Collaborative Concept Mapping: Investigating the Nature of Discourse Patterns and Features of a Concept Map
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/ajer.v70i2.77325Keywords:
Concept Maps, Collaboration, Discourse; Cartes conceptuelles, collaboration, discoursAbstract
Research in science education has established the significance of collaborative concept mapping as a powerful strategy in fostering conceptual learning. During such collaboration, students talk about concept map features (i.e., concepts to include, linking words, and cross-links) in constructing a joint map. The quality of the concept map produced depends on the nature of discourses that happen in these collaborative interactions. We explored the nature of discourses between pairs of biology students collaborating on concept mapping and how these discourses contribute to the enhancement of different features of the concept maps. Six students individually constructed weekly individual maps on different topics and then came together in pairs to construct a joint concept map. Their discussions during collaboration were audio-recorded. Both the individual and joint concept maps were analyzed for knowledge of breadth, knowledge of depth, and knowledge of connectedness. To analyze the discussions and understand the nature of the discourses, both deductive and inductive coding approaches were used. The coded episodes were then categorised into the nine discourse patterns identified by Fu et al. (2016). We then matched the episodes with the concept map features that were discussed. Findings indicate that the biology students’ collaboration exhibited mostly knowledge-sharing discourses when deliberating on the three features of a concept map. In turn, the number of valid concepts and propositions improved from individual to joint maps. Although the students’ discussions of cross-links were characterized by knowledge-sharing discourses, most of the joint maps did not show improvement in terms of the number cross-links. We discuss these findings and provide implications regarding the value of understanding the intricacies of discourse patterns in collaborative concept mapping.
La recherche dans le domaine de l'enseignement des sciences a établi l'importance de la cartographie conceptuelle collaborative en tant que stratégie puissante pour favoriser l'apprentissage conceptuel. Au cours de cette collaboration, les élèves discutent des caractéristiques de la carte conceptuelle (c'est-à-dire des concepts à inclure, des mots de liaison et des liens croisés) pour construire une carte commune. La qualité de la carte conceptuelle produite dépend de la nature des discours tenus lors de ces interactions collaboratives. Nous avons exploré la nature des discours entre des paires d'étudiants en biologie collaborant sur la cartographie conceptuelle et la façon dont ces discours contribuent à l'amélioration des différentes caractéristiques des cartes conceptuelles. Six étudiants ont construit individuellement des cartes hebdomadaires sur différents sujets et se sont ensuite réunis par paires pour construire une carte conceptuelle commune. Leurs discussions pendant la collaboration ont été enregistrées. Les cartes conceptuelles individuelles et communes ont été analysées du point de vue de la connaissance de l'étendue, de la connaissance de la profondeur et de la connaissance de la connexité. Pour analyser les discussions et comprendre la nature des discours, des approches de codage à la fois déductives et inductives ont été utilisées. Les épisodes codés ont ensuite été classés dans les neuf modèles de discours identifiés par Fu et al. (2016). Nous avons ensuite mis en correspondance les épisodes avec les caractéristiques de la carte conceptuelle qui ont été discutées. Les résultats indiquent que la collaboration des étudiants en biologie présentait principalement des discours de partage des connaissances lorsqu'ils délibéraient sur les trois caractéristiques d'une carte conceptuelle. Par ailleurs, le nombre de concepts et de propositions valides s'est amélioré entre les cartes individuelles et les cartes communes. Bien que les discussions des étudiants sur les liens croisés aient été caractérisées par des discours de partage des connaissances, la plupart des cartes conjointes n'ont pas montré d'amélioration en termes de nombre de liens croisés. Nous discutons de ces résultats et fournissons des implications concernant la valeur de la compréhension des subtilités des modèles de discours dans la cartographie conceptuelle collaborative.
References
Akcay, H. (2017). Constructing concept maps to encourage meaningful learning in science classroom. Education, 138(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2016.000019
Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small‐group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099–1114. https://doi.org/10.1002
Awofala, A. O. A. (2011a). Effect of concept mapping strategy on students’ achievement in junior secondary school mathematics. International Journal of Mathematics Trends and Technology, 2(2), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.14445/22315373/IJMTT-V2I3P504
Bramwell-Lalor, S., & Rainford, M. (2014). The effects of using concept mapping for improving advanced level biology students’ lower-and higher-order cognitive skills. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 839–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.829255
Cañas, A. J., Novak, J. D., & Reiska, P. (2015). How good is my concept map? Am I a good Cmapper? Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 7(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2015.07.002
Carr-Lopez, S. M., Galal, S. M., Vyas, D., Patel, R. A., & Gnesa, E. H. (2014). The utility of concept maps to facilitate higher-level learning in a large classroom setting. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(9), ARTICLE 170. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe789170
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, I. D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970209602054
Chen, S. L., Liang, T., Lee, M. L., & Liao, I. C. (2011). Effects of concept map teaching on students’ critical thinking and approach to learning and studying. Journal of Nursing Education, 50(8), 466–469. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20110415-06
Choudhary, F., & Bano, R. (2022). Concept maps as an effective formative assessment tool in biology at secondary level. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 9(1). 157–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v9i1.454
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
de Ries, K. E., Schaap, H., van Loon, A. M. M., Kral, M. M., & Meijer, P. C. (2022). A literature review of open-ended concept maps as a research instrument to study knowledge and learning. Quality & Quantity, 56(1), 73–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01113-x
Dhull, P., & Verma, G. (2020). Use of concept mapping for teaching science. The International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis, 12(3), 2481–2491.
Dillenbourg P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning. In Dillenbourg P. (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.
Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9089-1
Engelmann, T., Tergan, S. O., & Hesse, F. W. (2009). Evoking knowledge and information awareness for enhancing computer-supported collaborative problem solving. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(2), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903292850
Erbil, D. G. (2020). A review of flipped classroom and cooperative learning method within the context of Vygotsky theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01157
Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008). Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 447–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9052-6
Fu, E. L., van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. (2016). Toward a classification of discourse patterns in asynchronous online discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 441–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9245-3
Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2013). Using concept maps to facilitate collaborative simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 340–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.748664
Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7
Govender, N. (2015). Developing pre-service teachers' subject matter knowledge of electromagnetism by integrating concept maps and collaborative learning. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(3), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2015.1104839
Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Are high‐coherent concept maps better for prior knowledge activation? Differential effects of concept mapping tasks on high school vs. university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00277.x
Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). Prior knowledge activation: How different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 38, 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9090-5
Hancock, B. (2002). Trent focus for research and development in primary health care: An introduction to qualitative research. University of Nottingham.
Hardman, J. (2020). Analysing student talk moves in whole class teaching. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif & L. Major (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 152–166). Routledge.
Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: what characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, 36(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9022-9
Kaseke, D., & Nyamupangedengu, E. (2019). Using concept map construction as a professional development activity aimed at developing a teacher's content knowledge for teaching a Biology topic: A self- study. South African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (pp. 130–144), Durban.
Kelly, G. J. (2015). Discourse practices in science learning and teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, (pp. 321–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Khoza, H. C. (2022). Content modules as sites for developing science teacher identity in pre-service teachers: A case of one South African university. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(9). Article em2150. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12319
Kinchin, I. M. (2014). Concept mapping as a learning tool in higher education: A critical analysis of recent reviews. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 62(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2014.872011
Kittleson, J. M., & Southerland, S. A. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20003
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26
Krieglstein, F., Schneider, S., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2022). How the design and complexity of concept maps influence cognitive learning processes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10083-2
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.012
Mammen, J. R. (2016). Computer-assisted concept mapping: Visual aids for knowledge construction. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(7), 403–406. 10.3928/01484834-20160615-09
Machado, C. T., & Carvalho, A. A. (2020). Concept mapping: Benefits and challenges in higher education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 68(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2020.1712579
Novak, J.D., Cañas, A.J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report: IHMC CmapTools. https://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.bck-11-01-06.htm
Pudelko, B., Young, M., Vincent‐Lamarre, P., & Charlin, B. (2012). Mapping as a learning strategy in health professions education: a critical analysis. Medical Education, 46(12), 1215–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12032
Riahi, Z., & Pourdana, N. (2017). Effective reading comprehension in efl contexts: Individual and collaborative concept mapping strategies. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.1p.51
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2000). On the use of concept maps as an assessment tool in science: What we have learned so far. REDIE. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 2(1), 29–53. http://redie.uabc.mx/vol2no1/contents-ruizpri.html
Stevenson, M. P., Hartmeyer, R., & Bentsen, P. (2017). Systematically reviewing the potential of concept mapping technologies to promote self-regulated learning in primary and secondary science education. Educational Research Review, 21, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.002
Tan, E., de Weerd, J. G., & Stoyanov, S. (2021). Supporting interdisciplinary collaborative concept mapping with individual preparation phase. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 607–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09963-w
Udeani, U., & Okafor, P. N. (2012). The effect of concept mapping instructional strategy on the biology achievement of senior secondary school slow learners. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(2), 137–142. https://doi/10.10520/EJC135345
Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 40–46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1477536
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA COPYRIGHT LICENSE AND PUBLICATION AGREEMENT
If accepted, authors will be asked to sign a copyright agreement with the following points:
A. Where there is any inconsistency between this Copyright License and Publication Agreement and any other document or agreement in relation to the same subject matter, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.
B. This document sets out the rights you are granting in relation to publication of your article, book review, or research note entitled (the “Article”) through inclusion in the academic journal titled Alberta Journal of Educational Research (the “Journal”) published through the Faculty of Education, representing the Governors of the University of Alberta (the “Journal Editor”).
C. There will be no payment to you for this publication and grant of rights. In consideration of the agreement to publish the Article in the Journal:
1. You are warranting that:
- the content of the Article is your original work, and its content does not contain any material infringing the copyright of others; or, where the Article is not entirely your original work, you have obtained all necessary permissions in writing to grant the rights you are giving in this agreement;
- the content of the Article does not contain any material that is defamatory of, or violates the privacy rights of, or discloses the confidential information of, any other person;
- the Article has not been published elsewhere in whole or in part, and you will not allow publication of the Article elsewhere without the consent of the Journal Editor;
- the names of all co-authors and contributors to the Article are:
2. You agree to license the copyright in the Article to the Journal Editor, on a worldwide, perpetual, royalty free basis; and to the extent required by the terms of this agreement. You shall retain the right at all times to be acknowledged as the/an author of the Article.
3. You further agree that the Journal Editor has the entitlement to deal with the Article as the Journal Editor sees fit, and including in the following manner;
- The right to print, publish, market, communicate and distribute the Article and the Journal, in this and any subsequent editions, in all media (including electronic media), in all languages, and in all territories, ing the full term of copyright, and including any form of the Article separated from the Journal, such as in a database, abstract, offprint, translation or otherwise, and to authorize third parties to do so;
- The right to register copyright of the Journal;
- The right to edit the Article, to conform to editorial policy as the Journal Editor sees fit.
4. If any co-author or contributor to the Article does not sign this agreement, the Journal Editor reserves the right to refuse to publish the Article.
