You are here:

Learning with collaborative concept maps: A Meta-Analysis
PROCEEDINGS

, , Simon Fraser University, Canada

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-76-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Abstract

Concept maps are typically used to represent knowledge in a node-link format. Although decades of research have produced some understanding of the cognitive effects of using concept maps in individual learning, theories about their effects in collaborative learning are less firmly established. This paper reviews research on collaborative concept maps. Overall, we found that students who learned collaboratively by constructing concept maps outperformed those who learned from other activities such as studying texts, outlines, lists and lectures. However, no effect of studying pre-constructed concept maps in collaborative settings was statistically detected.

Citation

Adesope, O. & Nesbit, J. (2009). Learning with collaborative concept maps: A Meta-Analysis. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2009--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2082-2091). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 19, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
  2. Baddeley, A.D. (2000). Short term and working memory. In E. Tulving & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 77-92). New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Blankenship, J., & Dansereau, D.F. (2000). The effect of animated node-link displays on information recall. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 293-308.
  4. Cooper, H.M., & Hedges, L.V. (1994). The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.-2088 DASHDASH
  5. Czerniak, C.M., & Haney, J.J. (1998). The effect of collaborative concept mapping on elementary preservice teachers’ anxiety, efficacy, and achievement in physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 303-320.
  6. Dansereau, D.F. (2005). Node-link mapping principles for visualizing knowledge and information. In S.O. Tergan
  7. Gao, H., Shen, E., Losh, S.C., & 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, 479492.
  8. Hall, R.H., Dansereau, D.F., & Skaggs, L.P. (1992). Knowledge maps and the presentation of related information domains. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 5-18.
  9. Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  10. Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S.G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed). New York, U.S.A.: Houghton-Mifflen.
  11. Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266.
  12. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction.
  13. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1991). Learning together and alone. Cooperative, Competitive, and
  14. 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.
  15. Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Novak, J.D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 117-153.
  17. Okebukola, P.A., & Jegede, O.J. (1988). Cognitive preference and learning-mode as determinants of meaningful learning through concept mapping. Science Education, 72, 489-500.
  18. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments, Educational Psychologist, 38, 1-4.
  19. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  20. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255-287.
  21. Plotnick, E. (1997). Concept Mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts. ERIC document, June 1997, EDO-IR-97-05
  22. Quillian, M.R. (1967). Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behavioral Sciences, 12, 410-430.
  23. Roth, W.M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 503-534.
  24. Roth, W.M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept-mapping: New perspectives for the teacher. International Journal of Science Education, 6, 437-455.
  25. Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce& W.F. Brewer
  26. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals' cognition: a dynamic interactional view. In Salomon, G.
  27. Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  28. Slavin, R., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247-284.
  29. Stoyanova, N., & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13, 111-133.
  30. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
  31. Van Boxtel, C., vander Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory into Practice, 41, 40-46.

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.