Upload
della-york
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WHY IS CONCEPT MAPPING EFFECTIVE? SOME THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS
Professor Kirsti Lonka
University of Helsinki, Finland/
J.H. Bijtel Visiting Professor, University
Medical Centre Groningen, The Netherlands/
and Foreign Adjunct Professor, Karolinska
Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE-BASED TEACHING?
“So why do outstanding scientists who demandrigorous proof for scientific assertions intheir research continue to use and, indeed, defendon the basis of the intuition alone, teachingmethods that are not the most effective?Many scientists are still unaware of the dataand analyses that demonstrate the effectivenessof active learning techniques.”
Handelsman, J. et al. Scientific Teaching, SCIENCE, 304,
23 APRIL 2004 www.sciencemag.org
Mental representations (or models)
Guide our attention, perception and memory
Not copies of reality, but emphasize things that are important for us
Working memory can only handle 3-7 units at a time
Motivation, stress and anxiety play a role
Complex problem solving requires well-developed mental models
van Dijk and Kintsch's (1983) model of strategic discourse processing
This model set up connections between constructivist
activities in encoding and the quality of the learning
outcomes. The model differentiated between three forms
of mental representation that may be constructed while
learning from text:
1) a surface memory for actual words and phrases
2) a textbase, in which a coherent representation of the
text is formed; and
3) a situation model, in which the text content is integrated
into the comprehender's knowledge system.
Why is the quality of mental representation important?
Surface representation may be thought of as related to to
the surface approach to learning (Marton & Säljö, 1976),
whereas the textbase and the situation model require
more deep-level processing Forming a situation model requires more constructive
processing and knowledge transforming than does
forming a textbase (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991) Situation model is the only way to knowledge that will be
easily accessed and beneficial (applicable) later on The textbase and situation models are not independent of
one another, but each has its own characteristics
Why study spontaneous strategies?
Such strategies may have a stronger effect on learning
than those experimentally induced (e.g., Kardash &
Amlund, 1991) Before implementing new strategy instruction programs,
investigators should first determine what strategies occur
naturally The strategies people use when they study for an exam
may be quite different from those adopted in
psychological experiments. Again, we cannot be sure that
the subjects in experimental situations are really trying
their best. Therefore, we need to test real learning of real
material in real situations (Mayer, 1992).
Methodological challenges
Ecologically valid research on spontaneous strategies, while
important, is methodologically demanding The first problem is that it is difficult to predict what strategies
will emerge in real life. For instance, research on note taking
may prove impossible if the subjects take very few notes
spontaneously (e.g., Kardash & Amlund, 1991; Wade, Trathen
& Schraw, 1990). Further, conclusions cannot be reached merely on the basis
of subjects' overt behavior, but also on the basis of what
students think they are doing. Such "covert cognitive
processing" does not necessarily have a consistent
relationship with overt strategy behavior (Kardash and
Amlund, 1991).
The Learning-From-Text Test (LFT)
In Finland, all high school graduates need to pass entrance
examinations in order to get into universities. This is a highly
motivating and challenging situation for these young people. In 1988, we developed the so-called Learning-from-text test
(LFT) together with Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, for admission to
medical school at the University of Helsinki LFT became a national examination for all medical schools in
1990 – also in some vocational schools for health
professionals This research resulted in several scientific publications
together with Virpi Slotte and Sari Lindblom-Ylänne (Lonka,
Lindblom-Ylänne & Maury, 1994; Lindblom-Ylänne, Lonka &
Leskinen, 1996;1999; Lahtinen et al., 1997; Slotte & Lonka
1998; 1999ab; 2001ab)
THE LFT TEST
The applicants had about one hour to read a demanding
20-page text They could make notes during their reading In the end, the text and all notes were taken away, and
the applicants were given one hour to complete several
types of essay-writing tasks that were based on the text in
question and called for remembering, synthesis, or
problem-solving. Our studies took into account the qualitative aspects of
the learning outcomes by comparing subjects’ success in
various essay-writing tasks that posed qualitatively
different demands
THE EFFECT OF STUDY STRATEGIES ONLEARNING FROM TEXTLonka, Lindblom-Ylänne & Maury (1994)
The purpose of the present study was to obtain
information regarding overt study strategies that high-
school graduates in Finland spontaneously use while
learning from text in a highly demanding and motivating
situation, namely, in an examination taken for admission
to a medical school. Specifically, the intention was to assess qualitative effects
of these spontaneous strategies in terms of success in
different types of essay-writing tasks Three hypotheses were tested, based on van Dijk and
Kintsch's (1983) cognitive model of strategic discourse
processing.
The hypotheses
Our first hypothesis was that learning a minor detail
requires using some specific strategy because the
organization of the text does not support its remembering.
Again, a central idea may be learned more easily than a
detail, regardless of the strategy used. The second hypothesis was that strategies that maintain
a text-based representation of study materials, such as
underlining, are related to success in a task which
requires a synthesis of the text. The third hypothesis was that generative study strategies
that enhance forming a situation model of the study
materials, such as concept mapping, are related to
success in a task which requires critical review of the text.
METHODSLonka, Lindblom-Ylänne & Maury (1994)
The participants were the 503 applicants to the Helsinki
University Medical Faculty in spring 1988 - a random sample of
200 subjects was chosen for more detailed study where their
notes were analyzed in detail The subjects were first asked to read an article written by the
Finnish philosopher G. H. von Wright. The text was about
scientific-technological developments and their consequences
for human welfare and the ecological balance of nature (4021
words) During reading, subjects were allowed to make notes either in
the text or on an attached blank sheet of paper. After 90 minutes
of reading time, all the materials where collected and subjects
were given three essay-type tasks.
METHODS 2Lonka, Lindblom-Ylänne & Maury (1994)
After reading and note-taking the participants were given another 90
minutes to complete three different tasks: Detailed Learning Tasks. Two concepts from the text had to be explained
to a reader who had no previous knowledge of philosophy: a central idea
and a minor detail Synthesis Task. The title of the article had to be explained. This called for
pulling together the essentials of the text. The Synthesis Task was thought
to measure the formation of coherent textbase, or a synthesis of the text. Critique Tasks. Subjects were given two paragraphs of the text (called
Critique Tasks 1 and 2) which were to be critically reviewed on the basis of
the subjects' general knowledge. The Critique Tasks were thought to
measure the formation of a situation model, or the ability to go 'beyond' the
text.
METHODS 3Questionnaire (n = 503)
All participants had completed a one-page questionnaire
about what strategies they had used while trying to learn
from the text They were asked to score 'no' or 'yes' on whether they had
underlined important parts, made notes on the text paper,
made notes on the separate sheet, drawn maps of the
relations between concepts, defined central concepts by their
own words, or used a strategy of their own not mentioned in
the questionnaire (and if yes, describe that strategy). Also, the subjects were asked to check whether the
strategies they used were typical of them, whether they
sometimes used them, or whether they had never used them
before.
METHODS 4Analysis of notes and text papers
Text papers and notes of 200 participants were analysed in
terms of underlining, concept mapping, and other notes on the
text paper and a (blank) separate sheet. The total number of different kinds of notes was determined
(from 1 to 6) as 1) underlining, 2) concept maps, 3) whole
sentences on the text paper, 4) whole sentences on the
separate sheet, 5) single words or marks on the text paper,
and 6) single words or marks on the separate sheet It was determined whether Central Idea or Minor Detail were
underlined, written on the text paper, written on the separate
sheet, defined by own words, included in the notes, or
included in the concept maps, and also, how many of these
strategies were applied for learning each concept.
METHODS 5Statistical Analyses
The sample of 200 subjects was divided into three groups on
the basis of percentiles. This was done for the total exam
scores, and separately for each task. For the total scores, this
resulted in 68 in the below average group (BA), 68 in the
average group (A), and 64 in the above average (AA) group
in the sample of 200. The groups BA, A and AA of different tasks were compared by
one-way ANOVAs and chi-squares. In the sample, log-linear
models were also applied in order to test the second and third
hypotheses. The frequencies of different strategies on the basis of the
questionnaire as well as the correlations between scores
obtained in different tasks were calculated within the whole
group (N = 503).
Results: Popularity of different strategies on according to the questionnaire (N = 503)
Underlining (88%)
Notes on separate sheet (68%)
Defining concepts (49%)
Notes on the text paper (45%)
Concept mapping (14%).
27% described a strategy of their own, for example: "reading
with careful thought“, "reflecting“, "writing summaries“, or
"outlining." Most subjects (72%) reported that the strategy they had used
was very typical for them. Only 2 % had used a strategy in
this test that they had never used before When the questionnaires and notes (n = 200) were compared,
they were found to correspond with each other in 88% of the
cases
It was helpful to use a variation of strategies
Measured by total scores (n = 200), above average
subjects used a more diverse set of strategies, the
mean of different strategies being 3.27 (SD = 1.09) than
did average subjects (M = 3.01, SD = 1.15), and below
average subjects used the smallest number of different
strategies (M = 2.68, SD = 1.21). Differences between these three groups were statistically
significant measured by one-way ANOVA (F(2,195)=5.90,
p < .05).
Detailed learning tasks: A minor detail was learned when it was included in the notes
When learning Central Idea, study strategies did not matter Those subjects who had either defined Minor Detail, underlined it,
or written it down on the separate sheet, obtained a significantly
higher score in Detailed Learning Task 2 than the other subjects. More selective attention was paid to Central Idea: Only 15% of
the subjects used more than one strategy for learning Minor
Detail, whereas 68% used more than one strategy for learning
Central Idea. Underlining and concept mapping in general were not related to
Detailed Learning Tasks
Systematic underlining was related to Synthesis task, whereas Concept mapping was related to Critique tasks
Model 1 tested the assumptions that Synthesis Task
interacts with underlining and Critique Task 1 interacts
with concept mapping, and that there are no other
interactions among these variables. This model fit well
with the data (G2(25) = 12.88, p = .978) Model 2 was identical to Model 1, except that Critique
Task 2 was included instead of Critique Task 1. This
model had an even better fit (G2(25) = 11.95, p = .987). In sum, there were no major discrepancies between the
theoretical models and the data.
Generative note taking useful in general
Lahtinen, Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne (1997): Generative strategies
(summarising, concept mapping) were most useful while learning in
text (n = 502) Slotte & Lonka (1998): Having notes present was useful in text-
based remembering, whereas in a task requiring cricitical review of
the text there was not much use having notes available (n = 226) Slotte & Lonka, (1999a) analyzed qualitatively all concept maps that
were drawn in an entrance examination (n = 502: 36 maps). The
extent and complexity of concept maps played a powerful role in
understanding of scientific texts Slotte & Lonka (1999b): spontaneous note taking was related to
success in an entrance examination (n = 226), especially with
generative notes
Socially and physically distributed cognition
Cognitive load may be divided between a human beings
and external thinking tools
(e.g., offices, computers, written documents)
Some cognitive activities may be outsorced to external
tools
Note taking activities are social practices, not only
individual cognitive efforts
Demanding tasks call for advanced tools and artifacts
New technologies – concept mapping, CSCL, wiki, blogs –
may help to distribute cognition both socially and
physically
Interaction between internal and external memory fields Hakkarainen, Lonka & Paavola (2004),
based on Donald (2001, p. 311)
Working Memory
Long-Term Memory
External Symbolic Storage
External Memory
Field
Consciousness
Internal memory loop
Externalmemory loop
SOME CONCLUSIONS
Concept mapping appears useful, even without training It is useful especially in tasks calling for problem solving
and application (situation model)– not so much in detailed
remembering The process of concept mapping enhances learning,
regardless of possibilities to review the notes The results may be interpreted from the cognitive
perspective, but also from a more socio-cultural view Notes may provide an external memory loop that extends
the biological memory More research needs to be done with technologies as
tools for forming external digital aids for collaborative
knowledge building
Studies
Lonka, K., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Maury, S. (1994). The effect of study strategies on learning
from text. Learning and Instruction, 4, 253-271.
Lahtinen, V., Lonka, K. & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1997). Spontaneous study strategies and the
quality of knowledge construction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 13-24.
Slotte, V. & Lonka, K. (1998). Using notes during essay-writing: Is it always helpful?
Educational Psychology, 18, 445-459.
Slotte, V. & Lonka, K. (1999a). Review and process effects of spontaneus note-taking on text
comprehesion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 1-20.
Slotte, V. & Lonka, K. (1999b). Spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of
scientific concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 515-531.
Slotte, V. & Lonka, K. (2001a) Study-strategy use in learning from text. Does gender make
any difference? Instructional Science, 29, 255-272.
Slotte, V. & Lonka, K. (2001b) Note-taking and essay writing. In P. Tynjälä, , L. Mason,
& K. Lonka. (Eds., 2001) Writing as a Learning Tool: Integrating theory and practice. Studies
in Writing. Vol. 7. Dordrecth, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.