Comparing two forms of concept map critique activities to facilitate knowledge integration processes in evolution education

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 70-94

  Schwendimann, Beat A ^a   Linn, Marcia C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

concept mapping; conceptual change; evolution; inquiry; misconceptions; science education

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; EDUCATION; INTEGRATION;

CONCEPT MAPPING; CONCEPTUAL CHANGE; EVOLUTION; INQUIRY; MISCONCEPTIONS; SCIENCE EDUCATION;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84955630097     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21244     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., &, Hansell, M. H., (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33 (2), 84-86.
2. Berland, L. K., &, Reiser, B. J., (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93 (1), 26-55.
3. Bishop, B. A., &, Anderson, C. W., (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (5), 415-427.
4. Bonderup Dohn, N., (2009). Affordances revisited: Articulating a merleau-pontian view. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4 (2), 151-170.
5. Chi, M. T. H., (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inference and repairing mental models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers 5: (pp. 161-238).
6. Clark, D. B., &, Sampson, V., (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (3), 293-321.
7. Clark, D. B., (2000). Evaluating media-enhancement and source authority on the internet: The knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (8), 859-872.
8. Cliburn, J. W., Jr, (1990). Concept maps to promote meaningful learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19 (4), 212-217. Concord Consortium. (2006). BioLogica.
9. Cuthbert, A., &, Slotta, J., (2004). Fostering lifelong learning skills on the world wide web: Critiquing, questioning and searching for evidence. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (7), 821-844.
10. Davis, E. A., &, Kirkpatrick, D., (2002). It's all the news: Critiquing evidence and claims. Science Scope, 25 (5), 32-37.
11. Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., &, Canas, A. J., (2007). Concept maps: Experiments on dynamic thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (3), 448-465).
12. diSessa, A. A., (2002). Why "conceptual ecology" is a good idea. In, M. Limõn C,., &, L. Mason, (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 26-60). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
13. Donnelly, D. F., Linn, M. C., &, Ludvigsen, S., (2014). Impacts and characteristics of computer-based science inquiry learning environments for precollege students. Review of Educational Research, 84 (4), 572-608.
14. Duncan, R. G., &, Reiser, B. J., (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students' understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (7), 938-959.
15. Enyedy, N., (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 427-466.
16. Falchikov, N., &, Goldfinch, J., (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70 (3), 287-322.
17. Hamza, K. M., &, Wickman O., (2013). Student engagement with artefacts and scientific ideas in a laboratory and a concept-mapping activity. International Journal of Science Education, 35 (13), 2254-2277.
18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., &, Liu, L., (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16 (3), 307-331.
19. Hoadley, C., (2004). Fostering collaboration offline and online: Learning from each other. In, M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & L. Bell, (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. (pp. 145-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma, A., &, Chan, C., (2006). Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in technology-enhanced environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Special Issue: Learning-Oriented Assessment: Principles and Practice, 31 (4), 453-464.
21. Lee, H. S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., &, Liu, O. L., (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (1), 71-90.
22. Lehrer, R., &, Schauble, L., (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41 (3), 635-679.
23. Leif, S., (2005). Evolution lab [Computer Software].
24. Linn, M. C., (2008). Teaching for conceptual change: Distinguish or extinguish ideas. In, S. Vosniadou, (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.
25. Linn, M. C., &, Clancy, M. J., (1992). The case for case studies of programming problems. Communications of the ACM, 35 (3), 121-132.
26. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., &, Bell, (2004). Internet environments for science education (p. 412). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Linn, M. C., Eylon, B. S., &, Davis, E. A., (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In, M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & Bell, (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. (pp. 29-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Linn, M. C., &, Eylon, B. S., (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration (p. 336). New York, NY: Routledge.
29. Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., &, Chiu, J. L., (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313 (5790), 1049-1050.
30. Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., &, Linn, M. C., (2010). Multifaceted assessment of inquiry-based science learning. Educational Assessment, 15 (2), 69-86.
31. Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., Hofstetter, C., &, Linn, M. C., (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13 (1), 33-55.
32. Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., &, Linn, M. C., (2011). Measuring knowledge integration: Validation of four-year assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (9), 1079-1107.
33. McCarthy, C. B., (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (3), 245-263.
34. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., &, Novak, J. D., (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Educational psychology press. Academic Press.
35. Nesbit, J. C., &, Adesope, O. O., (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413-448.
36. Novak, J. D., (1980). Meaningful reception learning as a basis for rational thinking. In, A. E. Lawson, (Ed.), Association for the Education of Teachers in Science Yearbook: The psychology of teaching for thinking and creativity (pp. 191-224). US: Ohio.
37. Novak, J. D., (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization Journal, 5 (3), 175-184.
38. Novick, L. R., Schreiber, E. G., &, Catley, K. M., (2014). Deconstructing evolution education: The relationship between micro- and macroevolution. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 51 (6), 759-788.
39. Osborne, R. J., &, Wittrock, M. C., (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67 (4), 489-508.
40. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., (2000). On the use of concept maps as an assessment tool in science: What we have learned so far. Revista Electrõnica De Investigaciõn Educativa, 2 (1), 30.
41. Schwendimann, B. A., (2007). Integrating interactive genetics visualizations into high school biology. In Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
42. Schwendimann, B. A., (2008). Scaffolding an interactive dynamic model to promote coherent connections in high school biology. Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association (AERA) New York, NY.
43. Schwendimann, B. A., (2009a). Critiquing concepts maps for a more coherent understanding of biology. Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Anaheim, CA.
44. Schwendimann, B. A., (2009b). Learning from a dynamic biology visualization through concept mapping and critique. In Annual meeting of the American. Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. San Diego, CA.
45. Schwendimann, B. A., (2011). Distinguishing evolution ideas through two different forms of collaborative critique-focused concept mapping activities. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) Hong Kong, China: CSCL Conference.
46. Schwendimann, B. A., (2014a). Making sense of knowledge integration maps. In, D. Ifenthaler, &, R. Hanewald, (Eds.), Digital knowledge maps in education: Technology enhanced support for teachers and learners. New York: Springer.
47. Schwendimann, B. A., (2014b). Multi-level analysis strategy to make sense of concept maps. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on concept mapping Santos (Brazil): International conference on concept mapping.
48. Schwendimann, B. A., (2015). Concept maps as versatile tools to integrate complex ideas: From kindergarten to higher and professional education. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: Special Issue on Novakian Concept Mapping in University and Professional Education, 7 (1), 73-99.
49. Shavelson, R. J., Lang, H., &, Lewin, B., (1994). On concept maps as potential "authentic" assessements in science. CSE Tech Rep, 388.
50. Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., &, Wiley, E. W., (2005). Windows into the mind. Higher Education, 49 no, 4, 413-430.
51. Shen, J., (2007). Justifying alternative model: A case study on K-8 science teachers' understanding of frames of reference in astronomy. In Annual meeting of the american educational research association, chicago, IL.
52. Shen, J., (2010). Nurturing students' critical knowledge using technology-enhanced scaffolding strategies in science education: A conceptual framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19 (1), 1-12.
53. Shtulman, A., (2006). Qualitative differences between naive and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychol, 52 (2), 170-194.
54. Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., &, Demastes, J. W., (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (5), 510-528.
55. Slotta, J. D., &, Linn, M. C., (2000). How do students make sense of internet resources in the science classroom?. In, M. J. Jacobson, &, R. Kozma, (Eds.), Learning the sciences of the 21st century. (pp. 193-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
56. Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L., &, Anzelmo, J., (2001). Understanding students' explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims?. Science Education, 85 (4), 328-348.
57. Taber, K. S., (2013). Representing evolution in science education: The challenge of teaching about natural selection. In, B. Akpan, (Ed.), Science education: A global perspective (pp. 65-91). Abuja, Nigeria: Next Generation Education.
58. Topping, K. J., (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational psychology. Special Issue: Developments in educational psychology: How far have we come in 25 years?, 25 (6), 631-645.
59. Trowbridge, J. E., &, Wandersee, J. H., (1998). Theory-Driven graphic organizers. In, J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, &, J. D. Novak, (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 95-131). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
60. Tsui, C. Y., &, Treagust, D. F., (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33 (1), 111-135.
61. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., &, Kanselaar, G., (2005). Using representational tools to support historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14 (1), 25-41.
62. Wilensky, U., &, Resnick, M., (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8 (1), 3-19.
63. 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.
64. Zhang, Z. H., &, Linn, M. C., (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (10), 1177-1198.
65. Zhang, Z. H., &, Linn, M. C., (2013). Learning from chemical visualizations: Comparing generation and selection. International Journal of Science Education, 35 (13), 2174-2197.