Educational Technology International

The Korean Society for Education Technology (한국교육공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effects of Generative Concept Map on Science Learning Achievement and Cognitive Load

  • Received : 2016.09.01
  • Accepted : 2016.10.09
  • Published : 2016.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of generative concept maps according to learning achievements and cognitive load. A total of 78 students in the first grade of middle school participated in this study. Before the experimental treatment was implemented, students had to fill out a questionnaire assessing prior knowledge. The study was designed where all the students were presented the same learning contents regarding photosynthesis; however, the two experimental groups were provided with different concept map methods: a learner-generative concept map (GCM) and an instructor-provided concept map (PCM). GCM students were asked to make a concept map by themselves in small groups while they are reading material. PCM students were instructed to study in small groups in order to read the material; however, they were provided a concept map developed by their teacher. The control group (CG) had the teacher present the learning contents in traditional lecture format with no accompanying concept map. The results show that there were significant differences in the achievements among the groups. CG showed higher achievement than both the experimental groups. There was also a significant difference in cognitive load. Although the GCM group did not obtain higher achievement than the other groups, the GCM group showed higher mental effort and lower physical fatigue than the other groups. The GCM group might have invested more effort to find and connect ideas when drawing their concept map with peers which is unlike the conditions for the PCM group and CG. In conclusion, we should consider applying GCM in teaching and learning design in order to increase learning achievement and decrease extraneous cognitive load.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was conducted by research fund from the Gwangju University in 2015.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096-1097.
  2. Amadieu, F., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Marine, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 376-386.
  3. Berry, J. W., & Chew, S. L. (2008). Improving learning through interventions of student-generated questions and concept maps. Teaching of Psychology, 35(4), 305-312.
  4. Burrows, N. L., & Mooring, S. R. (2015). Using concept mapping to uncover students' knowledge structures of chemical bonding concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 53-66.
  5. Chang, S. N. (2007). Externalising students' mental models through concept maps. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 107-112.
  6. Chawla, J., & Singh, G. (2015). Effect of concept mapping strategy on achievement in chemistry of ix graders in relation to achievement motivation. Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I. Issue XXIV.
  7. Chung, Y. L., & Lee, E. P. (2003). Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to teach genetics and reproduction to high school students. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(6), 617-626.
  8. Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2.
  9. Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). Prior knowledge activation: how different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 38(4), 417-433.
  10. Heo, I. S., & Kim, W. H. (2003). The effect of utilization of concept map as an advance organizer. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 17(3), 117-129.
  11. Jung, H. J., & Kim, H. Y. (2012). An exploratory validation for the constructs of collaboration load. Educational Technology, 28(3), 619-640.
  12. Kim, Y. S., & Oh, K. Y. (1995). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for the middle school biology: Student - centered versus teacher - centered concept mapping. Biology Education, 23(2), 213-230.
  13. 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. Educational research, 42(1), 43-57.
  14. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1-10.
  15. Lim, K. Y. (2009). The effect of concept mapping and self-regulated learning skills on knowledge acquisition. . Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 1-25.
  16. 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.
  17. Oh, S. A., & Kim, Y. S. (2006). The effect of advance organizer on cognitive load and learning achievement. Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 55-82.
  18. Oh, S. A., Kim, Y. S., Jung, E. K., & Kim, H. S. (2009). Effects of different advance organizers on mental model construction and cognitive load decrease. Educational Technology International, 10(2), 145-166.
  19. Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press.
  20. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
  21. Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 262-270.
  22. Schmeck, A., Mayer, R. E., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V., & Leutner, D. (2014). Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 275-286.
  23. Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of educational psychology, 99(4), 808.
  24. Swanson, H. L., Moran, A. S., Bocian, K., Lussier, C., & Zheng, X. (2013). Generative strategies, working memory, and word problem solving accuracy in children at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(4), 203-214.
  25. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
  26. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer, 10, 978-1.
  27. Van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 325-331.
  28. Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Schuurman, J. G., De Croock, M. B. M., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2002). Redirecting learners' attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 11-37.
  29. Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational psychology review, 17(2), 147-177
  30. Verhoeven, L., Schnotz, W., & Paas, F. (2009). Cognitive load in interactive knowledge construction. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 369-375.
  31. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational psychologist, 11(2), 87-95.
  32. Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational psychologist, 24(4), 345-376.
  33. Wittrock, M. C. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension. The Elementary School Journal, 169-184.
  34. Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531-541.
  35. Wittrock, M. C. (1994). Generative science teaching. The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning, 29-38.
  36. Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
  37. You, M. H., & Kim, Y. S. (2008). The Effect of Concept Mapping in Teaching Science and Science Writing on Middle School Students' Science Writing. Biology Education, 36(3), 386-396.