skip to main content
article
Free Access

Interaction processes in network supported collaborative concept mapping

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 June 1999Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This study investigated group interaction processes in network supported collaborative concept mapping, and the influence of these group interaction processes upon the group concept mapping performance. A total of 36 in-service teachers and pre-service student teachers engaged in this study. It was found that group concept mapping performance was significantly correlated to the quantity of group interaction, particularly high-level interaction processes. Suggestions for a further improvement in the system design to support collaborative concept mapping are also provided in this paper.

References

  1. 1 Chiu, C.H., Chen, H,P., Wei, L.C.," and Hu, H.W. Approaching Effective Network Cooperative Learning, Proceedings of International Conference on Mathematics/Science Education and Technology (M/SET, 1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2 Chert, S.F. Gainian Goutushi Xuexi Xitong {Computer System for Concept Mapping}. Unpublished master's thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3 Chung, W.K., O'Neil, F., Herl, E., and Dennis, A. Use of Networked Collaborative Concept Mapping to Measure Team Processes and Team Outcomes, Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, 1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4 Fisher, K M., Faletti, J., Patternson, H., Thornton, R., Lipson, J., and Spring, C. Computer-based concept mapping. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19 (1990), 347-352.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5 Fisher, K.M. Semantric-Networking: The new-kid on the block, journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (1990), 1001-1018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. 6 Herl, H., Baker, E., and Niemi, D. Construct validation of approach to moderling congnitive structure of U.S. history knowledge. Journal of Education Research, 89 (1996), 213- 230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. 7 Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. An integrative model of the classroom: The enhzmcement of cooperation in learning, American Educational Research Association Conference (Boston MA, 1990).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8 Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. Six mirrors of the classroom: A pathway to cooperative learning, EI Paso, TX, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9 Horton, P.B., McConney, A.A., Gallo, M., Woods, A.L., Senn, G.J., and Hamelin, D. An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77 (1993), 95-111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. 10 Huang, T.Z. Gainiantu Zai Guozhong Shengwu Jiaoxuesl~ung De Chengxiao Yanjiu (II) {The Effects of Concept Mapping on Secondary Biology Teaching}. Taipei, Taiwan: National Science Council. (NSC 84-25511-S-017- 003, 1995)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11 Kozma, R.B. The implications of cognitive psychology for computer-based learning tools. Educational Technology, 27 (1987), 20-25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12 Kozma, R.B., and Van Roekel, J. Learning Tool, Ann Arbor, MI, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13 Lin, S.C. Shuxinghua Gainian Goutu De Mohu Zhenghe He Pingli {Fuzzy Integration and Measurement of Attributed Concept Maps}. Unpublished master's thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 14 Novak, J.D., and Gowin, D.B. Learning How to Learn, Cambridge, London, 1984.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 15 Novak, J.D. Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19 (1990), 29-5 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. 16 Okebukola, P.A., and Jegede, O.J. Cognitive preference and learning model as determinates of meaningful learning through concept mapping. Science Education, 71 (1989), 232-241.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17 Reader, W., and Hammond, N. Computer-based tools to support learning from hypertext: Concept mapping tools and beyond. Computers and Education, 12 (I 994), 99-106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18 Roth, W.M. Student views of collaborative concept mapping: An emancipatory research project. Science Education, 78 (I 994), 1-34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. 19 Roth, W.M., and Roychoudhury, A. The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76 (1992), 531-557.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. 20 Roth, W.M., and Roychoudhury, A. The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (1993a), 503-534.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. 21 Roth, W.M., and Roychoudhury, A. About knowing and learning physic: The perspectives of four students. International Journal of Science Education, 15 (1993b), 27- 44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. 22 Roth, W.M., and Roychoudhury, A. Using vee and concept maps in collaborative settings: Elementary education majors construct meaning in physical science courses. School Science and Mathematics, 93 (1993c), 237-244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. 23 Roychoudhury, A., and Roth, W.M. Student involvement in learning: Collaboration in science for pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3 (1992), 47-52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. 24 Roth, W.M., and Roychoudhury, A. Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping: New perspectives for the teacher. International Journal of Science Education, 16 (1994), 437-455.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. 25 Webb, N.M. Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13 (1989), 21-39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. 26 Webb, N.M. Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Hertz- Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 27 Webb, N.M. Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Hertz- Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction Cooperative Groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Interaction processes in network supported collaborative concept mapping

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!