An investigation of concept mapping to improve the reading comprehension of Science texts

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 402-414

  Oliver, Kevin ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Concept mapping; Literacy; Reading comprehension; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350398207     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-009-9157-3     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Anderson TH, Huang SCC (1989) On using concept maps to assess the comprehension effects of reading expository text. (Technical Report No. 483). Center for the Study of Reading, Champaign.
2. Berionni A, Baldon MO (2006) Models of social constructivism, laboratory teaching, and concept maps to build scientific knowledge and organize concept network. In: Canas AJ, Novak JD (eds) Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping, University of Costa Rica, San Jose, pp 449-456.
3. Berkowitz SJ (1986) Effects of instruction in text organization on sixth-grade students' memory for expository reading. Read Res Q 21(2):161-178.
4. Boyle JR, Weishaar M (1997) The effects of expert-generated versus student-generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Res Pract 12(4):228-235.
5. Brookbank D, Grover S, Kullberg K, Strawser C (1999) Improving student achievement through organization of student learning. Unpublished master's thesis, Saint Xavier University, Chicago.
6. Burdumy SJ, Myers D, Mansfield W, Gersten R, Dimino J, Dole J, Liang L, Vaughn S, Edmonds M (2006) The national evaluation of reading comprehension interventions: Design report. (Report No. ED01CO0039/0010), Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton.
7. Cardellini L (2004) Conceiving of concept maps to foster meaningful learning: An interview with Joseph D. Novak. J Chem Educ 81(9):1303-1308.
8. Carnine L, Carnine D (2004) The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when teaching struggling secondary students. Read Writ Q 20(2):203-218.
9. Chang KE, Sung YT, Chen SF (2001) Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. J Comput Assist Learn 17(1):21-33.
10. Chang KE, Sung YT, Chen ID (2002) The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. J Exp Educ 71(1):5-23.
11. Cheung LS (2006) A constructivist approach to designing computer-supported concept-mapping environment. Int J Instr Media 33(2):153-164.
12. Curry J, Haderlie S, Ku TW, Lawless KA, Lemon M, Wood R (1999) Specified learning goals and their effect on learners' representations of a hypertext reading environment. Int J Instr Media 26(1):43-51.
13. Danish JA, Enyedy N (2006) Negotiated representational mediators: How young children decide what to include in their science representations. Sci Educ 91(1):1-35.
14. DeSimone C, Schmid RF, McEwen LA (2001) Supporting the learning process with collaborative concept mapping using computer-based communication tools and processes. Educ Res Eval 7(2-3):263-283.
15. Draheim ME (1986) Directed reading-thinking activity, conceptual mapping, and underlining: Their effects on expository text recall in a writing task. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin.
16. Education Development Center (1995) Organizing information with software tools. (NCIP Profiles No. 4). National Center to Improve Practice, Newton.
17. Freeman LA, Jessup LM (2004) The power and benefits of concept mapping: Measuring use, usefulness, ease of use, and satisfaction. Int J Sci Educ 26(2):151-169.
18. Germann P, Young K, Patton M (2001) Heightening reflection through dialogue: A case for electronic journaling and electronic concept mapping in science. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 1(3):321-333.
19. Guastello EF, Beasley TM, Sinatra RC (2000) Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial Spec Educ 21(6):356-364.
20. Harniss MK, Hollenbeck KL, Crawford DB, Carnine D (1994) Content organization and instructional design issues in the development of history texts. Learn Disabil Q 17(3):235-248.
21. Hsu LL (2004) Developing concept maps from problem-based learning scenario discussions. J Adv Nurs 48(5):510-518.
22. IHMC (2007). Cmap tools: Knowledge modeling kit. Retrieved 10/06/2007 from http://cmap.ihmc.us/.
23. Institute for the Advancement of Research in Education (2003) Graphic organizers: A review of scientifically based research. (Technical Report). Appalachian Regional Educational Laboratory, Charleston.
24. Kharatmal M, Nararjuna G (2006). A proposal to refine concept mapping for effective science learning. In: Canas AJ, Novak JD (eds), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping, University of Costa Rica, San Jose, pp 1-7.
25. Kim AH, Vaughn S, Wanzek J, Wei S (2004) Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. J Learn Disabil 37(2):105-118.
26. Kimber K, Pillay H, Richards C (2007) Technoliteracy and learning: An analysis of the quality of knowledge in electronic representations of understanding. Comput Educ 48(1):59-79.
27. Kinchin IM, De-Leij FAAM, Hay DB (2005) The evolution of a collaborative concept mapping activity for undergraduate microbiology students. J Furth High Educ 29(1):1-14.
28. Lehman JD, Carter C, Kahle JB (1985) Concept mapping, Vee mapping, and achievement: Results of a field study with black high school students. J Res Sci Teach 22(7):663-673.
29. Meyer BJF, Brandt DM, Bluth GJ (1980) Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth grade students. Read Res Q 16(1):72-103.
30. Miller RG (2006) Unlocking reading comprehension with key science inquiry skills. Sci Scope 30(1):30-33.
31. National Reading Panel (2000) Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Washington, DC.
32. Novak JD, Gowin DB (1984) Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press, New York.
33. Piercy TD, Hyerle D (2004) Maps for the road to reading comprehension. In: Hyerle D (ed) Student successes with thinking maps. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, pp 63-73.
34. Prater DL, Terry CA (1988) Effects of mapping strategies on reading comprehension and writing performance. Read Psychol 9(2):101-120.
35. Pressley M, Goodchild F, Fleet J, Zajchowski R, Evans ED (1989) The challenges of classroom strategy instruction. Elem Sch J 89(3):301-342.
36. Rivard L, Yore LD (1992) Review of reading comprehension instruction: 1985-1991. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston.
37. Ruiz-Primo MA, Shavelson RJ (1996) Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. J Res Sci Teach 33(6):569-600. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6<569::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-M.
38. Ruiz-Primo MA, Shavelson RJ, Li M, Schultz SE (2001) On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educ Assess 7(2):99-141. doi:10.1207/S15326977EA0702_2.
39. Schmid RF, Telaro G (1990) Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. J Educ Res 84(2):78-85.
40. Snow C (2002) Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. (Technical Report). RAND Reading Study Group, Santa Monica.
41. Stice CF, Alvarez MC (1987) Hierarchical concept mapping in the early grades. Child Educ 64(2):89-96.
42. Zmach CC, Sanders J, Patrick JD, Dedeoglu H, Charbonnet S, Henkel M, Fang Z, Lamme LL, Pringle R (2007) Infusing reading into science learning. Educ Leadersh 64(4):62-66.