|
Article Excerpt
This study compared the use of paper/pencil and computer tools
for creating concept maps. Participants were 52 students in two combined 9th/10th grade biology classes. An independent measures research design was used. There were two treatment groups: computer and paper/pencil. The computer group created concept maps using Inspiration software on desktop computers. The paper/pencil group made concept maps in the traditional manner. The t statistic was used to evaluate the mean difference between the two treatments. The group using the computer created more complex maps than the group that used paper/pencil. This difference was significant.
**********
Meaningful learning is at the forefront of reform efforts in education. Contrasted with rote learning, where students memorize and reproduce facts on command, meaningful learning requires students to interact with the content. According to Novak (1998), "meaningful learning results when the learner chooses to relate new information to ideas the learner already knows" (p. 19). Novak stated, "What I believe is needed today is not more emphasis on discovery learning, but rather more emphasis on meaningful learning" (p. 56). Concept mapping is one tool that can overtly engage students in this process.
Concept mapping is a process of organizing and representing concepts and their relationships in visual form. Concept mapping fits under the umbrella of thinking process maps (Hyerle, 2000) and differs from task-specific organizers in very specific ways. First, concept maps are hierarchical. The hierarchical structure of concept mapping incorporates Ausubel's concept of subsumption, namely that new information often is relatable to and subsumable under more general, more inclusive concepts (Novak & Gowin, 1984). Second, concept maps are open-ended. Maps are not right or wrong but are judged instead on the meanings explicated in the relationships noted (Novak & Gowin, 1984). Finally, concept maps should be revised. Revised maps show key relationships more explicitly (Novak & Gowin, 1984) and reflect improved understanding over time (Anderson-Inman & Ditson, 1999).
Concept mapping promotes meaningful learning by engaging students in all 6 levels of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (Bloom, 1956; Novak & Gowin, 1984). Concept mapping enhances students' abilities to understand complex material (Zeitz & Anderson-Inman, 1992) and helps students negotiate meaning (Anderson-Inman & Ditson, 1999). Further, concept mapping promotes meaningful learning and retention of knowledge for longer periods of time (Novak, 1990; Novak & Wandersee, 1991; Hyerle, 2000). Finally, concept mapping develops a greater capacity to organize final products and communicate abstract concepts (Hyerle, 2000). While isolated use of the strategy can promote learning, concept formation over time has been found to increase meaningful learning. Pankratius (1990) found that students who created concept maps throughout a three-week unit had higher test scores than students who created concept maps only at the end of the unit. Okebukola (1990) found that students who created concept maps at the end of each lesson through two different units obtained significantly higher scores on both units.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Software such as Inspiration (2002) supports the development of computer generated concept maps. Cited advantages are the ease of manipulation, dynamic linking, and revision (Anderson-Inman & Ditson, 1999; Anderson-Inman & Zeitz, 1993; Plotnik, 1997). While numerous educators report successful uses of Inspiration to increase achievement from science classrooms in Montana (Inspiration, 2002a, Science) to preparing students for the New York Regents exams (Inspiration, 2002b, Regents), it has not been clearly established what caused the increased achievement. Did the use of concept mapping increase achievement or did the additional use of the computer software? Is the expense of purchasing computer software and hardware to support concept mapping warranted or can the same results be obtained with hand drawn concept mapping? This study investigated the following research questions:
1. Are concept maps created with computer software more complex than concept maps created with paper/pencil tools?
2. Do students prefer to use computer tools or pencil/paper tools to create concept maps?
DESIGN
Theoretical Framework
This study is based on Ausubel's cognitive learning theory, especially hierarchical organization of cognitive structure, progressive differentiation, and integrative reconciliation. These ideas directly...
|
