Browse > Article

A comparative analysis on concept mapping tools for computer-supported collaborative learning  

Lee, Hyojin (한양대학교 교육공학과)
Jeong, Seunghee (진형중고등학교)
Yang, Sunyoung (한양대학교 교육공학과)
Eun, Jihye (국가과학기술인력개발원)
Kim, Kyungjin (한양대학교 교육공학과)
Kim, Dongsik (한양대학교 교육공학과)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education / v.18, no.3, 2015 , pp. 37-47 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to review the concept mapping tools and provide implications for designing tools that support collaborative learning activities. For this purpose, representative concept mapping tools - Convince Me, Knowledge Forum, Cmaptools, Mindmeister, Belvedere - was analyzed by using the 3C(Communication, Coordination, Cooperation) framework. We have applied three research methods; 1) literature review on design principles of tools, 2) heuristic evaluation, 3) focus group interview. As a result, most of comcept mapping tools supported communication functions but partialy supported coordication and cooperation features.
Keywords
Concept map; Concept mapping tool; Computer supported collaborative learning;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H., & de Jong, T.(2011). Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning. Int'l J. of CSCL. 6(2). 223-251.
2 Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Int'l J. of CSCL. 5(1), 43-102.
3 정선영(2007). 예비교사들의 학습스타일과 협력적 개념도 작성이 문제해결에 미치는 영향, 교육공학연구, 23(4), 55-77.
4 Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-219.   DOI
5 van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485-521.   DOI
6 Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: an instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of learning sciences, 14(2), 201-241.   DOI
7 Jorczak, R. L. (2011). An information processing perspective on divergence and convergence in collaborative learning. Int'l J. of CSCL. 6(2), 207-221.
8 Coffey, J. W., Carnot, M. J., Feltovich, P. J., Feltovich, J., Hoffman, R. R.. Canas, A. J., & Novak, J. D. (2003). A Summary of Literature Pertaining to the Use of Concept Mapping Techniques and Technologies for Education and Performance Support. Technical Report submitted to the Chief of Naval Education and Training, Pensacola, FL.
9 정효정, 김동식 (2006). CSCL에서 WOE의 유형이 지식 공유 과정에 미치는 영향. 교육공학연구, 22(3), 23-56.
10 Ranney, M., & Thagard, P. (1988). Explanatory coherence and belief revision in naive physics. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 426-432
11 Ranney, M., & Schank, P. (1998). Toward and intergreation of the social and the scientific: Observing, modeling, and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. In S. Read & L. Miller(Eds.), Connectionst models of social reasoning and social behavior. (pp. 245-274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12 Novak, J. D. (1990). 'Concept mapping: a useful tool for science education', Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-49.   DOI
13 Scardamalia, M., & C. Bereiter. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.   DOI
14 Lee, E. Y., Chan, C. K., & van Aaslt, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. Int'l J. of CSCL. 1(1), 57-87.
15 Lai, M., & Law, N. (2011). Questioning and the quality of knowledge ideas in a CSCL context: a study on two age group of students. Proceedings of 2011 CSCL (pp. 33-40), July 4-8 2011, Hong Kong.
16 Hough, S., O'Rode, N., Terman, N., & Weissglass, J. (2007). Using concept maps to assess change in teachers' understandings of algebra: A respectful approach. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(1), 23-41.   DOI
17 MindMeister, "MindMeister", "About Us", http://www.MindMeister.com, (2014.12.15.)
18 Kim. K., Eun, J., Kim, D.(2014). Development of social learning program for improving digital literacy. 학습과학연구, 8(1), 1-17.
19 전재천, 유인환(2014). 로봇 프로그래밍 교육에서 웹2.0 도구의 활용 모형. 정보교육학회논문지, 18(2), 345-356.   DOI
20 Medina, R., & Suthers, D. D. (2009). Using a contingency graph to discover representational practices in an online collaborative environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(3), 281-305.   DOI
21 Meier, A., Spada, H., Rummel, N.(2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaborative processes. Int'l J. of CSCL. 2(1), 63-86.
22 Suthers, D. D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., et al. (2001). Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. In K. D. F. a. P. J. Feltovich (Ed.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 7-35). Cambridge, Massachusetts: AAAI Press, The MIT Press.
23 Nielsen, J.(1994). Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R. L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods.
24 Fuks, H., Pimentel, M., Jose, C., & Lucena, P. (2006). R-U-typing-2-me? evolving a chat tool to increase understanding in learning activities. Intl. J. of CSCL. 1(1). 117-142.
25 장혜정, 류완영(2006). 탐구기반학습에서 성찰적 탐구 지원도구의 설계연구. 교육공학연구, 22(2), 27-67.
26 Cochrance, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1-14.
27 Stegmann, K., Mu, J., Gehlen-Baum, V., & Fischer, F.(2011). The Myth of Over-scripting: Can novices be supported too much?. Proceedings of 2011 CSCL(pp.406-413), July 4-8 2011, HongKong.
28 Belland, B. R.(2014). Scaffolding: definition, current debates, and future directions. in J. M. Spector et al(eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology(pp.505-518), NY: Springer.