The purpose of a knowledge dig is to encourage students to dig beneath the surface of the readings and audiobook (and any other relevant learning materials for a specific session). Towards this end digs are formatted like a discussion.
For this knowledge dig you'll have 2 distinct deadlines.
Dig 3a Deadline
Monday February 16th by midnight. Post at least one comment or question about the learning materials provided about graphic organizer research.
Dig 3b Deadline
Wednesday February 18th by midnight. Post at least one reply to a previously posted comment/question about the graphic organizer learning materials.
This knowledge dig is worth 4 points. Points are assigned based solely on meeting the deadlines stated above (i.e. points are not based on the "sophistication" or "correctness" of your comments). It is critical that for people to reply and participate in a discussion that they know at the latest when the full range of initial comments/questions will be posted—thus I'm breaking this up in to a two part assignment.
To make a comment you do not need to log in to your Blogger account (though there is nothing wrong with this). Alternatively you can always use the Name/URL option to specify your name. If you need help, or a refresher, on how to create a comment then please download the handy publish a comment pdf.
In general I'll only be reading your ongoing discussion, but not making comments myself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
Dr Mitchell,
Does your quick time presentation is an example and usage of a dynamic map?
Jozsef: Yes. There may be other or better ways to chunk the presentation of the map as it unfolds (still a lot of research to be done about that), but it is a basic dynamic map in that it "unfolds" that map one chunk at a time.
I am struck by the disconnect between what researchers are studying and presenting about different types of visual spatial learning tools and their purposes and the practice in the classroom. The activities I often see that use different types of organizers and representations are more like a cloze activity (fill in the ______) than an opportunity for the development of a cognitive map. It becomes a chore for students another thing to turn in rather than a learning tool.
What I have seen is work in curriculum development and the time to interact with peers increases the effective thoughtful use of theories.
In listening to the audiobooks and reading the articles, gaps in how we train teachers to use concept maps have become more clear to me. For instance, many new teachers I see utilize basic think-alouds with introducing concept maps (the phrase most often used in my district) but do not explain links, colors utilized, etc. I found myself revisiting Intel's FREE graphic organizer tool (http://educate.intel.com/en/ThinkingTools/SeeingReason/Overview/ ) to analyze how much of the research is incorporated in its function.
While I can now see how much research is embedded in how the tool is used (color choices for nodes, areas for students to explain the links and even determine the strength of links, the ability for any member of a team to modify the map remotely, the ability to compare maps to other students, etc.) The training Intel offers centers around creating lesson plans embedding the tool in classwork. There is relatively no training in the theoretical use of these functions in the coaching training. I am going to be teaching in the classroom next year and am intending to "resurrect" some of my projects, with greater explicitness around how to create really useful maps.
I think it might be time to reconsider the old saying “that don't sweat the easy stuff!” At least that’s what I got out of the Stull and Mayer (2007) article, which presented findings that were contrary to those predicted by the activity theory. The most surprising finding was the fact that the so-called author provided graphic organizer become the most effective tool to enhance both transfer and retention when it was used by novice learners in a low-complexity setting.
Meaning that as educators it’s worth to sweat about the small stuff, especially when new students encounter new but low-complexity problems. I think Dr. Mitchell’s “doctoral orientation” presentation along with all the dynamic concept maps on key theories within cognitive research is informed by these findings.
Based on my personal experience, it does help novice students quickly get through the basic stuff (at home), thus freeing up space in working memory while it also saves time which can be spent on more highly-complex materials (in class).
On this topic I have two questions in mind. The first, is it possible to fragment highly complex ideas into low-complexity ideas in a way that one could keep students on a permanent novice level within segments, in order to reap all of the benefits of the author-provided organizers. Think of something similar to ZPD.
The second, what kinds of information could help educators decide whether to spend precious time to create concept maps or to use it for face-to face instruction?
The Stull and Mayer (2007) article and the Hilbert and Renkl (2007) article remind me that math pedagogy would benefit greatly from both expert and novice graphic organizers. Math curriculum is built on progressively more complex concepts both within and between chapters of a text and also between grade levels. Diagramming is perfectly suited for teaching/learning math and determining whether students can inter-relate the different elements as they progress through the curriculum. From my experience, most of the cognitive “confusion” I encounter with beginning algebra users is the lack of understanding they have of the “bigger picture.” If I can borrow the theme of last weeks’ readings: their schema is somehow deficient or incomplete. Graphic organizers seem an excellent way of repairing or adjusting that schema.
I am fond of saying to my students "difficult problems are simple problems stacked together." Implicit behind this statement is that complex ideas (read concept map with multiple nodes and links) are simple ideas as yet unrelated or "unlinked" to one another. I am a little surprised that the research (Stull & Mayer, 2007) suggests that expert or worked-out concept maps tend to be more effective than mapping constructed by the learners themselves. I was particularly intrigued by Stull’s and Mayer’s suggestion that “learner-generated treatment might be more effective for high-knowledge learners, because the overall level of cognitive load is lower” (Stull & Mayer, p. 817). Like Mathew write in his call-out (p. 817): “These are future studies (handed to you on a platter) that could be done as a dissertation.” I am thinking of taking him up on his suggestion!
Lara,
I appreciated your link to the Intel graphic organizer site. I am definitely going to use it for my beginning Algebra students.
A related question to your observation (on the lack of theoretical training on the idea of graphic organizers) is how much and what type of training is effective? In the Hilbert and Renkl article, they seem to suggest that a minimum explanation is sufficient to produce a marked increase in meaningful learning by beginning users. In some ways, that notion runs counter-intuitive to teachers (who tend to over-explain everything to death!). Perhaps a simple explanation on the concept of mapping might prove more effective than a more detailed explanation which in itself might become just another addition to the extraneous load?
The Stull and Mayer (2007) article stated that the “challenge for instructional designers is to identify the conditions under which a graphic organizer (GO) treatment will prime adequate generative processing without creating the need for excessive extraneous processing” seems to be the ultimate question, whose answer is most sought after by all dedicated educators. So, where is that delicate balance? Results of the Stull and Mayer 2007 experiments certainly caused me to reflect upon purposeful planning when using GO in my lessons. I have always depended on them to establish the gestalt of a lesson. It is also interesting to read about the different effects of the varied types of organizers and upon reflection, to see how the use of the different types makes sense to my students ie: ignite transfer of learning.
My goal as a teacher is to help my students realize that graphic organizers when used properly, is a great tool for them. Evidenced by cognitive testing results, their relative strengths as visual spatial learners lend themselves to natural users of graphic organizers, with the caveat that the graphic organizers were properly introduced.
Question 1: In the Study Time portion of the 3 experiments, I wondered what caused the learner generated group to spend more study time in the lowest complexity GO as opposed to the highest complexity GO.
Question 2: Is it safe to say that GOs reduce both intrinsic load by posing maps for new learning concepts; and reduce extraneous load by eliminating chaos by employing the modality effect? Does it also redundancy effect due to nature of GOs (ie: creation of nodes and linkage concepts eliminate redundancy?)
Results from the research by Hilbert and Renkl are consistent with the experience I have had with my LD students. I found that I need to give them the purpose for using concept maps and model the use of it in all my lessons. The challenge here is instructional differentiation and how it can be successfully implemented in a classroom full of diverse students. The question of when to and when not to use concept maps is constant and sometimes becomes a function of “enough planning time”. One of the standard accommodations for LD learners states the provision of advanced organizers to help the LD student better understand concepts. The importance can not be emphasized enough as evidenced by the articles in this knowledge dig, but also makes a big assumption of the teachers’ expertise. To provide pre-prepared concept maps assumes that the teachers have solid understanding of the materials, have created the optimal GO with minimal extraneous load, and understands the learner deficits to create an optimal GO.
I love that the authors emphasize the importance of knowing the learner and their specific learning deficits as key to developing effective teaching methods. When teaching I often need to guard against “teaching for myself” rather than teaching for my students. I need to be constantly reminded of my audience and their diverse needs.
The Nesbit and Adesope article was quite dense and was difficult to digest without repeated readings. Perhaps this is a good example for the use of a concept map. That aside, a couple of questions did arise in reading their conclusion. 1st: how can a teacher use concept maps to develop higher order thinking skills? 2nd: while the use of concept maps in general is a good strategy for learning, what kinds of strategies are out there to help ensure that learners will use concept maps to help their learning?
Jozef - Your question is a good one. Don't know of any published articles that specifically address your question. It would be nice to locate that, however, one can deduce a couple of things from the readings:
(1) Certainly, level of comfort, high prior knowledge with the concepts to be taught is a good reason to use concept maps.
(2) The amount of elemental activity in the intrinsic load could be reduced by chunking its presentation diagrammatically is another one.
(3) Most importantly, in my biased opinion, is teacher's knowledge of the learners. If your learners capacity to learn dictates the need for concept mapping, then a teacher must provide it. It's best practice teaching. Teachers can mitigate this sea of information with the use of surveys, interest inventories, learner inventories...A good management system to keep track of all this information is key, as well as support from administrators who understand cognitive load.
Anyway, those were my 2 cents...
I have a question for those of you with statistical expertise. With the Nesbit and Adesope meta-analysis, how does one go about making sense of pages 423 and 424 -- were the articles in the meta-analysis first chosen for their effect size, and then those with a good effect size were analyzed for their content and their 'fidelity'. On page 425 there are only 6 articles mentioned in Table 1 which discuss effect size.
Or were ALL articles (over 500 according to p.413) culled for content appropriateness and then only those with statistical 'weight' used to extract an overall statistical importance?
I am unfamiliar with meta-analyses and this one had me scratching my head a lot after the other articles (i.e., Stull) were much more clear to me!
Good discussion on this topic...
Like Jozsef, I, too, was struck by the findings that author-provided graphic organizers were more effective than student-generated ones. I always thought that having the student make the connections themselves was best, but apparently the key is having the student understand the connections in the first place. At some point, though, the student becomes the 'author' of the graphic organizers and has to make the connections themselves. Perhaps this change occurs when the learner is no longer a novice but moves towards the realm of the expert.
Nesbit & Adesope (2006) presented several theories as to why concept and knowledge maps might work that I found interesting. They mention Pavio's dual coding theory which might definitely help some people by linking verbal knowledge with mental images, b ut I am sure this does not account for many people. They also mention Kulhavy's conjoint retention theory that "postulates that visuspatial memory encodes local features..." I wondered if this theory plays a role in how I give directions to someone - I am always very explicit in giving landmarks and visual information verbally as that is the way I visualize information.
Finally, I liked the idea that the processing of information might be the key. The authors describe verbal coding, "(i)n this view, any visuospatial coding of the map image in long-term memory is less important than the processes by which the map image facilitates verbal coding." Sounds like thinking and integrating is a good thing...
Susan, Lara, Vito, and Jozsef-
You all have made good comments about using graphic organizers in the classroom and some of the issues that entails (complexity, lack of training, lack of theory on using/building them, etc). My own use has been in trying to teach my students how to present analytical information in a way that properly shows relationships and is easy for the reader to understand. This has tended to be in charts and graphs more related to numbers than to ideas. In the comments for the cognitive load class I mentioned Edward Tufte and his monumental efforts in visualizing information. Here is link to what Tufte describes as
"probably the best statistical graphic ever drawn."
Dig 2 –Comment/Question
Sharon,
Thank you for asking the question that you did on the Meta-Analysis of Concept and Knowledge Maps. I too was left scratching my head about the use of statistical analysis to cull information from a large number of studies looked at.
I found it interesting th that article to see how the introduction of studies with multiple language users (in Africa). Could the extraneous information processing for students who listen to lectures in English, and the effect that has on cognitive load be compensated by the syntactic structure of comcpet maps? And something Lara has brought up in other class discussions, how does the overlay of culture possibly effect how we constuct meaning?
Graphic/visual depiction of information to enhance meaningful learning is discussed indepth by Dr. Temple Grandin. She puts forth indepth description of her “Thinking in Pictures”, throughout her books. She is a very insightful author who presents her own meta-cognition schema in a unique way to the layreader. It makes for interesting reading in addition to the research that is out there. She is a PhD and is a woman in her 50s with autism.
Working with teachers in the field has brought me to look for various resources to enhance their learning on concept maps, etc. There is one basic website.
http://www.nhcs.k12.nc.us/htree/Curriculum/ThinkingMaps.html
Another researcher/lecturer is Dr. Lynell Burmark. She works with new teachers with regards to enhancing classroom presentations with visual images to enhance understanding. Her website is http://www.lynellburmark.org/index.asp
Question
How do you differentiate between introduction of images that provide too much (extraneous) information when paired with text and possibly schematics that with node and links present a lot of information? When is too much information too much?
Jude,
Thanks for reiterating the need to also emphasis the teachers’ expertise in using comcept maps. As Hilbert and Renkl (2008) discuss the need for the learners’ needs to be taken into account when developing a strategy for teaching concept maps, the teachers’ role would make a huge difference.
As I was reading the Hilbert and Renkl (2007) discussion, I was struck that “fifty percent of the participants belonged to the two unsuccessful groups. The fact that only half of the earners could be labled as successful, underlines the need for effective training to enable more learners to achieve preferable learning outcomes”. Imbedded in this article is the idea of the meta-cognitive construct of learning how to learn. Students need training in how to utilize concept maps as a learning tool- they need to learn how to use concept maps to learn concepts. Vito, I agree with you… I was surprised that Stull and Mayer’s (2007) research found that expert or instructor constructed concept maps were found more effective that learner constructed maps. Although the procedure gave students a brief tutorial of how to use concept maps (lists, flow charts, hierarchies, and diagrams) it was possibly not enough for the student to feel confident in generating their own. Knowing how to create cognitive maps, I do not think, is intrinsically known, but instead something that is learned through teacher guided modeling and shaping, and can be scaffolded by the instructor. (This could look like a partially filled in concept map where the instructor creates the bones of the map and fills in some of the nodes, but leaves others blank to be filled in by the student.) Additionally, and in the spirit of riding on your coattails Vito, I think it makes sense that learner generated treatment is more effective for learners with previous knowledge of the subject matter because they already have schema in place and have some constructed understanding of the concept. Regardless of previous knowledge, I still think that students need to learn how to learn to make concept maps and utilize them as a learning tool.
After all that I have still not stated my question, which is unrelated to the discussion above. Nesbit and Adesope (2006) make several references to the use of concept maps for learners with low verbal ability and language level; a population with whom I am well acquainted. The potential benefit of concept maps for this group of learners is perhaps large, if only for the reason that those with low language and verbal ability often have strong visual-spatial skills. Has there been any research on concept maps that are pictorial or utilize icons? Has anyone used these in their classroom as a visual anchor for their student’s concept understanding?
Ninon,
I do have some visual resources that I have used in my past classrooms that help support visual learning. Ironically, I have also found success with some of the tools that one of the "dreaded" scripted literacy programs have (concept/question boards), that I found helpful with my students who had challenges in verbalizing/writing/reading but glommed onto concepts in a pictorial way.
After reading Hilbert and Renki again, I found that the idea of that I had previously put out there with the relevance of how expert the teacher needs to be in order to teach the concept of concept maps. That sounds a bit convoluted.
Round one of my questions/comments:
How does diagramming sentences fit into visual models? How well-studied is this "old-fashioned" way of teaching grammar? Is it used in other cultures besides the US?
With regard to going through textbook with a visual model--I thought that there was a problem with a lot of models where there is extraneous load created by having to go back and forth between explanatory text and diagrams/models. How is this apparent inconsistency/contrast addressed/explained?
I know that animation can get in the way of students paying attention to relevant detail (as opposed to seductive details), but how about student-generated animations as a form of review? Do students get caught up in seductive details of creating animations, or are they more focused on the relevant details that demonstrate understanding and schema development?
Ninon,
Using the mapping software, Inspiration, which has pictures/symbols function with my visual spatial students, I found that they were more off task than on task. They were more interested in the nice symbols and other pictures they can find within it. Good if I were doing a digital graphics lesson, but not so good if I were doing a writing lesson.
For my less verbal ones, it helped give them more ideas. Seeing pictures wet their appetites for more brainstorming ideas. Nice software, Inspiration for older kids, and Kidspiration for K-3.
Shannon - as far as diagramming. we use a language intervention program for our LD kids, where diagramming is heavily used. Color coding of the functions of words in a sentence was also part of the strategy employed. I found that the use of the different strategies depended on the student's prior knowledge and their brain compatibility. If the student was more visual and responded better with the use of patterns then diagramming was an effective strategy grammar and writing.
It seems like that this visual model is more like a map with pre-assigned codes. Yet another coding system.
I have another question: It seems to me that no matter how theory is used out there - learner generated vs. author generated, 2D vs 3D Graphic organizers...the important thread that needs to be kept in mind is systematic instruction that builds upon the prior knowledge of the student. How can teaching institutions drive this concept home to administrators and policy makers so that they can build frameworks in the school system to make this type of teaching possible? Is this vision too much of a big brother type of teaching to become a reality?
Susan brought up a great point that there is a disconnect with researchers’ findings on the practical use of concept maps and their purpose and practice in the classroom. I feel teachers tend to rely too heavily on textbook reading and lecture while students would significantly benefit from the inclusion of concept maps. Lara’s point needs to be taken into account when teachers do use concept maps in their classrooms that a full explanation and not just an overview is needed for a deeper understanding of the concepts, links, color codes, etc… Many of us were surprised that the research shows students appear to have a greater understanding from expert-generated concept maps than from student-generated concept maps. I agree with Ninon’s point that students need explicit training in understanding and constructing concepts maps. At what point do students make the jump from benefiting from an expert-generated concept map to benefiting from generating one themselves? Is it based on one’s understanding of the features of concept maps or, as Vito mentioned, are high-knowledge learners more capable of generating concept maps due to their overall level of cognitive load being lower?
Nesbit and Adesope (2006) discussed a study conducted in Africa which had a much higher mean effect size of concept mapping than other locations. Nigerian teaching practice involves intense lectures in English to large classes. English is many of these students’ second or third language. This study implies that “the Nigerian participants may have found the syntactic structure of concept maps easier to parse than the English lectures.” As an English Language Learner teacher, I think my EL students (as well as MANY other students) would benefit from concept maps being used in all of their classes. These students get lost in the syntactic structure of textbooks and find it difficult to recognize the key concepts. Monica also inquired about the syntactic structure of concept maps possibly helping lessen the extraneous cognitive load of these students. Perhaps having a concept map to provide these students with prior knowledge before reading the text would help them identify the key concepts while reading the text.
Joining right in with the theme of surprise over the superior results of teacher generated concept maps, the idea that jumped out at me was the cognitively active vs behaviorally active distinction. Teacher trap ahoy! In my experience, task-oriented study behaviors (note-taking, question/answer hunting, or yes, concept mapping) tend to exemplify the Hilbert and Renkl proposition that students concerned with the workings of the map were not as engaged with the concepts contained therein. In essence, by assigning a task, we add extraneous load that is likely to eclipse the desired product of meaningful learning.
In response to the high study time and poorer results phenomenon in the same experiment, Has anyone else noticed students trying to memorize rather than integrate conceptual material e.g. flailing about in their brains trying to remember which letter name goes with which line or space instead of simply counting from the clef origin?
A tiny bit off the topic of graphic organizers, but consistent with themes of creating complex conceptual (alliterative!) gestalt...
Jude:
The heart of the standards-based movement speaks to your concern over systematic instruction building upon prior knowledge. The "framework" is literally published by each state for the very purpose you describe.
Backlash against the standards is concerned with loss of teacher prerogative and autonomy. What if we (teachers) all had to pace our curriculum exactly with each other, regardless of the individual interests, cultural practices, or academic abilities of our students?
On a more philosophical bent: surely we all acknowledge that the primary role of universal compulsory education is enculturation but how far are we willing to go to homogenize the experience?
BTW: Doesn't sound like it above, but I am in favor of standardized curriculum/learning goals
Knowledge Dig 3b – Response to Sharon’s Question
Hi Sharon!
I don’t know anything about meta-analysis, but I did find the Nesbit & Adesope (2006) article interesting in terms of statistical methodology. I don’t fully understand the data analysis techniques, but I’ll take a stab at partially answering your question. Hopefully, Dr. Mitchell can add further clarity on Saturday.
1.) The authors developed five criteria for inclusion, listed on page 421 of the article.
2.) They conducted a search of six specific databases (ERIC, PsychInfo, etc) , using three specific search keys, which generated a list of 2500+ non-unique articles, conference presentations and dissertations listed across the six databases.
3.) The researchers read article abstracts, discussions and/or methodology sections and the first 24 pages of each dissertation. They eliminated sources that did not meet the five criteria for inclusion (from step 1). This stage of the selection resulted in 122 articles.
4.) The researchers read the 122 articles, and decided that only 55 articles fully met the original five criteria. Most were rejected at this stage for failure to control for confounding variables in the treatment group (see page 425 of the article, in the Results section). I seem to remember (but can’t find the page) that the authors referred to this as “treatment fidelity”.
5.) Table 1 is only a small slice of the meta-analysis. The authors found 6 studies that talked specifically about affect, self-efficacy and motivation. The effect sizes in table 1 are only for the few studies that included information about those constructs (affect, self-efficacy, motivation).
6.) Table 2 summarizes results of 25 different studies. I think these results look at whether the treatment (concept mapping) produced a practically significant difference in knowledge. I think the mean effect size in Table 2 is a weighted average of the effect sizes in the 25 difference studies. N is number of people, and k is number of findings. This table is also split by whether the concept maps were student-constructed or pre-constructed.
7.) Table 3 focuses on student-constructed maps. I don’t think the results section explicitly states this – but I’m guessing that the 18 studies in Table 3 are the US and Canada studies (eliminating students in Africa and Taiwan). I’m making this assumption based upon the n-counts in Tables 2 and 3. Table 3 matches the US/Canada n-counts in Table 2 (N=1539).
8.) Table 4 focuses on studying pre-constructed maps. Based upon the n-counts, US, Canada, and Other participants were included, so no exclusions. Basically, information in the bottom half of Table 2 was expanded upon in Table 4.
I hope this helps…
A main issue in Stull and Mayer between author provided and learner generated graphic organizers seems to be the value of dedicating cognitive capacity on constructing a graphic design versus the value of the learner interacting with the learning material at a deeper level which is required by a learner generated graphic. A variable in this dilemma that I did not see addressed was the complexity of the linear text and if the structure lends itself to being organized into “coherent structures”. Is it assumed that all linear texts, in some way or another, are able to be organized into this type of structure? I would also assume that some texts are easier to convert than others, which brings us back to the question of the value of dedicating cognitive capacity versus the deeper learner. Perhaps, it depends on the text with which the learner is presented. The three experiments were of different complexity as it relates to graphic organizers but not in terms of the text. Stull and Meyer do reference different types of texts: descriptive and expository, but they don’t address the complexity or structure of the text. I suspect that some types of text lend themselves to graphic organizers better than others
I am interested in concept of Map Shock presented in our audio lecture. I related this to textbooks. This may be a bit “out there”, but I have noticed a change in how information is being presented in textbooks over the past several years. During a textbook review a few years ago for a new adoption, I regarded almost all of the books as too “busy”. I believe we were looking at social studies books. I don’t know if I was experiencing map shock, but I was somewhat overwhelmed by the maps, graphs, and highlighted notes in the margins. However, most of the teachers, and certainly the publisher reps, assured me that today’s students respond better to this type of text presentation. I wonder if cognitive load is evolving some how in the computer age in which video games and text messaging is all happening so fast and simultaneously and students need this type of stimulation in their lives and on the page. This is not to say that it is bad. The Cornell Notes approach to note taking is one that many students use and teachers encourage. It can look very busy and may have a student using many different colors to organize and interact with text and information, but it is a very useful tool for many students.
I thought the “Think aloud” approach in Hilbert and Renkl was a good approach to understanding how students interacted with grahic organizers. From a special education perspective, their discussion relating to students’ verbal abilities was relevant. The conclusion seemed to be that students with strong verbal abilities did better than those with lower abilities. However, that does not mean that the students with lower abilities didn’t benefit from the use of a graphic organizer.
After listening and reading through the information on concept mapping, I could not help but retreat to that simple place of best practices in education. The questions of adapting concept maps to the learners needs by way of exploring processes from Hilbert & Renkl (2007) blindsided me somewhat.
Yes! Adapting any area of the lesson to meet the needs of the students most likely will improve their learning. This is our mantra in special education; this is the “I” in IEP. But…how do you do this with 40 students at 40 different levels. For me that is the question for teachers across all education levels, subject areas and settings.
Teachers are scrambling to employee strategies that help their students better understand the material. How do they do this?
So maybe further research on specific strategies of adapting a concept map and how the instructor implemented it in the lesson may help teachers in practice. That being said, I was very interested in the conclusion section of the Nesbit & Adesop (2006) where they take the time to note further research is needed in elementary and secondary education as well as with students who are second language learners and those that struggle with reading and language difficulties. They also mentioned the lack of research on pedagogical models for using concept maps in small group and whole-class settings, as well as the effectiveness of concept mapping as a note taking and prewriting activity for developing reading and writing skills.
Ninon, thanks for the follow-up comment on the amount and type of training needed for medium-to-high prior knowledge learners. Following that thread, you, Jude, Stephen and Monica have all made excellent points and suggestions that have given me food for thought.
Stephen, I liked particularly your comment that “(a)t some point . . .the student becomes the 'author' of the graphic organizers and has to make the connections themselves. Perhaps this change occurs when the learner is no longer a novice but moves towards the realm of the expert.” I think you are absolutely correct. If I can reword your comment; I think perhaps high prior knowledge users may become more confident with the self-generated concept maps rather than relying simply on expert-generated maps. This accomplishment, I would suggest, allows the student to become more creative and generative with that knowledge. At the moment I am reading Outliers by Malcom Gladwell. Great book. He suggests that to move from novice to expert in any field, there is a “10,000 hour” rule. Almost without exception, experts in different fields report that they feel like they become expert in their fields after approximately ten years or 10,000 hours of constant engagement in the field. I am not suggesting that our students need to spend 10,000 hours on any one area (!) but I wondering whether concept mapping might be an effective way of shortening that 10,000 hour rule.
Ninon, your comment that “knowing how to create cognitive maps, I do not think, is intrinsically known, but instead something that is learned through teacher guided modeling and shaping, and can be scaffolded by the instructor” is also an excellent point. I wonder though, whether for high prior knowledge users (and this would include the instructor at this point) the idea of concept maps is so intuitive, so obvious, that an “aha!” moment occurs and a minimum of instruction is preferable to a more detailed instruction for low prior knowledge or even lower verbal users?
Hi Shannon,
Sentence diagramming is still very popular in Europe to teach both native language and English grammar. However, instead of the good old Reed-Kellogg based models they use the Key Stage 3 (KS3) model.
In Nordic and Eastern European countries there is a new very popular method, which combines diagramming with interactive concept maps—and it is called Visual Interactive Syntax Learning (VISL).
Knowledge Dig 3a – Comments on the Graphics Organizers Learning Materials –
After reading the three assigned articles, I have spent the past few days reflecting about how I do (and don’t) use graphics organizers in my classes. Admittedly, I don’t use complex graphics organizers often enough or effectively. I use graphical summaries (such as Charles Minard’s Napoleon’s March or Florence Nightengale’s polar radian diagrams) as examples of effective graphical displays of descriptive statistics, and use tables, sketches, charts and flowcharts as organizers or scaffolding to clarify steps in mathematical scripts (procedural knowledge) but I don’t often use concept maps as summaries to promote a broad conceptual overview of declarative algebraic knowledge.
I think this teaching attitude stems from a personal irritation with corporate-world graphics organizers that I find redundant or lacking in sufficient detail. In the past few years, graphic organizers such as Gantt charts (ala Microsoft Project) and swim lanes have become favorite corporate management tools. My irritation with many of these corporate-world graphics organizers is that while they may provide a superficial 2-D visual overview of linear person-by-project scripts and timelines, they often do not convey detail necessary for full understanding of project flow and do not adequately address multidimensional non-linear interrelationships among employees’ personalities, skillsets, time constraints, and budget or resource constraints.
Recognizing that my teaching toolkit is decidedly lacking in use of summary graphics organizers, I read the three articles with the mindset that I need to discard my corporate-world biases in order to be able to teach more effectively. After reading Stull& Mayer (2006), I was surprised by the failure of learner-generated graphic organizers to contribute significantly to generative (germane) processing. Perhaps this result was impacted by participant characteristics, time constraints and learner-perception of lack of necessity for sufficient detail and complexity.
The participants in the Stull & Mayer study were UCSB students, who are selected from the top 10% of California high school students and therefore presumably 1.) are capable students with a strong history of academic success and 2.) have reasonably high content knowledge of high-school level General Biology (required for UC-admission) or Honors/ AP Biology. Although these students had low prior knowledge in construction of graphics organizers, they may have firmly-established strategies for learning complex material, and may view the new tool (learner-generated graphic organizers) as a redundant and unnecessary way to review material already learned in high school Biology. In addition to the extraneous cognitive load from learning to generate the organizer, there may have been an expertise reversal effect based upon redundancy of previously-learned biology material.
In the “Practical Implications” section of the Stull & Mayer article, the authors suggest that learner-constructed materials are effective for high-knowledge learners studying very complex materials with unlimited time. Perhaps with more complex material and unlimited time, the UCSB learner-generated results would have been closer to the results we all expected to read about.
The “successful” learners described in the Hilbert & Renkl article (2008, p.69), spent extensive time pre-planning, controlling the outcome of the maps, and paying close attention to details by creating and labeling numerous nodes and links. Also, the stem-cell question in this article was a complex, open-ended question, perhaps demanding true higher-order thinking skills.
The Hilbert & Renkl article suggests that learner-generated concept mapping may be most effective in complex situations such as integrating information across multiple textbooks or multiple sources (p. 68-69). This idea makes sense to me from both the perspective of a teacher and a student. I use concept maps when it is necessary to link information from multiple sources, but only when I get to the stage that traditional note-taking and sequential outlines are no longer representative .
So, what does this mean to the 180 students I teach? My sense is that requiring my university-level Finite Math and Statistics classes to generate complex broad-overview concept maps may be too time-consuming in terms of concept map training and redundant for students already capable of understanding detailed complex interrelationships. These students are also subject to extreme time pressure with heavy academic loads and work/family commitments, and would resent the extraneous load of a learner-generated mapping assignment. I’m sure they would produce beautiful concept maps, but am not sure about how much true gain in meaningful learning would result.
One place where I could see this as a practical learning tool is for my Beginning and Intermediate Algebra students, who struggle to master the many nuances of application problems . This week, in Intermediate Algebra, I plan to try it out by having students work on a visual hierarchical model of problem solving, elaborating on Polya’s problem-solving steps and differentiating into 12 specific problem types. What I am envisioning is approximately three top-level layers common to all problem types (read the problem, take notes, write down what you know), and then a decision node where problem type is identified (mixture, distance, interest/principal, consecutive integers, angular measures, etc) and then student-generated flowchart streams or hierarchical maps differentiating the procedures specific to each problem type. Hopefully once we pin the different graphical organizers (for each problem type) on the bulletin board, students can start seeing the conceptual connections in methodology across problem types and will have a firmer grasp of the detail necessary for each procedure. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.
Michael, I too was very intrigued by the process of thinking-aloud protocols used in Hilbert & Renkl (2007). I agree, from a special education perspective being able to accesses verbal ability can help in determining how best to help a student learn a particular concept. However, as I was reading the procedure used for coding the process I had visions of extraneous load happening due to the environment/setting and the pressure of being asked to “(Please) keep talking after a 15 second lull in the participants not speaking. Would the expectation of “having” to verbalize anything the participants were thinking, while working on the concept mapping, induce another layer of consideration with regards to learning outcomes?
The first thing I want to mention is egad, there is an apparent contradiction that pits two of the articles against the third. It has to do with learner constructed graphic organizers. “Learning by Doing Versus Learning by Viewing: Three experimental Comparison of Learner-Generated Versus Author Provided Graphic Organizers” (Stull and Mayer, 2007), presented a fairly convincing set of results based on three experiments with graphic organizers. One of their conclusions, “a seemingly passive treatment-adding graphic organizers-was more effective that a seemingly active treatment-asking students to create graphic organizers,” (p. 816) was inconsistent with some of the findings from “Learning with Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis” (Nesbit and Adesope, 2006) and “Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: what characterizes good and poor mappers?” (Hilbert and Rankl, 2006). Nesbit and Adesope state, “Statistically detectable benefits were demonstrated by … constructing maps,” (p. 431), and Hilbert and Rankle begin with the assumption that, “In the long term it is preferable that learners construct their own maps.” (p. 55) This is not a trivial matter. Two articles suggest that the learner should be constructing their maps and the third claims such activity is counterproductive to learning. I think it’s worth exploring these differences. Your comments would be appreciated. Did you also see the inconsistencies?
One thing that did strike me is that Stull and Mayer offered a theoretical basis for their claim, “…constructing graphic organizers may be extremely load inducing (i.e. requiring extraneous processing)…” (p. 817) based on cognitive load theory. Hilbert and Renkle did not seem to be concerned with a specific theoretical frame, but instead looked what “good” and “bad” mappers did. Nesbit and Adesope were all about reporting results from many studies, and didn’t look at the theories behind the individual results.
One big worry with the Nesbit and Adesope meta analysis is that their treatment went way beyond the scope of my working knowledge. I am not fond of cognitive overload. I would be grateful if we could review a few of the statistical tables and briefly discuss some for the procedures in class to see if I understand them correctly. Is that a possibility?
One objection to the Hilbert and Renkl article concerned the readability of the materials. I am not sure the text used was characteristic of what college students are typically required to read. To me, newspaper articles, even when they are about topics in science, are simply not as challenging as the text found in materials read by college students. I wonder how relevant their results are with more abstruse written material.
All three articles might have shed light on why one of my own noble teaching experiments failed. Somewhere in the mid 1990s, I was a participant leader in an action research group. My project was with my algebra 1 students. After teaching a unit on systems of linear equations, I was going to augment the test assessment by adding an additional assignment. The students were to create their own problem that could be solved using a system of equations. This was going to be my put the rubber to the road test. To my way of thinking, the task had a built in graphic organizer, students were required to graph the equations and showed where the lines intersected.
I cannot recall the specific results, but I do remember the gist of what occurred. Most of the students did well on the unit test. They could solve systems of equations with two unknowns, and they could graph the results. Most of the students created a word problem that simply did not make sense. Even when they correctly graphed their results, and solved their equations, they were very satisfied with strange results. Who cared if the cost of a phone call was $-.25? What difference did it make if the velocity of a car exceeded the speed of sound? So what if the lines were parallel?
I attributed the lack of good student created problems to my own poor teaching. Maybe that was true, but at least now I have a different view of what I did poorly. First of all, the graphs were not really graphic organizers. Links and nodes were essential in all three studies, and I failed to incorporate them in that assignment. Furthermore, at least according to one of the articles (Stull and Mayer, 2006), having the students create their own problems and maps might have been cognitive overload. They were so concerned with extraneous details that they didn’t take the time to look at whether their work made sense. I still think I could have scaffolded all more carefully, but this does give me a fresh look at an old sore spot.
Hi Folks! I found the audio and visuals for this issue quite fascinating. Especially the idea of visual overload. Perhaps multimedia developers could develop "an expandable/collapsible visual organizers" similar to Dr. Mitchell/s collapsible website. That way, people with lower cognitive loads (high expertise) could deal with the whole model, and low previous knowledge folk (like me) could deal with the more digestible simple format.
I also found the Stull and Mayer article quite exciting. I like the idea of pitting one theory against another. Even with the provisos written in the summary comments, I think it is a good way of exploring and expanding knowledge, something akin to Darwin's ideas of species fitness.
And was it just me, or did you folks find the Stull and Mayer piece easier to read. I am having some cognitive overload with some of these articles. Maybe I need to take more vitamins, or go to bed earlier! ciao for now, seth
Lara and Michael, and all the rest of you out in the etherland...
First of all thanks Lara for the intel link. I'll try it out. Many of you know that I'm really interested in visual mapping and that I use the program The Brain (by Natrificial)
http://www.thebrain.com/ to take notes in class. Any or all of you are welcome to come by and see what a mess I am making forming links, and nodes. Only the nodes are labeled, everything is set up in either a peer to peer or hierachical form. There is space under each node to write notes. You can also attach pictures/ or even files to specific nodes.
I have been exploring a lot of internet and software related visual maps as well as visualization of information. I found a website that follows trends in visualizing data. http://infosthetics.com/ which I'm sure many of you would find interesting.
I've also played with and used dictionaries/thesauri and google similarity engines, that might be fun/interesting to explore: http://www.visuwords.com/
http://www.visualthesaurus.com/
http://www.touchgraph.com/TGGoogleBrowser.html
I know the googlebrowser needs java, I'm not sure about the other two. If you want more visual-organizer links let me know. I've been collecting for a while!
Michael--- I thought the idea of using "think alouds" as part of the measurement process in the Hilbert and Renkl article, but I'm wondering if it somehow changed the results of the study because the students had to do TWO new things, creating visual maps, AND talk out loud. It may have altered their entire work process to have to do both (cognitive overload?), wheras if they had to do only one of these, their task, hence their comprehension of the material may have been greater. Just wondering...
Also have you folks been following the accelerating use of tags on the internet? I'm thinking in terms of Visualization, sites like del.icio.us (bookmarking)and last.fm (music preferences) both use "tag clouds" that expand the font of most common tags (folksonomies) and reduce the fonts of less common tags (labels). I find this form of group popularity of Words/Music Genres really interesting. So a website might be labeled bizzare by 2 people, weird by 5 people, eccentric by 8 people and gross by 512 people.
Now we are stuck for the next few years (or the rest of our lives) in research-land where various computer indexes use different DE (descriptor) words in their respective database thesauri!!!!
ciao for now-- seth
Wendy... I think I just duplicated what you had posted about the additional load idea. Do great minds think alike or did it just seem obvious? I had not yet read your post (promise!). Maybe next time, I should read ALL the posts before putting my 2 cents in. seth
don't have much to say about the graphic organizers audio presentations. I found the Griffle demonstration to be quite interesting but not very helpful since I don't have a Mac. I found the PowerPoint presentation to be very interesting as well and a bit more useful. I generally consider myself to be a fairly strong amateur user of this product and I am always looking for ways to improve my skills.
However, the video movie moved more quickly than I wanted if I were actually going to use it to enhance some of my existing instructional PowerPoints. In addition, the movie was based upon a Mac machine, which meant the placement of the various editing items was not as I usually recall. As a result, I would have considered my viewing to be a "wash" in terms of enhancing my skills except that I watched the video with my stepson. He is an English learner, who does not currently use PowerPoint. He found the video to be an exciting way to find out what PowerPoint can do and the use of both sound and video helped him understand how he might think about using this tool. It was only after I heard his comments that I had a better understanding of how much more exciting it was for him to have a video that he could use for repeat listening. I know that my students often express how much they like the interactive video lessons and/or podcasts that I integrate into my classes and the video helped me consider the fact that I can be a part of creating such tools for them as well as using tools created by others.
Again, I enjoyed the statistical map and L&I with magnets short movies as well as the theoretical mapping video. I definitely noted the representation, engagement and expression features that can be addressed via universal design and thought hard about the equitable use, flexible use, simplicity, perception of information, tolerance for errors, low physical effort, and the need to assure size/space for appropriate use principles that need to ground the instructor's thinking if the notion of universal design for learning is to be incorporated in a classroom.
Al, thanks for highlighting the possible inconsistencies in the findings within the 3 articles. This is an example why when teachers attempt to put into practice what researchers are finding that it is not as effective as what is indicated. Lara, your information about how Intel is attempting to train a cadre of teachers to use concept maps by providing free software is interesting. I am again struck by who and how will the time and support occur? Is anyone's school or district providing bang up support for some of these ideas? I am still trying to wrap my head around it all and know I am not an expert myself. I can't teach what I do not know.
"Teach me, and I will forget. Show me, and I will remember. Involve me, and I will understand." - Chinese Proverb (or so says Google)
Seth - not sure if the think aloud changed the study, but I thought it would be a valuable approach in a classroom to see the cognitive interaction students have with the graphic organizer. This might be particularly interesting when comparing the high verbal ability students with the lesser ability student. It may reveal some things about how to assist students with lower verbal abilities to approach the graphic organizer.
The more comments I read the more I was convinced of the need not to only teach students how o use the organizer, but also to explain why they are important to their learning process. I was reminded of seeing group work implemented in a classroom when the students did not have training on cooperative learning and didn't really understand why they were doing it. Inspiration software is a good suggestion for getting students introduced to the idea.
I met with a first year math teacher this week who was frustrated with his beginning algebra students who did not do as well as he had thought they would on a recent test. When we talked it through, not surprising, it came down to the complexity of the problems. They did OK with two or three step problems, but when they got more complicated they got overwhelmed. I immediately thought of the discussions here related to using graphic organizers for math which I would not have thought of previously.
I am currently in Dallas, trying to juggle many things. I pasted my first dig without seeing your other comments. That’s probably a good idea because it means that dig 1 comes from my gut feelings, unencumbered by all your good thoughts. But, not that I did read all you good thoughts, I’ll add a little more.
First, I am glad that I am not the only one who was bamboozled by that stats in the Nesbit and Adesope article. Thanks Raylene for outlining some of the key points so succinctly. I still would be grateful if we could chat a little more (maybe a lot more) about some of the statistical tables.
Jozseph, you asked, “… is it possible to fragment highly complex ideas into low-complexity ideas in a way that one could keep students on a permanent novice level within segments, in order to reap all of the benefits of the author-provided organizers.” Vito added, “From my experience, most of the cognitive “confusion” I encounter with beginning algebra users is the lack of understanding they have of the “bigger picture.” In my years of teaching young folks, I sometimes did the opposite. Rather than start with the simple pieces and build up to the complex, I sometimes chose to begin with the complex. I would teach adding and subtracting fractions with like denominators first, but I would go right for the gold. I would begin with unlike denominators. Why? First, operating on like denominators gives a false picture – it makes fractions seem to easy. Second, it’s subsumed by the harder, more complex situation of the unlike denominators. I likened this, in part, to beginning with the big picture first. I liked my approach, sometimes.
Vito, I too like Gladwell’s books. I think his subjects in Outliers are the true experts. Having a son who is a guru of guitars, I have observed his perspiration first hand. I doubt if, as you wrote, that “…concept mapping might be an effective way of shortening that 10,000 hour rule.” Using another Gladwell buzzword, that 10,000 hour is treated as the tipping point.
Crystallization (or distillation if you prefer):
Overall I am seeing some patterns in our blogs... To comment on themes I see:
1. I think the main questions around teacher use of graphic organizers (thanks Jude for mentioning Kidspiration.. one of my fav pay-to-play software!) really centers around the question of purpose. Are we using the organizer to assess student understanding? If so, then the student-generated model would most likely be the right one to use… I think. If, on the other hand, we are introducing a concept then the teacher/expert generated graphic would be more appropo. It seems that is the use presented in the article. Additionally, we need to ask ourselves about the intent of the lesson. Are we intending to teach how to use or create the organizer or are we intending to use the organizer as a tool to teach “content”? I would see the presentations of these two ideas as very different.
2. The use of Think Aloud” strategies… If our intent is to teach the tool, this is a great starter. My concern would be around the individuality (The I in IEP comment was BRILLIANT!) construction of graphic representations. If our beautiful individual brains create links in different ways, the importance of the individual generated organizer is less in the graphic and more in the explained construction. It is fascinating to find out the how and why of the construction in conversation with students. My fear (to echo BA’s questions around standards) is how much freedom to play with organizers we give students when we “think aloud” and how much do they perceive our organizers as “the right way to do it”?
3. We became teachers to teach, and in response to BA’s enculturation and standards comment.. I think (as an anthropologist) we need some common cultural knowledge (standards) but need to still respect the individuals (teachers AND students) in how we process the info. I really liked the discussion we had around tiered graphic organizers, I think the answer to individual process is to have a few levels and then allow some “creative room” for students to make choices and design organizers to reflect and respect their own thought processes… Can’t wait to start teaching again next year and really put this into action!
I can't wait until Saturday, I am so blessed to be able to work with such brilliant and passionate people!
Lara: Thanks for breaking it down like that - You rock!
1. Purpose: We have a tool (concept maps) and a concept (our lesson content). How do we educate our students in using the tool without eclipsing the concept?
For example, troubled automobiles are commonly diagnosed via computer. A mechanic certainly needs to know what might be wrong with the car, but most definitely requires training in the use of the diagnostic computer. Understanding of only one of these concepts would not serve the mechanic well.
If concept maps are an effective tool for learning - and if our three articles are any judge, this is true - then it stands to reason that it would be advantageous for our students to be well trained in their use.
All that remains then is the question of when and how to use that tool. Assessment? Integration? Introduction? Our readings offer confusing and conflicting ideas on this matter.
B.A. thanks for the car analogy. The matter of when and how to use the tool is also relative to the judgement and training of the user. Teachers come in all shapes and sizes in terms of training, background, bias (Lara, I am a culture anthropologist by avocation and interest in many ways!). I think the confusing and conflicting ideas are partly a given in the field of educational research given the plethora of stakeholders that bring their opinion, policy, etc. to the table. And theory into practice seems to be a constant challenge.
Here is my take on the question Vito posed on 2/14 related to the Hilbert & Renkl article where he asked: “How much and what type of training is effective?” On page 70 of that article, the author describes the implications related to the concept mapping training since 50% of the participants were in unsuccessful mapping groups. As a trainer who develops instruction for non-nonsense adults, I agree that having a minimum explanation of how to do mapping is not helpful ENOUGH (as they described was the case in the study conditions). In my opinion, to boost the effectiveness of student learning, the training would need to include better descriptions of the performance the trainer would want the learner to exhibit (reference Robert Mager from his book “Preparing Instructional Objectives”) in order to consider the concept mapping they did appropriate. Too little explanation leaves lots of room for interpretation. Helpful to this end would be diagrams of what are considered hard-to-read/ineffective maps, contrasted with diagrams of very useful maps with nodes and diagrams depicted so as to see relationships, but not too much detail.
I personally happen to be studying up on Bullying as a research topic in another class so I was pleased when I happened upon the Nesbit and Adesope diagram on p.416 showing a concept map of this just topic area. At first I felt like I struck gold – a map showing what I can look for in my research, a couple of researchers names in there, but later I found that for me personally, this map was not very helpful. Maybe I have done too much process mapping in my corporate days and I found this map to be non-linear, with a jumbled approach. I found myself re-doing my own view of it. I suppose this is an example of how meaningful learning differs from one learner to another.
This week’s discussion brings up some particular points of interest. First, Michael, I also did not find in Stull and Meyer’s article anything about the complexity of the text and the ease with which the text can be organized into a structure. The fluidity with which the information is transferred into a graphic organizer is perhaps a very important component. The difficulty of the reading material as well as the complexity of reformatting the text information into a graphic organizer all could contribute to cognitive load and the ability for the student to take in the information. Also, not all students process information in the same way. Some learners may greatly benefit from a visual representation of the information in graphic organizer form, while others may benefit from text only or hearing a lecture.
Ninon..So do you ascribe to the learning types theory,ie visual learners may benefit from visual maps more than auditory or kinesthetic learners? I do think that different learners benefit from different treatments/curriculum, and wondered if people who self defined themselves as visual learners were given some of these experiments and people who self describe themselves as other types, would there be a statistically significant difference. But in reality I don't think any of use is 100 percent of any type. But it still might be a worthwhile study topic.
Of course self definition, and assessment by others (their teachers or parents) may differ.
Michael-I agree with your comment about some type of texts lend themselves to graphic organizers better than others. My EL and struggling reading students need extra support in breaking down the material into meaningful parts primarily in social studies and science. Many of our teachers incorporate Cornell Notes into every lesson. Some students find this strategy very helpful while others may find another type of graphic organizer more beneficial to their style of learning.
Wendy-Your reference to “further research being needed in the use of concept maps, especially with students learning in second languages or who are identified as having reading and language difficulties” in the Nesbit and Adesope article stuck out for me also. These are my intervention students who are failing their general education classes (specifically social studies and science). They are expected to be able to read, comprehend, and apply what they learned by reading the textbook and pass a standards-based assessment! The students are expected to make the connections themselves while reading! These students become extremely FRUSTRATED because they think if they read (they are actually only decoding, not comprehending the text) they should “get it”. But, they are not processing or connecting any concepts on their own.
Raylene-How is your Visual Hierarchical Model of Problem Solving working in your classes this week? Sounds fascinating! I can’t wait to hear about it on Saturday! It is exciting that we are actually able to apply the research we are learning into our own classrooms!
Susan-I feel very similar to how you are feeling “still trying to wrap my head around it all and knowing I am not an expert myself.” But, Vito sure had some encouraging news! It will only take us 10,000 hours to become an expert!!!
Lara-Great point about the use of graphic organizers and our “intent” of the lesson. There are numerous purposes for student-generated graphic organizers. Hilbert and Renkl (2008) mentioned “prompting learners to self-explain the underlying principles while learning from examples fostered their outcome”. The graphic organizer is a great learning tool but including discussion to the activity adds a deeper understanding of the learning materials. Nesbit and Adesope’s (2006) state “students constructing maps in dyads uttered approximately three on-topic propositions per minute, with similar levels of participation from both members of the dyad”. Creating a concept map while “sustaining meaningful discourse” is valuable to the learning process.
Beth Ann-I too ponder your question about when to use the graphic organizer? I think all possibilities (assessment, integration, and introduction) are viable options. Nesbit and Adesope (2006) state that using graphic organizers during initial learning had a small positive effect on comprehension while using a graphic organizer during an activity closing produced a somewhat larger effect. I guess that we as educators must make that decision based on our students’ needs.
Hello everyone,
Thanks for the feedback on updates and continued use of diagramming sentences. A friend of mine swears by them as the reason he understands English. My understanding comes more from learning Spanish as a kid and continuing with additional foreign language study as a teen and as an adult.
Also, reading all the comments on the use of graphic organizers in teching made me realize that I employ graphic organizers throughout my teaching of chemistry, mostly as teacher-authored ways to promote understanding (and hopefully to reduce the 10,000 hours needed for my students to become chemistry experts).
That said, I still encourage students to create their own understanding of chemistry topics and problems--and make sure to give credit for graphic organizers I present that actually came from other students work. Some of my best organizers have come from students who struggle to make sense of chemistry and ask me questions to help fine-tune the organizers they have made for themselves. Not all of my students have such initiative, but I see more and more of it as class continues.
That said, I think expert-generated organizers are a wonderful tool for introducing new concepts. (As for truly multidimensional and severely interconnected concept frameworks, no two dimensional map may ever be sufficient, but few students can think in three dimensions let alone more than three, so we are somewhat stuck.) In addition, I think that once students have enough knowledge to be medium or high with respect to knowledge level, we can expect to be able to teach them to generate their own concept maps. On the other hand, I think novices will have low ability to generate concept maps for the same reason that I expect them to have low reading comprehension--when you have not even the beginnings of a schema, there's too much to absorb and make sense of to be able to readily do it all on your own.
Post a Comment