You are here:

Computer-based concept mapping combined with learning management system use: An explorative study under the self- and collaborative-mode
ARTICLE

, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Portugal ; , Hellenic Open University, Greece ; , Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Portugal ; , Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Greece

Computers & Education Volume 107, Number 1, ISSN 0360-1315 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

The effects of the combination of computer-based concept mapping with the Learning Management System (LMS) Moodle use for the construction the Concept Map (CM) in self- and collaborative-mode are explored here. This approach builds upon the hybrid interconnection of blended (b-) and collaborative (c-) learning perspectives to form an extended teaching/learning environment. The analysis axes are based on the structural characteristics of the constructed CMs, peers' interaction during the collaborative construction of CMs, and LMS Moodle use expressed via the user's Quality of Interaction (QoI). One hundred and twenty-eight participants were categorized in two groups, i.e., G1 and G2, of 64 students (32 pairs) each. Both groups constructed CMs in self- (1–3 weeks) and collaborative-mode (4–6 weeks), yet G2 only was instructed to additionally use LMS Moodle during the whole six-week period. The experimental results comply with the findings from previous studies regarding with the positive effect that shifting from self- to collaborative-mode has on the constructed CMs, but extends further the notion of the additional positive effect of the LMS Moodle use in the collaborative construction of the CMs, as expressed via more increased peers' turn-taking, balanced collaboration, and CM-enabled constructive, reflective and organizational interactions. It is also shown that collaboration increases LMS Moodle users' QoI. The hybrid b-/c-learning approach proposed here sets new directions towards the enhancement of LMS use and computer-based concept mapping, contributing to the enrichment of the Higher Educational Institutions services and re-examination of educational practices.

Citation

Dias, S.B., Hadjileontiadou, S.J., Diniz, J.A. & Hadjileontiadis, L.J. (2017). Computer-based concept mapping combined with learning management system use: An explorative study under the self- and collaborative-mode. Computers & Education, 107(1), 127-146. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

This record was imported from Computers & Education on February 20, 2019. Computers & Education is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.009

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Álvarez-Montero, F.J., Sáenz-Pérez, F., & Vaquero-Sánchez, A. (2015). Using datalog to provide just-in-time feedback during the construction of concept maps. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(3), pp. 1362-1375.
  2. Bates, W.T., & Sangrà, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for transforming teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Bridges, S.M., Corbet, E.F., & Chan, L.K. (2015). Designing problem-based curricula: The role of concept mapping in scaffolding learning for the health sciences. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 7(1), pp. 119-133.
  4. Cañas, A.J., Bunch, L., Novak, J.D., & Reiska, P. (2013). Cmapanalysis: An extensible concept map analysis tool. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 4(1), pp. 36-46.
  5. Chao, I. (2008). Moving to Moodle: Reflections two years later. Educause Quarterly, 3, pp. 46-52.
  6. Chavan, A., & Pavri, S. (2004). Open-source learning management with Moodle. Linux Journal, 128, pp. 66-70.
  7. Clariana, D., & Taricani, E.M. (2010). The consequences of increasing the number of terms used to score open-ended concept maps. International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(2), pp. 163-172.
  8. Clouder, L., Dalley, J., Hargreaves, J., Parkes, S., Sellars, J., & Toms, J. (2006). Electronic [re] constitution of groups: Group dynamics from face-to-face to an online setting. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), pp. 467-480.
  9. Cole, J., & Foster, H. (2007). Using Moodle: Teaching with the popular open source course management system. London: O'Reilly Media, Inc.
  10. Collazo, N.A.J., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2015). The multiple effects of combined tools in computer-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, pp. 82-95.
  11. Conceição, S.C., Desnoyers, C.A., & Baldor, M.J. (2008). Individual construction of knowledge in an online community through concept maps. Concept Mapping: Connecting educators, proceedings of the 3rd international conference on concept mapping, pp. 24-32.
  12. Coutinho, C.P. (2009). Individual versus collaborative computer-supported concept mapping: A study with adult learners. Proceedings of world conference on e-learning in corporate, pp. 1173-1180. Vancouver, Canada: Government, Healthcare and Higher Education 2009.
  13. Dias, S.B., & Diniz, J.A. (2013). FuzzyQoI model: A fuzzy logic-based modelling of users' quality of interaction with a learning management system under blended learning. Computers & Education, 69, pp. 38-59.
  14. Dias, S.B., Diniz, J.A., & Hadjileontiadis, L.J. (2014). Towards an intelligent learning management system under blended learning: Trends, profiles and modelling perspectives. Intelligent systems reference library, Vol. 59 Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
  15. Dias, S.B., Dolianiti, F.S., Hadjileontiadou, S.J., Diniz, J.A., & Hadjileontiadis, L.J. (2016). FISCMAP: A fuzzy logic-based quality of concept mapping modelling approach fostering reflective feedback. Proc. Of the 7th international conference on software development and technologies for enhancing accessibility and fighting info-exclusion (DSAI2016). Conference proceedings series.
  16. Dougiamas, M. (2000). Improving the effectiveness of tools for Internet based education.
  17. Drysdale, J.S., Graham, C.R., Spring, K.J., & Halverson, L.R. (2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, pp. 90-100.
  18. Duff, T., & Jonassen, D.H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation, pp. 1-16. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  19. Gao, H., Thomson, M.M., & Shen, E. (2013). Knowledge construction in collaborative concept mapping: A case study. Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education, 2(1), pp. 1-15.
  20. Garcia-Álvarez, M.T., Suárez Álvarez, E., & Quiroga García, R. (2014). ICTs and learning: A challenge in the engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(3), pp. 636-643.
  21. Gergen, K.J. (1995). Social construction and the educational process. Constructivism in education, pp. 17-39. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  22. Graham, C.R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. Handbook of distance education, pp. 333-350. New York: Routledge.
  23. Gurupur, V.P., Jain, G.P., & Rudraraju, R. (2015). Evaluating student learning using concept maps and Markov chains. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(7), pp. 3306-3314.
  24. Hadjileontiadou, S.J., Dias, S.B., Diniz, J.A., & Hadjileontiadis, L.J. (2015). Fuzzy logic-based modeling in collaborative and blended learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  25. Hadjileontiadou, S.J., & Hadjileontiadis, L.J. (2004). A complexity analysis of collaborative turn-taking patterns evolving during computer-mediated collaboration. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, UICEE, 3(1), pp. 155-158.
  26. Hanewald, R., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Digital knowledge mapping in educational contexts. Digital knowledge maps in education: Technology-enhanced support for teachers and learners, pp. 3-16. New-York: Springer.
  27. Hwang, G.J., Shi, Y.R., & Chu, H.C. (2011). A concept map approach to developing collaborative Mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), pp. 778-789.
  28. Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Computer-based learning. Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning, Vol. 3, pp. 713-716. New York: Springer.
  29. Jimogiannis, A., & Siorenta, A. (2007). Modeling as a tool for development of critical and creative thinking (in Greek). Modern teaching approaches to critical development-creative thinking on secondary education, pp. 241-268. Athens, Greece: Organization of Educational Training.
  30. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  31. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  32. Koc, M. (2012). Pedagogical knowledge representation through concept mapping as a study and collaboration tool in teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), pp. 656-670.
  33. Kwon, S.Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2007). Using computers to individually-generate vs. collaboratively-generate concept maps. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), pp. 269-280.
  34. Kwon, S.Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2009). The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaboratively constructed computer-based concept maps. Computers & Education, 52(2), pp. 365-375.
  35. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Lee, Y. (2013). Collaborative concept mapping as a pre-writing strategy for L2 learning: A Korean application. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), pp. 254-258.
  37. Lin, C.P., Wong, L.H., & Shao, Y.J. (2012). Comparison of 1: 1 and 1: m CSCL environment for collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), pp. 99-113.
  38. Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2008). Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior over time. Computers & Education, 50(4), pp. 1540-1557.
  39. Molinari, G. (2015). From learners' concept maps of their similar or complementary prior knowledge to collaborative concept map: Dual eye-tracking and concept map analyses. Psychologie Française.
  40. Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, pp. 29-52.
  41. Novak, J.D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New York: Taylor and Francis.
  42. Novak, J.D., & Cañas, A. (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization, 5, pp. 175-184.
  43. Novak, J.D., & Cañas, A.J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Pensacola, Florida: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
  44. Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  45. Olomos, S., Juanjo, M., Torrecilla, E., & Iglesias, A. (2015). Improving graduate students learning through the use of Moodle. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(5), pp. 604-614.
  46. Omar, M.A. (2015). Improving reading comprehension by using computer-based concept maps: A case study of ESP students at Umm-Alqura University. British Journal of Education, 3(4), pp. 1-20.
  47. Penland, J.L. (2015). Constructivist internet-blended learning and resiliency in higher education. Handbook of research on educational technology integration and active learning, pp. 48-61. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  48. Powell, C., & Kalina, C.J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), p. 241.
  49. Rafaeli, S., & Kent, C. (2015). Network-structured discussions for collaborative concept mapping and peer learning. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 59(6), p. 7.
  50. Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), pp. 31-38.
  51. Schaal, S. (2010). Enriching traditional biology lectures digital concept maps and their influence on cognition and motivation. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2(1), pp. 42-54.
  52. Sclater, N. (2008). Large-scale open source e-learning systems at the Open University UK. Research Bulletin, 12. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research.
  53. Seluakumaran, K., Jusof, F.F., Ismail, R., & Husain, R. (2011). Integrating an open-source course management system (Moodle) into the teaching of a first-year medical physiology course: A case study. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(4), pp. 369-377.
  54. Tergan, S.O. (2005). Digital concept maps for managing knowledge and information. Knowledge and information visualization, lecture notes in computer science, pp. 185-204. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
  55. Tergan, S.O., Keller, T., Gräber, W., & Neumann, A. (2006). Concept map-based visualization of knowledge and information in resource-based learning. Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2006, pp. 2425-2429. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE.
  56. Vitale, M.R., & Romance, N.R. (2000). Portfolios in science assessment: A knowledge based model for classroom practice. Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view, pp. 168-197. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  57. Vodovozov, V., & Raud, Z. (2015). Concept maps for teaching, learning, and assessment in electronics. Education Research International.
  58. Wainwright, K., Osterman, M., Finnerman, C., & Hill, B. (2007). Traversing the LMS terrain. Proceedings of the 35th annual ACM conference on user services SIGUCCS 2007, pp. 355-359. Orlando New York: ACM Press.
  59. Zualkernan, I.A. (2006). A framework and a methodology for developing authentic constructivist e-learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), pp. 198-212.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.