Improving the usefulness of concept maps as a research tool for science education

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 26, Issue 9, 2004, Pages 1043-1064

  Van Zele, Els ^a   Lenaerts, Josephina ^a   Wieme, Willem ^b  

^a CRIPE   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3943091768     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1468181032000158336     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. BAXTER, G.P., ELDER, A.D. and GLASER, R. (1996). Knowledge-based cognition and performance assessment in the science classroom. Educational Psychologist, 31, 133-140.
2. BLOOM, B.S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain (New York: Longmans).
3. CHI, M.T.H., FELTOVICH, P.J. and GLASER, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
4. DYKSTRA, D.I. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76, 615-652.
5. ESIOBU, G.O. and SOYIBO, K. (1995). Effects of concept and Vee mapping under three learning modes on students' cognitive achievement in ecology and genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 971-995.
6. GLASER, R. and BASSOK, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 88-96.
7. HOZ, R., TOMER, Y. and TAMIR, P. (1990). The relationship between disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge and the length of teaching experience of biology and geography teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 973-985.
8. LENAERTS, J. and VAN ZELE, E. (1998). Testing science and engineering students: the force concept inventory, Physicalia Magazine, 20(1), 49-68.
9. LOMASK, M., BARON, J.B., GREIG, J. and HARRSION C. (1992). ConnMap: Connecticut's use of concept mapping to assess the structure of students' knowledge in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Cambridge, MA, 21-25 March.
10. LOMASK. M.S., BARON, J.B. and GRIEG, J. (1993). Assessing conceptual understanding in science through the use of two- and three-dimensional concept maps. Proceedings of the 3rd International Seminar on Misconceptions & Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics (Ithaca, NY: Misconceptions Trust).
11. MARTON, F., (1981). Phenomenography--describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.
12. MAYER, R.E. and SIMS, V.K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of the dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 389-401.
13. MCCLURE, J.R., SONAK, B. and SUEN, H.K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 475-492.
14. MCDERMOTT, L.C. and REDISH, E.F. (1999). Resource Letter PER-1: Physics Education Research. American Journal of Physics, 67, 755-767.
15. MINTZES, J., WANDERSEE, J. and NOVAK, J.D. (eds.) (2000). Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View (San Diego, CA: Academic Press).
16. NOVAK, J.D. (1990). Concept mapping: a useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10, 923-949.
17. NOVAK, J.D. and GOWIN. D.R. (1984). Learning How to Learn (New York: Cambridge Press).
18. PAIVIO, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
19. PEARSALL, N.R., SKIPPER, J.E.J. and MINTZES, J.J. (1997). Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: a longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology. Science Education, 81, 193-215.
20. PFUNDT, H. and DUIT, R. (1994). Bibliography: Students' Alternative Frameworks and Science Education, 4th edn (Kiel: IPN).
21. QMAP 0.4 (for MS Windows). Quantum Science Across Disciplines [http://qsad.bu.edu/Installers/QMap04Inst/install.htm].
22. RUIZ-PRIMO, M.A. and SHAVELSON, R.J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 569-600.
23. RUIZ-PRIMO, M.A., SCHULZ, S.E., LI, M. and SHAVELSON, R.J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 260-278.
24. SHAKA, F.L. and BITNER, B.L. (1996). Construction and validation of a rubric for scoring concept maps. AETS Conference Proceedings, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED. 398060.
25. TROWBRIDGE, J.E. and WANDERSEE, J.H. (1994). Identifying critical junctures in learning in a college course on evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 459-473.
26. VAN ZELE, E., LENAERTS, J. and WIEME, W. (2001). Evaluation of a new instructional model and learning ware for an introductory quantum physics course. In H. Evans, A. Moller Andersen and H. Sorensen (eds.) Bridging Research Methodology and Research Aims, The 5th European Science Education Summerschool, Gilleleje, Denmark, 6-13 September 2000 (Copenhagen: Danish University of Education), 326-331.
27. WALLACE, J.D. and MINTZES, J.J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1033-1052.
28. WANDERSEE, J.H., MINTZES, J.J. and NOVAK, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D.L. Gabel (ed.) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (New York: Macmillan), 77-210.
29. WHITE, R.T. and GUNSTONE, R.F (1992). Probing Understanding (New York: Falmer Press).
30. WILSON, J.M. (1993). The predictive validity of concept mapping: relationships to measures of achievement. Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions & Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics (Ithaca, NY: Misconceptions Trust).