A review of studies on collaborative concept mapping: What have we learned about the technique and what is next?

Journal of Interactive Learning Research

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 479-492

  Gao, Hong ^a   Shen, E ^a   Losh, Susan ^a   Turner, Jeannine ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 39749162746     PISSN: 1093023X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Boxtel, C. van (2000), Collaborative concept learning: Collaborative learning tasks, student interaction and the learning of physics concepts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
2. Boxtel, C. van., Linden, J. van der., & Kanselaar, G. (1997). Collaborative construction of conceptual understanding: Interacting processes and learning outcomes emerging from a concept mapping and a poster task. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3/4), 341-361.
3. Boxtel, C. van, Linden, J. van der, Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 40.
4. Carter, C. W. (1998). A case study of meaningful learning in a collaborative concept mapping strategy as a preparation for a college biology laboratory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta,
5. Chiu, C.-H. (2003). Exploring how primary school students function in computer supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Contemporaty Engineering and Lifelong Learning, 13(3/4), 258-267.
6. Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2001). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 50(3), 5-22.
7. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
8. Crook, C. (1998). Children as computer users: The case of collaborative learning. Computers in Education, 30(3), 237-247.
9. Derry, S. J., Gance, S., Gance, L. L., & Schlager, M. (2000). Toward assessment of knowledge-building practices in technology-mediated work group interactions. In S. Lajoie (Ed.), Computer as cognitive tools II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
11. Freeman, L. A. (2000). The effects of concept mapping on shared understanding during the requirement elicitation phase of information systems development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
12. Gao, H. (2005). Factors that mediate learning and knowledge construction in collaborative concept mapping: A case study from activity systems perspective. Paper presented at the 1st Southeast IST Conference, Mobile, AL.
13. Gifford, B. R., & Enyedy, N. D. (1999). Activity centered design: Towards a theoretical framework for CSCL. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Stanford University.
14. Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.
15. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152.
16. Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2002). Scaffolding and metacognition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
17. Horton, P. B., McConney, A, A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 71(1), 95-111.
18. Jegede, O. J., Alaiyemola, F F, & Okebukola, P, A. O. (1990). The effect of concept mapping on students' anxiety and achievement in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 951-960.
19. Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2003). The effects of response constraints and message labels on interaction patterns and argumentation in online discussions. Retrieved December 1, 2003, from http:// garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~ajeong/
20. Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(1), 35-51.
21. Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Computer-mediated activity: Functional organs in social and developmental contexts. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 45-68). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
22. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O'Donnell &A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Kittleson, J. M., & Southerland, S. A. (2004), The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 267-293.
24. Lajoje, S. P, Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsle, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155-186.
25. Lamon, M., Reeve, R., & Scardamalia, M. (2001). Mapping the growth of deeply principled understandings in a knowledge building community. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
26. Ledger, A. F (2003). The effects of collaborative concept mapping on the achievement science self-efficacy and attitude toward science of female eighth grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts-Lowell.
27. Lin, X., K., C., & J., T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(3), 43-62.
28. Littrell, R. L. (1999). Concept mapping: An instructional tool for learning economics and a research tool for determining students' understanding of economics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Kansas, Lawrence.
29. Makitalo, K., & Hakkinen, P. (2002). Building and maintaining common ground in web-based interaction. Paper presented at the CSCL 2002, Boulder, CO.
30. Mason, C. L. (1992). Concept mapping: A tool to develop reflective science instruction. Science Education, 76(1), 51-63.
31. McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., Gruenfeld, D. H., Hollingshead, A. B., & O'Connor, K. M. (1993). Groups, tasks, and technology: The effects of experience and change. Small Group Research, 24(3), 406-420.
32. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Okebukola, P.A., & Jegede, O. J. (1988). Cognitive preference and learning mode as determinants of meaningful learning through concept mapping. Science Education, 72(4), 489-500.
34. Ostwald, J. (1996). Knowledge construction in software development The evolving artifact approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder
35. Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76(5), 531-557.
36. 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(5), 503-534.
37. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
38. Simone, C. D., Schmid, R. F., & McEwen, L. A. (2001). Support the learning process with collaborative concept mapping using computer-based communication tools and processes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2-3), 263-283.
39. Southerland, S. (1994). Factors influencing conceptual change in evolution: A longitudinal, mullicase study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
40. Suthers, D. (1999). Representational support for collaborative inquiry. Paper presented at the IEEE, Maui, Hawai'i.
41. Suthers, D. (2001a). Collaborative representations: Supporting face to face and online knowledge building discourse. Paper presented at the 34th Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-34), Maui, Hawai'i.
42. Suthers, D. (2001b). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning outcomes. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3).
43. Suthers, D., Girardeau, L. E., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2002). The roles of representations in online collaborations. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
44. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. Paper presented at the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastrict, the Netherlands.
45. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2002). The effects of representation on students' elaborations in collaborative inquiry. Paper presented at the CSCL Conference, Boulder, CO.
46. Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). A comparison of two construct-a-concept-map science assessments Created linking phrases and selected linking phrases. CSE Report 624. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED483390)
47. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179-217.
48. Zhang, J. (1998). A distributed representation approach to group problem solving. Journal of American Society of Information Science, 49(9), 801-809.