Download Effects of Scripted Collaborative Concept Mapping on Meaningful Learning and more Study notes Construction in PDF only on Docsity!
Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conference on Concept Mapping Valletta, Malta 2012
USING ENRICHED SKELETON CONCEPT MAPPING TO SUPPORT MEANINGFUL LEARNING
Ton J. Marée, Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Jan M. van Bruggen, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, Open Universiteit, Heerlen, The Netherlands; Wim M.G. Jochems, Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]
Abstract. There has been significant interest among researchers in the instructional use of concept maps and collaboration scripts. Some studies focus on students' collaboration on concept mapping tasks; others focus on scripts to structure learning tasks and guide interactions. Little is known about scripted collaborative concept mapping. This article reports a study in which we examine the effects on meaningful learning of scripting students' argumentative interactions during collaborative "enriched skeleton concept mapping". Each concept in the enriched skeleton concept map (ESCoM) contains "annotated factual multimedia information" and an embedded micro collaboration script. The study was performed in a Biomolecules course of the Bachelor of Applied Science program. First-year students were randomly assigned to an experimental group of 44 students and a control group of 49 students. In the experimental group, students worked together in pairs on an ESCoM guided by embedded collaboration scripts. The control group received the regular course. The results show that students were able to handle and appreciate the enriched skeleton concept mapping products and processes. Moreover, concept maps appeared to be scored reliable and validly. Finally, the regular course exam showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group. Enriched skeleton concept mapping resulted in a better understanding of the conceptual structure of the domain, the concepts and their relations.
1 Introduction
Students in higher education need to develop a focus on meaningful learning; memorization of facts and procedures is not enough for success (Biggs & Tang, 2007). Graduates from higher education need a deep understanding of concepts to generate new ideas, new theories, new products and new knowledge (Sawyer, 2006).
Meaningful and deep learning has been described as the ability to critically analyze, research and explain new knowledge, facts and ideas by connecting them with existing knowledge, concepts or principles and being aware of one's own development in the learning process (Ausubel, 1963; Biggs & Tang, 2007; Chin & Brown, 2000; Sawyer, 2006). When students are engaged in knowledge construction processes, like collaborative discourse and argumentation, this has a strengthening effect on meaningful and deep learning (Chi, 2009; Mayer, 2002; Nussbaum, 2008). Unfortunately, students in higher education often demonstrate a surface approach to learning (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Entwistle & Peterson, 2004). Moreover, students rarely take the initiative in knowledge construction processes to support meaningful learning (Chi & Ohlsson, 2005; King, 2007). In general, they have to be initiated by a teacher in a face-to-face learning process with students. Given the scarcity of teacher resources, there is a need to develop instructional interventions that are effective in provoking meaningful learning and efficient in requiring a minimum of teacher guidance.
We aim to support meaningful learning by visualizing the conceptual structure of a knowledge domain and regulation of the dialogue between the students. Our visual representation is an enriched concept map.
Students are often asked to start with a "blank sheet" and begin to construct a concept map for some topic. The concept maps are then developed, extended and refined as the students develop other activities on the concepts and increase their understanding (Novak, 1998, 2002; Novak & Cañas, 2008; O'Donnell, et al., 2002). However, to start with a blank sheet may have its drawbacks because asking students to draw a map from scratch may impose too high a cognitive demand to produce a meaningful representation of their knowledge (Schau, et al., 2001). Moreover, students may have misconceptions or faulty ideas about a topic that would impede their learning if they were to begin with a "blank sheet" (Boxtel, et al., 2002; Novak, 2002). For difficult topics, as determined by the teacher’s experience, Novak and Cañas (2008) suggest using a "skeleton concept map" as an alternative to having students prepare a concept map from scratch. A skeleton concept map is a partial knowledge domain representation that contains only key concepts and some of the relations between them. The skeleton concept map offers students a foundation to elaborate on by using relevant resources and adding concepts and information resources to their concept map. In this study we provide students with an enriched skeleton concept map. See a part of the enriched skeleton concept map (ESCoM), Proteins, in Figure 1, as an example.
Figure 1. Part of the enriched skeleton concept map, Proteins.
ESCoMs, in contrast to the skeleton concept map of Novak and Cañas (2008), are the visualization of the conceptual structure of a specific knowledge domain, but without the visualization of the relations between the concepts. Each concept in the ESCoM contains (1) annotated factual information (pictures, text or animations) that elaborate on the concept and (2) an attached worksheet to formulate the meaning of the concept. The skeleton concept maps are enriched with multimedia content and a worksheet to provide scaffolds to improve students' knowledge construction. However, to support meaningful learning, we also have to stimulate a meaningful dialogue between the students while they work on the skeleton concept map. According to Nussbaum (2008) and Chi (2009), collaborative discourse and collaborative argumentation are important to meaningful learning because they force students to externalize their knowledge, monitor each other's learning and jointly negotiate the meaning. However, students do not collaborate well if left unaided (Weinberger, et al., 2007). Collaborative learning – be it face-to-face or mediated by a computer – needs to be supported by adequate scaffolds (Fischer, et al., 2007). Collaboration scripts form an important example of these scaffolds.
Collaboration scripts structure students interaction and scaffold collaborative learning through the use of roles, activities, and sequencing of activities (King, 2007). Collaboration scripts can guide students in meaningful discussions and can structure the process of argumentative knowledge construction Dillenbourg and Hong (2008) distinguish "macro scripts" and "micro scripts." Macro scripts are pedagogical models: they describe group formation and the collaboration process using phases, roles and activities. Micro scripts are dialogue models that structure interaction and foster argumentation, explanations and mutual regulation. A micro script may prompt a student to respond to the argument of a fellow student with a counter-argument (Weinberger, et al., 2007). It is expected that students will organize their interaction without the use of collaboration scripts since the scripts will become internalized through practice (Dillenbourg & Hong, 2008; King, 2007).
Until now, empirical research has focused on traditional concept mapping (Novak & Cañas, 2008; Tergan, et al., 2006; Torres & Marriott, 2010). This study aims at demonstrating the potential of the ESCoM with scripted collaborative concept mapping. Our strategy is to guide and support students' argumentative interactions during collaborative concept mapping with collaboration scripts to support students' meaningful learning. We use the skeleton concept map, enriched with multimedia content and an embedded micro collaboration script in the attached worksheet of each concept. The embedded collaboration scripts guide students' collaborative discourse and argumentation. Furthermore, collaboration scripts guide the students to concentrate on the meaning of the concepts and their relations.
This study addresses the following research question: Does scripted collaborative concept mapping guide and support students' argumentative interaction, leading to better understanding of the conceptual structure of the domain, the concepts and their relations?
Concept globular enriched with an annotated picture and an attached worksheet to formulate the meaning of the concept: .
Concept quaternary enriched with an annotated animation
of quaternary:.
Figure 2. The concept membrane with (1) a picture with specific terminology as annotated factual information, and (2) an attached worksheet containing the associated 5-step collaboration script for concepts. The students have to fill in the blanks <... > in the worksheet.
The collaboration script guides students' argumentative interactions. Moreover, the script structurally supports students in critically analyzing, elaborating and explaining the meaning of the concept to support meaningful learning.
For each new relation that the students added, they filled in an attached worksheet according to a "3-step collaboration script" (Figure 3).
Alternate to the lead role.
- Lead: formulate the meaning of the relation: <... >
- Alternate student: Formulate parts of the agreements and disagreements and proceed with the formulation of the lead by additional descriptions, elaborations and/or comments: <... >
- Lead and alternate student: negotiate a common description of the meaning of this relation: <... >
Figure 3. An attached worksheet containing the associated 3-step collaboration script, for relations. The students have to fill in the blanks <... > in the worksheet.
Students' appreciation of the concept mapping products and processes were measured using a 28-item questionnaire on a 5-point Likert-type scale, addressing four topics, which took about 15 minutes after the last peer group session. The first topic referred to the adequacy of the domain representation in the enriched skeleton
Worksheet with the associated collaboration script for concepts.
- Student A and Student B: Formulate individually the meaning of the concept. 1a. Meaning Student A: <... > 1b. Meaning Student B: <... >
- Student A and Student B: Discuss and pose critical questions regarding the meaning of the concept and formulate parts of the agreements and disagreements: <... >
- Student A and Student B: Improve your formulations by additional descriptions, elaborations and/or comments: <... >
- Student A and Student B: Formulate jointly the meaning of the concept upon which they agree: <... >
- Student A and Student B: Formulate jointly an example set of characteristics of this concept in a cell or organism: <... >
concept map, related to the information in their textbook, Biology (Campbell, et al., 2008). The second topic referred to the effectiveness of the learning activities during the peer group sessions, and the third topic referred to student motivation. Finally, the fourth topic referred to the support offered by the embedded scripts in students' interaction.
The similarity between the quality of the content of a given concept map and a criterion map has been examined (Albert & Steiner, 2005; Ruiz-Primo, et al., 2001; Schau, et al., 2001). Two experts assessed the quality of the annotated content on the students’ concept map worksheets. They used a rating scale ranging from 1 (no similarities) to 5 (a great deal of similarities and a complete and correct description of essential information).
In addition, the experts rated the quality of the dialogue with respect to content annotated on each step in order to assess whether the micro scripts guided students to meaningful dialogue and argumentation. The experts used a rating scale ranging from 1 (no dialogue), 2 (moderate dialogue) to 3 (meaningful dialogue).
Finally, the two groups took a test as part of their regular biomolecules examination. The regular exam was composed of 15 multiple-choice items that students answered during a 45-minute period. Exam scores from the course Cell Biology (used as an introduction to Biomolecules) were used to statistically control for differences in students' prior knowledge.
3 Results
The overall means and the standard deviations for the biomolecules exam scores are shown in Table 1.
N M SD
Experimental Group 41 6.44 1, Control Group 45 6.08 1.
Table 1 : Biomolecules exam scores
The reliability of biomolecules multiple choice exam is modest: α = .64, and sufficient for this study.
Analysis of covariance demonstrated a significant experimental effect on the biomolecules exam scores between the experimental group and the control: ANCOVA, F (1,86) = 6.35, MSE = 9.86, p = .014, ƞp^2 = .071.
The domain concept map, which contains 43 concepts and 44 relations, was used as a criterion map to assess the concept maps constructed by the peer groups. The quality of the content of the 43 concepts the peer groups added to their concept map was rated independently by the two experts. They used a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (no similarities) to 5 (a great deal of similarities and a complete and correct description of essential information). The inter-rater reliability between the experts was rather strong ( r = .74). The quality of content of the 44 relations was also rated independently with a strong inter-rater reliability of: r = .82.
The overall means and the standard deviations for quality of the contents scores of the 19 peer groups' concept maps are shown in Table 2. N M SD
Quality of the contents of the 43 concepts 19 3.91 0. Quality of the contents of the 44 relations 19 4.44 0. Quality of all the 87 contents 19 4.12 0.
Table 2: Quality of the contents of the concepts and relations of the 19 peer groups.
The quality of the dialogues of the 43 concepts the peer groups added to their concept map was rated independently by the two experts. They used a 3-point rating scale ranging from 1 (no dialogue) to 3 (meaningful dialogue). The inter-rater reliability between the experts was rather strong ( r = .72). The quality of dialogues of the 44 relations was also rated independently with a rather strong inter-rater reliability of: r = .73.
The overall means and the standard deviations for quality of the dialogue scores of the 19 peer groups' concept maps are shown in Table 3.
Chi, M. T. H., & Ohlsson, S. (2005). Complex declarative learning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 371-399 ). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 5-23.
Entwistle, N., & Peterson, E. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 407-428.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Haake, J. M., & Mandl, H. (2007). Perspectives on collaboration scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, J. M. Haake & H. Mandl (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.
King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, J. M. Haake, I. Kollar & H. Mandl (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 13-37). New York: Springer.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41, 226 - 232.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86, 548-571.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them.: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Pensacola.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345–359.
O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71-86.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-16). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schau, C., Mattern, N., Zeilik, M., Teague, K. W., & Weber, R. J. (2001). Select-and-fill-in concept map scores as a measure of students' connected understanding of science. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 136-158.
Tergan, S.-O., Gräber, W., & Neumann, A. (2006). Mapping and managing knowledge and information in resource-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43, 327 - 336.
Torres, P. L., & Marriott, R. d. C. V. (2010). Handbook of research on collaborative learning using concept mapping. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Kollar, I., & Haake, J. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, J. M. Haake, I. Kollar & H. Mandl (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191-211). New York: Springer.
