Concept map what is science

Teaching science using concept maps. Upcoming SlideShare. Like this presentation? Why not share! Ann Marie E. Embed Size px. Start on. Show related SlideShares at end. WordPress Shortcode. Next SlideShares. Download Now Download to read offline and view in fullscreen. Download Now Download Download to read offline. Teaching science using concept maps Download Now Download Download to read offline. Xavier's College , Palayamkottai - Follow. Introduction to Concept Mapping.

Concept Mapping Concept Mapping. Concept mapping. Concept mapping1. Concept Maps. Concept Maps: Types, uses, software. Concept map care plan. Social Studies Concepts Maps. Related Books Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd. Related Audiobooks Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd. Kina Grace. Ravi M , Student at Sri Sairam engineering college. Satakshi Sharma. Amit Sinha , Mr at IR. Sir AE. Kanchan Goyal. Nora Sibayan , teacher at respsci at respsci.

Vartika Mishra. Purnika Taneja. Saurav Adlakha. Om Prakash. Ricci Rebay. Prabhuswamy Mallappa , M. Each of the 49 students in our sample submitted three concept maps: the first draft version, the revised version, and the final version. We counted the number of concepts, propositions, and branching points in each of these versions for all students in the sample. Here, we focused exclusively on the nine dimensions related to writing and reasoning: appropriateness for target audience, argument for significance of research, articulation of goals, interpretation of results, implications of findings, organization, absence of writing errors, consistent and professional citations, and effective use of tables and figures.

In focusing on these nine dimensions, we use BioTAP to directly measure primary learning outcomes of undergraduate research and thesis writing. Each dimension was rated on a scale of 1—5. A rating of 1 indicates the dimension under consideration is either missing, incomplete, or below the minimum acceptable standards. A rating of 3 indicates the dimension is adequate, but the work does not exhibit mastery. A rating of 5 indicates the dimension is excellent and the work exhibits mastery. As different parts of the thesis might fall into different categories, intermediate ratings of 2 and 4 may be appropriate.

Theses were assessed by a group of graduate student and postdoctoral associates, trained and supervised by J. Raters then assessed sample theses that were not part of the data set, discussed them, and established consensus scores as a means of calibration. Each thesis in our sample was read by two raters who assessed the theses independently, subsequently discussed discrepancies in their ratings, and finally established a consensus score Reynolds and Thompson, ; Dowd et al.

The consensus score is not the simple average of the scores given by the two raters; rather, it is a discussion-based final score agreed upon by both raters. In other words, the low prediscussion correlation seems to exacerbate relatively small differences between raters in this data set.

Consensus scores were used in all analyses. Total BioTAP scores for students in our sample ranged from 32 to 44 out a maximum possible score of To assess changes in concept map features over time and to make comparisons between groups e. As we considered a number of possible relationships among variables, we accounted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method for controlling the family-wise error rate, which is both simple and more powerful than the Bonferroni method Holm, The number of concepts increases, on average, from the first draft to the revision and from the revision to the final map.

The number of propositions and the number of branches increase, on average, from the first draft to the revision, but the change is not statistically significant from revision to final map.

However, in spite of the average increases in these structural features, not all students make their maps more complex. In fact, a substantial number of students reduce the number of propositions in their maps at some point Figure 2.

We find very similar patterns in numbers of concepts and branching points. Histograms displaying the number of students who increase the number of propositions in their concept maps, decrease the number of propositions, and do not change the number of propositions are shown, both A from initial draft to revised draft and B from revised draft to final version. We find very similar patterns in numbers of concepts and branching points; a substantial number of students simplify their maps at one stage or another.

Most importantly, when we account for multiple comparisons, we do not find any statistically significant relationships between any of the structural features of concept maps assessed and the aspects of science reasoning in writing assessed using BioTAP. There are no statistically significant relationships between the number of concepts, propositions, or branches on the first drafts, revisions, or final versions and any of the BioTAP variables individual dimension scores, partial sums, or total sum.

Specifically, p values range from 0. Additionally, there are no statistically significant relationships between the change in number of concepts, propositions, or branches from first draft to revision, from revision to final version, or from first draft to final version and any of the BioTAP variables.

Here, p values range from 0. In Table 1 , we highlight the nonsignificant correlations between the total sum of BioTAP and each of the variables related to concept maps discussed here. Even when we compare two groups students who simplify at some point versus students who do not , differences in BioTAP variables are not significantly different; p values range from 0.

In short, regardless of initial complexity, final complexity, or whether students make concept maps simpler or more complex throughout the semester, we find no relationships to science reasoning exhibited in thesis writing. However, although the average numbers of concepts, propositions, and branches increase, we find that a substantial percent of students actually simplify their concept maps throughout the semester Figure 2.

This suggests that students vary in how they engage with concept maps in the context of scientific writing and that increased expertise is not necessarily associated with more elaborate maps. Previous research indicates that taking this course is associated with improved scientific reasoning skills Reynolds and Thompson, We see a range in BioTAP scores, of course, and some high-scoring students simplified their concept maps over the semester. Instead, our findings suggest that students use the concept maps to engage with their research in unique and possibly idiosyncratic ways.

Structure-oriented assessments of concept maps simply do not apply when activities are oriented toward scientific writing. Creating this space for discussion and engagement makes the use of concept maps a valuable pedagogical tool.

Not all students view the benefits of concept maps equally, however. In , approximately two-thirds of the way through the course, instructors administered a survey to the class in which students anonymously indicated their perceived value of various activities. Compared with other key aspects of the course e. It is not surprising that the concept map activity is not the most valuable to everyone, as the other components being compared were specifically designed to be engaging and valuable to students.

Instead, we highlight the diversity of perspectives about what is most engaging and productive for students. Importantly, we are not trying to assess the efficacy of concept mapping as a learning intervention in this study. Given that prior work has shown that this course, which includes concept maps among other elements that collectively function as an intervention, is associated with positive learning outcomes Reynolds and Thompson, , it would be arbitrary and possibly counterproductive to test individual components of the course without a hypothesis or explicit reason for testing an alternative method.

Thus, this study assumes that concept maps are valuable as an activity and is entirely oriented toward the question of whether the concept maps may directly inform instructors about learning outcomes in this context. It is possible that other measures of expertise such as comprehensive exams or postgraduate success in writing could reveal different relationships with structural features of concept maps.

We focus on BioTAP because it is a unique and established tool for the assessment of science reasoning in writing at the capstone level. Our findings suggest that instructors should not draw conclusions from assessment of structural features of concept maps in the context of scientific writing.

Instructors in this course provide students with discussion-oriented feedback on boundaries of the thesis topic, the research question, and the general appropriateness of the propositions in the concept map. It is possible that, as prewriting activities, such maps are mostly idiosyncratic; direct assessment may inform discussions but does not ultimately relate to learning outcomes. Alternatively, perhaps learning outcome—related direct assessment is possible, but it must relate better to the argument and context that students develop in their concept maps.

Thus, the development of a rubric analogous to BioTAP for concept map assessment could be beneficial for instructors, either to facilitate discussion or to connect to learning outcomes.

Our primary goal is for students to succeed in their research endeavors and undergraduate thesis-writing experience. If we can identify attributes of concept maps that correlate strongly with these outcomes, we may be able to identify and help those who are struggling much earlier in the course.

Our findings and our experience with the course lead us to believe that holistic assessment may better inform the development of a rubric for content map assessment than structural attributes.

BioTAP will be an invaluable tool for evaluating such a rubric, as it is the primary means of systematically relating scientific reasoning in writing to any measures that might be developed. Several people contributed to the work described in this paper.

The research described in this paper was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under award National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. For more, see: Information in your language. You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. Please enable scripts and reload this page. Skip to content. Page Content. Maps — Forces and motion Laws of motion pdf -