Incorporating Concept Mapping in Project-Based Learning: Lessons from Watershed Investigations

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 379-392

  Rye, James ^a   Landenberger, Rick ^a   Warner, Timothy A ^a  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Concept map; Project based learning; Science teacher professional development; Visual spatial tools; Watershed

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878113089     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-012-9400-1     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Baitz I (2009) Concept mapping in the online learning environment: a proven learning tool is transformed in a new environment. Int J Learn 16: 286-291.
2. Brown J, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18: 32-42.
3. Campbell L, Williams-Rossi D (2012) The way they want to learn. Sci Teacher 79(1): 52-56.
4. Cañas A, Hill G, Lott J (2003) Support for constructing knowledge models in CmapTools (Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 93-02). Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Pensicola, http://cmap. ihmc. us/Documentation/WhitePapers. php. Accessed 12 November 2011.
5. Cassata A, French L (2006) Using concept mapping to facilitate metacognitive control in preschool children. In: Cañas A, Novak J (eds) Concept maps: theory, methodology, technology. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on concept mapping, San José, Costa Rica, http://cmc. ihmc. us/cmc2006Papers/cmc2006-p144. pdf. Accessed 12 November 2011.
6. CmapTools Documentation (n. d.) Description of various collaboration features of CmapTools, http://cmap. ihmc. us/Documentation. Accessed 12 November 2011.
7. Colley K (2008) Project-based science instruction: a primer. The Sci Teacher 75(8): 33-37.
8. Ebenezer J, Kaya O, Ebenezer D (2011) Engaging students in environmental research projects: perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. J Res Sci Teach 48: 94-116. doi: 10. 1002/tea. 20387.
9. Fallik O, Eylon BS, Rosenfeld S (2008) Motivating teachers to enact free-choice project-based learning in science and technology (PBLSAT): effects of a professional development model. J Sci Teacher Educ 19: 565-591. doi: 10. 1007/s10972-008-9113-8.
10. Glesne C (1999) Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. Addison Wesley Longman, New York.
11. Harris J, Mishra P, Koehler M (2009) Teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: curriculum-based technology integration reframed. J Res Technol Educ 41: 393-416.
12. Hewson P (2007) Teacher professional development in science. In: Abell S, Lederman N (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Routledge, New York, pp 1179-1203.
13. Hung D, Looi C, Koh T (2004). Situated cognition and communities of practice: first-person "lived experiences" vs. third-person perspectives. Educ Technol Soc 7(4): 193-200.
14. Johnson CC (2006) Effective professional development and change in practice: barriers science teachers encounter and implication for reform. Sch Sci Math 106: 150-161.
15. Jonassen D (2000) Computers as mindtools for schools. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
16. Kelly J, Stetson R (2010) Making a difference: using concept maps in professional development. Southeastern Teacher Educ J 3(1): 5-10.
17. Kopcha TJ (2010) A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educ Tech Res Dev 58: 175-190. doi: 10. 1007/s11423-008-9095-4.
18. Liang L, Ebenezer J, Yost D (2010) Characteristics of preservice teachers' online discourse: the study of local streams. J Sci Educ Technol 19: 69-79. doi: 10. 1007/s10956-009-9179-x.
19. Markham T (with Larmer J, Ravitz J) (2006). Project based learning: a guide to standards-focused project based learning for middle and high school teachers, 2nd edn. Buck Institute for Education, Novato.
20. McLellan H (1994) Situated learning: continuing the conversation. Educ Technol 34(8): 7-8.
21. Micheals S, Shouse A, Schweingruber H (2007) Ready, set, science!. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
22. National Research Council (2006) Learning to think spatially. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
23. Nesbit JC, Adesope OO (2006) Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 76: 413-448.
24. Novak JD (2003) The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learning. Cell Biol Educ 2: 122-132.
25. Novak JD (2010) Learning, creating, and using knowledge, 2nd edn. Routlege, New York.
26. Novak JD, Cañas AJ (2008) The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, http://cmap. ihmc. us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps. htm. Accessed 12 November 2011.
27. Patton M (2002) Qualitative evaluation and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
28. Rye JA (2001) Enhancing teachers' use of technology through professional development on electronic concept mapping. J Sci Educ Technol 10: 223-235.
29. Science Educators Troubled by State of Science Education (2012) NSTA reports 23(5): 9.
30. Szymanski M, Morrell P (2009) Situated cognition and technology. Int J Learn 15(12): 55-58.
31. Tergan SO, Gräber W, Neumann A (2006) Mapping and managing knowledge and information in resource-based learning. Innovat Educ Teach Int 43: 327-336. doi: 10. 1080/14703290600973737.
32. Ueckert CW, Gess-Newsome J (2008) Active learning strategies: three activities to increase student involvement in learning. Sci Teacher 75(10): 48-52.
33. Weizman A, Shwartz Y, Fortus D (2008) The driving question board. Sci Teacher 75(9): 33-37.