Using a concept mapping tool with a photograph association technique (CoMPAT) to elicit children's ideas about microbial activity

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 479-500

  Byrne, Jenny ^a   Grace, Marcus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biology education; Conceptual development; Learning; Primary school

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951130626     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690802688071     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alesandrini, K. L. (1984). Pictures and adult learning. Instructional Science, 13, 63-77.
2. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
3. Barenholz, H., & Tamir, P. (1992). A comprehensive use of concept mapping in design instruction and assessment. Research in Science and Technological Education, 10(1), 37-52.
4. Barker, M. (1995). A plant is an animal standing on its head. Journal of Biological Education, 29(30), 201-208.
5. Bentley, M. L. (1998). Constructivism as a referent for reforming science education. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 233-249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Black, J. G. (2005). Microbiology: Principles and explorations (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.
7. Byrne, J., & Sharp, J. (2006). Children's ideas about micro-organisms. School Science Review, 88(322), 71-79.
8. Chang, S. (2007). Externalising students' mental models through concept maps. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 107-112.
9. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
10. Dawson, V. (2003). Western Australian school students' understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 57-69.
11. DfES/QCA (Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority). (1999). The national curriculum for England: The programmes of study for science Key Stages 1-4. London: HMSO.
12. Driver, R. (1989). Students' conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481-490.
13. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
14. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.
15. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
16. Hellden, G. (1996). Elements in pupils' ideas about ecological processes. In A. Giordan and Y. Girault (Eds.), The new learning models: Their consequences for the teaching of biology, health and environment (pp. 142-154). Nice: Z'editions.
17. Kinchin, I. M. (2000a). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34(2), 61-68.
18. Kinchin, I. M. (2000b). Using concept maps to reveal understanding: A two-tier analysis. School Science Review, 81, 41-46.
19. Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43-57.
20. Klein, D. C. D., Chung, G. K. W. K., Osmundson, E., Herl, H. E., & O'Neil, H. F. (2001). Examining the validity of knowledge mapping as a measure of elementary students' scientific understanding. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research.
21. Lock, R., & Miles, C. (1993). Biotechnology and genetic engineering: Students' knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Biological Education, 27(4), 101-106.
22. McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept mapping assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 475-492.
23. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
24. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
25. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
26. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2007). Theoretical origins of concept maps, how to construct them and uses in education. Reflecting Education, 3(1), 29-42.
27. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Osborne, J., Wadsworth, P., & Black, P. (1992). Processes of life: Primary space project. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
29. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (Eds.). (1985). Learning science: The implication of children's science. Auckland: Heinemann.
30. Reiss, M. J. (2002). Reforming school science education in the light of pupil views and the boundaries of science. School Science Review, 84(307), 71-77.
31. Scott, P. (1987). A constructivist view of learning and teaching in science. Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
32. Selley, N. (1999). The art of constructivist teaching in the primary school. London: David Fulton.
33. Shepardson, D. P. (2002). Bugs, butterflies, and spiders: Children's understanding about insects. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 627-643.
34. Tobin, K. (1998). Sociocultural perspectives on teaching and learning of science. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & Garrison, J. (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 196-212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. van Zele, E., Lenaerts, J., & Wieme, W. (2004). Improving the usefulness of concept maps as a research tool for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1043-1064.
36. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer.
37. Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 166-184.