Effects of touch technology-based concept mapping on students' learning attitudes and perceptions

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 274-285

  Hwang, Gwo Jen ^a   Wu, Chih Hsiang ^b   Kuo, Fan Ray ^c  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF TAINAN   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL SUN YAT SEN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Concept map; Interactive whiteboard; Learning attitude; Technology acceptance model; Touch technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884128739     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
2. Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Tseng, J. C. R. (2010). A two-tier test approach to developing location-aware mobile learning systems for natural science course. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1618-1627.
3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Crawley, F. E., & Koballa Jr, T. R. (1994). Attitude research in science education: Contemporary models and methods. Science Education, 78(1), 35-55.
5. Dhindsa, H. S., & Emran, S. H. (2006). Use of the interactive whiteboard in contructivist teaching for higher student achievement. In S. M. Stewart, J. E. Olearski, & D. Thompson (Eds), Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference for Middle East Teachers of Science, Mathematics and Computing (pp. 175-188). Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: METSMaC.
6. Erdogan, Y. (2009). Paper-based and computer-based concept mappings: The effects on computer achievement, computer anxiety and computer attitude. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 821-836.
7. Goodison, T. A. (2002). Learning with ICT at primary level: Pupils' perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 282-295.
8. Hollan, J. D., & Hutchins, E. L. (2010). Opportunities and challenges for augmented environments: A distributed cognition perspective. In S. Lahlou (Ed.), Designing User Friendly Augmented Work Environments: From Meeting Rooms to Digital Collaborative Spaces (pp. 237-259). doi: 10.1007/978-1-84800-098-8_9
9. Hung, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Su, I. H., & Lin, I. H. (2012). A concept-map integrated dynamic assessment system for improving ecology observation competences in mobile learning activities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 10-19.
10. Hung, P. H., Lin, Y. F., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). Formative assessment design for PDA integrated ecology observation. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 33-42.
11. Hwang, G. J. (2003). A conceptual map model for developing intelligent tutoring systems. Computers & Education, 40(3), 217-235.
12. Hwang, G. J., Shi, Y. R., & Chu, H. C. (2011). A concept map approach to developing collaborative Mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 778-789.
13. Hwang, G. J., Sung, H. Y., Hung, C. M., & Huang, I. (2012). Development of a personalized educational computer game based on students' learning styles. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(4), 623-638.
14. Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., Chu, H. C., Kinshuk, & Chen, C. Y. (2012). A context-aware ubiquitous learning approach to conducting scientific inquiry activities in a science park. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 931-947.
15. Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., & Ke, H. R. (2011). An interactive concept map approach to supporting mobile learning activities for natural science courses. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2272-2280.
16. Kennewell, S. (2005, September). Researching the influence of interactive presentation tools on teacher pedagogy. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, Wales, UK.
17. Khamesan, A., & Hammond, N. (2004). Interpersonal awareness during web-based concept mapping: The effect of different communication channels. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004 (pp. 4168-4173). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
18. Kim, P., & Olaciregui, C. (2008). The effects of a concept map-based information display in an electronic portfolio system on information processing and retention in a fifth-grade science class covering the Earth's atmosphere. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 700-714.
19. Komis, V., Ergazaki, M., & Zogza, V. (2007). Comparing computer-supported dynamic modeling and 'paper & pencil' concept mapping technique in students' collaborative activity. Computers & Education, 49(4), 991-1017.
20. Kordaki, M. (2009). A drawing and multi-representational computer environment for beginners' learning of programming using C: Design and pilot formative evaluation. Computers & Education, 54(1), 69-87.
21. Kwon, S. Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2009). The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. Collaboratively-constructed computer-based concept maps. Computers & Education, 52(2), 365-375.
22. Lim, K. Y., Lee, H. W., & Grabowski, B. (2009). Does concept-mapping strategy work for everyone? The levels of generativity and learners' self-regulated learning skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 606-618.
23. Liu, P. (2011). A study on the use of computerized concept mapping to assist ESL learners' writing. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2548-2558.
24. Liu, P. L., Chen, C. J., & Chang, Y. J. (2010). Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students' English reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 54(2), 436-445.
25. Morgan, M., & Butler, M. (2009). Considering multi-touch display technology for collaboration in the classroom. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2009 (pp.674-683). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
26. Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 91-101.
27. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.
28. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
29. McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492.
30. Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459-479.
31. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
32. Novak, J. D. (1996). Concept mapping: A tool for improving science teaching and learning. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser(Eds.), Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics (pp.32-43). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
33. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization Journal, 5(3), 175-184.
34. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press.
35. Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625-645.
36. Panjaburee, P., Hwang, G. J., Triampo, W., & Shih, B. Y. (2010). A multi-expert approach for developing testing and diagnostic systems based on the concept effect model. Computers & Education, 55(2), 527-540.
37. Reader, W., & Hammond, N. (1994). Computer-based tools to support learning from hypertext: concept mapping tools and beyond. Computers & Education, 12(1), 99-106.
38. Rick, J., & Rogers, Y. (2008, October). From digiquilt to digitile: Adapting educational technology to a multi-touch table. Paper presented at the 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
39. Romeo, G., Edwards, S., McNamara, S., Walker, I., & Ziguras, C. (2003). Touching the screen: issues related to the use of touchscreen technology in early childhood education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 329-339.
40. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping: New perspectives for the teacher. International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 437-455.
41. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., & Schultz, S. E. (1997). On the validity of concept map-based assessment interpretations: An experiment testing the assumption of hierarchical concept maps in science. (Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE) Report No. 445). Los Angeles, CA: Graduate School of Education & Information Studies University of California.
42. Schmid, R. F., & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Education Research, 84(2), 78-85.
43. Smith, A. (2000). Interactive whiteboard evaluation. Retrieved May 31, 2012, from the MirandaNet Publications website: http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/pubs/smartboard.htm
44. Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboard: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the Literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101.
45. Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P., Woodrow, D. (2007). Evaluation of the primary schools whiteboard expansion project (Report to the Department for Children, Schools and Families). Manchester, UK: Education & Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University.
46. Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1078-1088.
47. Wang, S. K. & Reeves, T. C. (2007). The effects of a web-based learning environment on student motivation in a high school earth course. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(2), 169-192.
48. Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96.
49. Wu, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Milrad, M., Ke, H. R., & Huang, Y. M. (2012). An innovative concept map approach for improving students' learning performance with an instant feedback mechanism. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 217-232.
50. Wu, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Su, L. H., & Huang, Y. M. (2012). A context-aware mobile learning system for supporting cognitive apprenticeships in nursing skills training. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 223-236.
51. Xu, H. L., & Moloney, R. (2011). Perceptions of interactive whiteboard pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 307-325.
52. Yu, X., Zhang, M., Ren, J., Zhao, H., & Zhu, Z. (2010). Experimental development of competitive digital educational games on multi-touch screen for young children. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6249, 367-375.