A metacognitive tool : Theoretical and operational analysis of skills exercised in structured concept maps (original) (raw)

Abstract

Developing meaningful learning is not only difficult to achieve but also time consuming, because it requires a large number of different skills to develop and master. Many studies have shown that organizing knowledge in concept maps helps teachers and students to develop such a meaningful learning (Nesbit, J.C., Adescope, O.O., 2006).Based on the work of Tyler (Tyler,R.W.,1950) and Anderson (Anderson, L.W., et al. ,2001), this study proposes to characterize and to organize precisely, rigorously, and operationally in a two-dimensional matrix, the skills exercised during the elaboration of concept maps, here referred to as context-dependent and hierarchically structured concept maps (sCM). These skills correspond to those actually needed in transfer of knowledge, and the matrix could be used as an instructional tool to assist learners and teachers in This transfer. In addition it allows them to pay attention to the cognitive processes and types of knowledge involved during sCM elaboration. Making explicit the taxonomic levels of cognitive efforts implemented while organizing knowledge in a concept map could constitute a useful metacognitive tool to focus the teachers and learners' attention and efforts towards achieving higher-order thinking skills and meaningful learning. @2014 The author Published by Elsevier GmbH. This is an open access article under the CCBY-NC-SA license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (33)

  1. Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., Wittrock, M.C., 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman, New York.
  2. Atkinson, R., Shiffrin, R., 1968. In: Spence, K., Spence, J. (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 2. Academic Press, New York, pp. 89-195.
  3. Ausubel, D.P., 1968. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
  4. Davies, M., 2011. Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? High. Educ. 62, 279-301.
  5. Duro, E., Elander, J., Maratos, F.A., Stupple, E.J.N., Aubeeluck, A., 2013. In search of critical thinking in psychology: an exploration of student and lecturer understandings in higher education. Psychol. Learn. Teach. 12 (3), 275-281.
  6. Fischer, K.W., 2008. Dynamic cycles of cognitive and brain devel- opment: measuring growth in mind, brain, and education. In: Battro, A.M., Fischer, K.W., Léna, P. (Eds.), The Educated Brain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K, pp. 127-150.
  7. Harden, R.M., 2002. Learning outcomes and instructional objec- tives: is there a difference? Med. Teach. 24 (2), 151-155.
  8. Haskell, R.E., 2001. Transfer of Learning. Academic Press, San Diego.
  9. Stanley, D., Ivie. Ausubel's Learning Theory: An Approach To Teaching Higher Order Thinking Skills. (educational psychologist David Paul Ausubel). High School Journal 82.1 (Oct 1998): p. 35(1).
  10. Karpicke, J.D., Roediger, H.L., 2008. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science 319, 966-968.
  11. Karpicke, J.D., Blunt, J.R., 2011. Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science 331, 772-775.
  12. Karpicke, J.D., 2012. Retrieval-based learning: active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21 (3), 157-163.
  13. Kharatmal, M, and Nagarjuna, G., 2010. Introducing rigor in concept maps. In: Croitoru, M., Ferré, S., and Lokose, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conceptual Structures: From Informa- tion to Intelligence, ICCS LNAI 6208, 199-202.
  14. 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. Educ. Res. 42 (1), 43-57.
  15. Kinchin, I., 2008. The qualitative analysis of concept maps: some unforeseen consequences and emerging opportunities. In: A.J. Cañas, P. Reiska, M. Åhlberg & J.D. Novak, (Eds.) Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators. Proceedings of the Third Inter- national Conference on Concept Mapping, Tallinn, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland.
  16. Kinchin, I.M., 2010. Solving Cordelia's dilemma: threshold concepts within a punctuated model of learning. J. Biol. Educ. 44, 53-57.
  17. Krathwohl, D.R., 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: an over- view. Theory Pract. 41 (4), 212-218.
  18. Mayer, R.E., 2001. Changing conceptions of learning: a century of progress in the scientific study of learning. In: Corno, L. (Ed.), Education Across the Century: The Centennial Volume-One Hundredth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. National Society for the study of Education, Chicago, pp. 34-75.
  19. Mayer, R.E., 2002. Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Pract. 41 (4), 226-232.
  20. Mestre, J., 2002. Transfer of Learning; Issues and Research Agenda (Report of a workshop held at the National Science Foundation: Department of Physics). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
  21. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., Novak, J.D., 2005a. Ausubel's cognitive assimilation theory: 1963. In: Mintzes, J.J., Wander- see, J.H., Novak, J.D. (Eds.), Teaching Science for Understand- ing. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 39-41.
  22. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., Novak, J.D., 2005b. Epilogue: meaningful learning, knowledge restructuring and conceptual change: on ways of teaching science for understanding. In: Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., Novak, J.D. (Eds.), Teaching Science for Understanding. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 327-350.
  23. Mintzes, J.J., Canas, A., Coffey, J., Gorman, J., Gurley, L., Hoffman, R., McGuire, S.Y., Miller, N., Moon, B., Trifone, J., Wandersee, J.H., 2011. Comment on "retrieval practice pro- duces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping". Science 334, 453c.
  24. Nesbit, J.C., Adescope, O.O., 2006. Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 76 (3), 413-446.
  25. Novack, J.D., 2008. The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them (Technical report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev). Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cogni- tion, 01-2008.
  26. Novak, J.D., Canãs, A.J., 2006. The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01 Retrieved 01/08. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
  27. Novak, J.D., 2010. Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept map as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. J. e-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 6 (3), 21-30.
  28. Racenet, N., Chevron, M.P., 2013. Utiliser les cartes conceptuelles pour développer et évaluer des aptitudes cognitives de haut niveau taxonomique en sciences. Communication in 25ème colloque de l'ADMEE-Europe. Evaluation et autoévaluation, quels espaces de formation. Fribourg.
  29. Roediger, H.L., Karpicke, J.D., 2006. The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Per- spect. Psychol. Sci. 1, 181-210.
  30. Terry, W.S., 2006. Learning and memory: basic principles, Processes and Procedures Third edition Allyn and Bacon, Boston/Upper Saddle River.
  31. Tyler, R.W., 1950. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  32. Veenman, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B., Afflerbach, P., 2006. Metacog- nition an learning: conceptual and methodological considera- tions. Metacogn. Learn. 1, 3-14.
  33. West, D.C., Pomeroy, J.R., Park, J.K., Gerstenberger, E.A., Sandoval, J.H., 2000. Critical thinking in graduate medical education: a role for concept mapping assessment? J. Am. Med. Assoc. 284, 1105-1111.