Model-based reasoning: Using visual tools to reveal student learning

American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 59-67

  Luckie, Douglas ^a   Harrison, Scott H ^b   Ebert May, Diane ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MI ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Automated grading; C TOOLS; Concept map; Robograder; Visual models

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955599584     PISSN: 10434046     EISSN: 15221229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00016.2010     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Ausubel D. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune/Stratton, 1963.
2. Biggs J, Tang C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Society of Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 2007.
3. Biswas G, Schwartz D, Bransford J. Technology support for complex problem solving: from SAD environments to AI. In: Smart Machines in Education: the Coming Revolution in Educational Technology, edited by Forbus KD, Feltovich PJ. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/MIT, 2001, p. 71-97.
4. Bruner J. The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960.
5. Buzan T, Buzan B. The Mind Map Book. London: BBC Books, 1995.
6. Cañas AJ, Novak JD, Miller NL, Collado CM, Rodríguez M M, Concepción M, Santana C, Peña L. Confiabilidad de una Taxonomía Topológica Para Mapas Conceptuales (online). http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2006Papers/cmc2006-p233.pdf [15 November 2010].
7. Cañas AJ, Valerio A, Lalinde-Pulido J, Carvalho M, Arguedas M. Using WordNet for Word Sense Disambiguation to Support Concept Map Construction (online). http://www.cs.indiana.edu/_avalerio/papers/2003spire.pdf [15 November 2011].
8. Casti JL. Searching for Certainty: What Scientists Can Know. New York: Morrow, 1990, p. 51.
9. Chang K, Sung Y, Chen S. Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. J Comp Assist Learn 17: 21-33, 2001.
10. Chi MT, De Leeuw N, Chiu MH, Lavancher C. Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cogn Sci Multidiscipl J 18: 439-477, 1994.
11. Clariana RB, Koul R, Salehi R. The criterion related validity of a computer-based approach for scoring concept maps. Int J Instruct Media 33: 317-325, 2006.
12. Clement J. Model based learning as a key research area for science education. Int J Sci Educ 22: 1041-1053, 2000.
13. Cobb P. Theories of knowledge and instructional design: a response to Colliver. Teach Learn Med 14: 52-55, 2002.
14. Collins A, Joseph D, Bielaczyc K. Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. J Learn Sci 13: 15-42, 2004.
15. Conlon T. Formative assessment of classroom concept maps: the reasonable fallible analyser. J Interact Learn Res 17: 15-36, 2006.
16. DeHaan RL. The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. J Sci Educ Technol 14: 253-269, 2005.
17. DiCarlo SE. Cell biology should be taught as science is practised. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7: 290-296, 2006.
18. Fellbaum C. WordNet-an Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
19. Fisher KM. SemNet software as an assessment tool. In: Assessing Science Understanding: a Human Constructivist View, edited by Mintzes JJ, Wandersee JH, Novak JD. San Diego, CA: Academic, 2000.
20. Gobert JD, Buckley BC. Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. Int J Sci Educ 22: 891-894, 2001.
21. Goel AK, Chandrasekaran B. Functional representation of designs and redesign problem solving. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1989, vol. 1.
22. Grosslight L, Unger C, Jay E, Smith CL. Understanding models and their use in science- conceptions of middle and high-school students and experts. J Res Sci Teach 28: 799-822, 1991.
23. Harrison SH, Wallace JL, Ebert-May D, Luckie DB. C-TOOLS Automated Grading for Online Concept Maps Works Well With a Little Help From "WordNet" (online). http://cmc.ihmc.us/papers/cmc2004-047.pdf [15 November 2010].
24. Herl HE, O'Neil HF, Chung GKWK, Dennis RA, Lee JJ. Feasibility of an On-line Concept Mapping Construction and Scoring System (online). http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED424233.pdf [15 November 2010].
25. Hibberd R, Jones A, Morris E. The use of Concept Mapping as a Means to Promote and Assess Knowledge Acquisition. CALRG Report No. 202. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University, 2002.
26. Hmelo CE, Holton DL, Kolodner JL. Designing to learn about complex systems. J Learn Sci 9: 247-298, 2000.
27. Hmelo-Silver CE, Marathe S, Liu L. Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: expert-novice understanding of complex systems. J Learn Sci 16: 307-331, 2007.
28. Klein DC, Chung GK, Osmundson E, Herl HE, O'Neil HF. Examining the Validity of Knowledge Mapping as a Measure of Elementary Students' Scientific Understanding. CSE Technical Report No. 557 (online). http://research.cse.ucla.edu/Reports/TR557.pdf [15 November 2010].
29. Kuhn D. Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychol Rev 96: 674-689, 1989.
30. Kuhn D. Thinking as argument. Harvard Educ Rev 62: 155-178, 1992.
31. Luckie DB, Batzli JM, Harrison S, Ebert-May D. C-TOOLS: conceptconnector tools for online learning in science. Int J Learn 10: 332-338, 2003.
32. Luckie D, Harrison S, Ebert-May D. Introduction to C-TOOLS: Concept Mapping Tools for Online Learning (online). https://www.msu.edu/_luckie/CTOOLS.pdf [15 November 2010].
33. Markham KM, Mintzes JJ, Jones MG. The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: further evidence of validity. J Res Sci Teach 31: 91-101, 1994.
34. National Research Council. Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Washington, DC: National Academy, 1999.
35. Novak J. Concept mapping: a useful tool for science education. J Res Sci Teach 27: 937-949, 1990.
36. Novak JD, Canas AJ. The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them (online). http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryCmaps/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.htm [15 November 2010].
37. Novak JD, Gowin DD. Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge, 1984.
38. Pea R, Tinker R, Linn M, Means B, Bransford J, Roschelle J, His S, Brophy S, Songer N. Toward a learning technologies knowledge network. Educ Technol Res Dev 47: 19-38, 1999.
39. Ruiz-Primo MA, Schultz SE, Li M, Shavelson RJ. Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. J Res Sci Teach 38: 260-278, 2001.
40. Ruiz-Primo MA, Shavelson RJ. Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. J Res Sci Teach 33: 569-600, 1996.
41. Safayeni F, Derbentseva N, Cañas A. A theoretical note on concepts and the need for cyclic concept maps. J Res Sci Teach 42: 741-766, 2005.
42. Seymour E, Gorogg DL, Burris G, Weiman C, Collins M. Undergraduate Science, Math and Engineering Education: What's Working? Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, Second Session, March 15, 2006, Serial No. 109-40 (online). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname_109_house_hearings&docid_f:26481.pdf [15 November 2010].
43. Suter L, Frechtling J. Guiding Principles for Mathematics and Science Education Research Methods. NSF Report 00-113 (online). http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00113/nsf00113.pdf [15 November 2010].
44. Taricani EM, Clariana RB. Technique for automatically scoring openended concept maps. Educ Technol Res Dev 54: 65-82, 2006.
45. Tarte G. Conéctate al Conocimiento: una Estrategia Nacional de Panamá Basada en Mapas Conceptuales (online). http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2006Papers/cmc2006-p248.pdf [15 November 2010].
46. Trigwell K, Prosser M, Ginns P. Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised approaches to teaching inventory. High Educ Res Dev 24: 349-360, 2005.
47. Valerio A, Leake D, Cañas AJ. Automatic Classification of Concept Maps Based on a Topological Ontology (online). http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2008papers/cmc2008-p086.pdf [15 November 2010].
48. Van der Valk T, Van Driel JH, De Vos W. Common characteristics of models in present-day scientific practice. Res Sci Educ 37: 469-488, 2007.
49. Weimer M. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
50. Wittrock MC. Generative learning processes of the brain. Educ Psychol 27: 531-541, 1992.
51. Wycoff S. Changing the culture of undergraduate science teaching: shifting from lecture to interactive engagement and scientific reasoning. J Coll Sci Teach 30: 306-312, 2001.