 301-313.
 
5.
Brandt, L., Elen, J., Hellemans, J., Heerman, L., Couwenberg, I., Volckaert, L., & Morisse, H. (2001). The impact of concept mapping and visualization on the learning of secondary school chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1303-1313.
 
6.
Brinkmann, A. (2003). Graphical knowledge display–mind mapping and concept mapping as efficient tools in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Review, 16(4), 35-48.
 
7.
Butler, K. A., & Lumpe, A. (2008). Student Use of Scaffolding Software: Relationships with Motivation and Conceptual Understanding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 427-436. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9111-9.
 
8.
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1994). The Mind Map Book: How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your Brain's Untapped Potential. New York: Dutton.
 
9.
Chai, J.-X., & Fan, K.-K. (2016). Mobile inverted constructivism: education of interaction technology in social media. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(5), 1425-1442.
 
10.
Chang, C. C., Yeh, T. K., & Shih, C. M. (2016). The Effects of Integrating Computer-based Concept Mapping for Physics Learning in Junior High School. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(9).
 
11.
Chang, C. Y., Yeh, T. K., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2010). The Positive and Negative Effects of Science Concept Tests on Student Conceptual Understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 265-282.
 
12.
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(1), 21-33. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2001.00156.x.
 
13.
Chiou, C.-C., Lee, L.-T., Tien, L.-C., & Wang, Y.-M. (2017). Analyzing the Effects of various Concept Mapping Techniques on Learning Achievement under different Learning Styles. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(7), 3687-3708.
 
14.
Chiu, Y. C., Jen, C. H., Chang, C. Y., Lee, P. L., & Yeh, T. K. (2016). Learning Seismology through Inquiry: Structured, Guided, or Both? Seismological Research Letters, 87(4), 998-1007.
 
15.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 
16.
Daley, B. J., & Torre, D. M. (2010). Concept maps in medical education: an analytical literature review. Medical education, 44(5), 440-448.
 
17.
Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., & Canas, A. J. (2007). Concept maps: Experiments on dynamic thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 448-465. doi: 10.1002/tea.20153.
 
18.
Didis, N., Ozcan, O., & Azar, A. (2014). What do Pre-Service Physics Teachers Know and Think about Concept Mapping? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 77-87.
 
19.
Eden, C. (2004). Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 159(3), 673-686.
 
20.
Erdogan, Y. (2009). Paper‐based and computer‐based concept mappings: The effects on computer achievement, computer anxiety and computer attitude. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 821-836.
 
21.
Gao, H., Shen, E., Losh, S., & Turner, J. (2007). A review of studies on collaborative concept mapping: What have we learned about the technique and what is next? Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(4), 479.
 
22.
Hsiao, C.-H., Wu, Y.-T., Lin, C.-Y., Wong, T. W., Fu, H.-H., Yeh, T.-K., & Chang, C.-Y. (2014). Development of an instrument for assessing senior high school students’ preferred and perceived laboratory classroom environment. Learning Environments Research, 17(3), 389-399.
 
23.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
 
24.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Education, 12, 5-24.
 
25.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking: Prentice Hall.
 
26.
Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2011). Socially constructed self-regulated learning and motivation regulation in collaborative learning groups. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 350-374.
 
27.
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775.
 
28.
Kwon, S. Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2009). The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaboratively-constructed computer-based concept maps. Computers & Education, 52(2), 365-375.
 
29.
Ledger, A. F. (2003). The effects of collaborative concept mapping on the achievement, science self-efficacy and attitude toward science of female eighth-grade students: Unpublished Dissertation.
 
30.
Mutodi, P., & Chigonga, B. (2016). Concept map as an assessment tool in secondary school mathematics: An analysis of teachers' perspectives. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(10), 2685-2696.
 
31.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
 
32.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27-45.
 
33.
Pankratius, W. J., & Keith, T. M. (1987). Building an organized knowledge base: Concept mapping in secondary school science. Paper presented at the The 35th Annual Meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, Washington, DC.
 
34.
Poehler, B., & Prediger, S. (2015). Intertwining Lexical and Conceptual Learning Trajectories - A Design Research Study on Dual Macro-Scaffolding towards Percentages. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 11(6), 1697-1722.
 
35.
Rennie, L. J. (1998). Improving the interpretation and reporting of quantitative research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 237-248.
 
36.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research of cooperative learning. Educational leadership, 48(5), 71-82.
 
37.
Stensvold, M., & Wilson, J. T. (1992). Using concept maps as a tool to apply chemistry concepts to laboratory activities. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 230-232.
 
38.
Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learing discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 254-277.
 
39.
Yeh, T.-K., Huang, H.-M., Chan, W. P., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). Effects of congruence between preferred and perceived learning environments in nursing education in Taiwan: a cross-sectional study. BMJ open, 6(5), e009925.
 
40.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization science, 13(3), 339-351.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215