Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(4), 283-293 0 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands

Innovations in Action

Probing Understanding: The Use of a Computer-Based Tool to Help Preservice Teachers Map Concepts

Brian Ferry

Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia

The advantages of the presentation of information in the form of a network or concept map have been recognized for many years (Ausubel, 1968; Novak & Gowin, 1984; West &Pines, 1985). In recent years, science educators have begun to use concept mapping strategies with preset-vice teachers to see how they structure their subjectmatterknowledge (Lederman & Latz, 1995). Beyerbach and Smith (1990) showed that concept mapping techniques could enhance preset-vice teacher thinking about effective teaching.

Holley and Dansereau (1984) claimed that “if network representations are the most adequate model of human knowledge available, then presenting information in the form of a network will be the most adequate parallel to the knowledge presented in the text” (p. 25). They identified three general strategies: (a) networking, (b) mapping, and (c) schematizing. All of these strategies overlap to some extent and, for this article, are included under the general heading of mapping strategies.

Mapping strategies can be content dependent (e.g., the construction of flow charts that relate to specific content such as a computer program) or content independent (e.g., the strategies of matrixing, networking, or concept mapping that can be applied to a variety of subject matter content). These mapping strategies cannot be applied universally with equal success as they tend to be context specific (Holley & Dansereau, 1984). For example, concept mapping is popular with science educators, and sufficient interest was aroused for the December 1990 issue of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Volume 27, Number 10) to be devoted to research associated with concept mapping. Yet, the less formal technique of semantic networking tends to be more popular with educators of language and literacy (Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986).

284 BRIAN FERRY

Figure 1 shows a simple concept map. It has a formal, hierarchical structure, and the relationship among terms is inclusive, with general ones standing above specific ones. The key features of concept maps are their spatial and graphic properties that make use of labelled nodes to represent concepts and lines or arcs to represent relationships among concepts.

Figure 1. A simple concept map (after White & Gunstone, 1992).

contain

Although concept mapping is a popular strategy, there is some disagreement over the long-term benefits of this strategy. White and Gunstone (1992) claimed that mapping appears to be best suited for probing understanding of a whole discipline or a substantial part of it. Armbruster (1979) asserted that mapping is limited in its application as it doesn’t give a big picture. Jegede, Alaiyemola, and Okebukola (1990) maintained that “concept mapping serves as a tool to help learners organize their cognitive frameworks into more powerful integrated patterns” (p. 952).

Mapping strategies are considered to be a primary support strategy that operates directly on text or visual materials on display or stored in memory (Holley & Dansereau, 1984). Secondary support strategies maintain a suitable cognitive climate, and examples are concentration and motivation strategies (Holley & Dansereau, 1984). Under this classification scheme, concept maps may be considered a primary support strategy which recognizes that the processes involved in creating concept maps activates

CONCEPT MAPS 285

both primary and secondary support strategies. Moreover, these strategies are likely to be activated in different ways with different subjects.

It has been suggested that the structure of concept maps parallels the human cognitive structure as concept maps show how learners organize concepts (Clarke, 1991; Fisher, Faletti, Patterson, Thornton, Lipson, & Spring, 1990; Harlen, Macro, Schilling, Malvern, & Reed, 1990; Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986; Langfield-Smith, 1992; Margulies, 1991; Novak & Gowin, 1984; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994; Wandersee, 1990; White & Gunstone, 1992). In the context of this article, concepts represent “anything that can be recognized; that is, can be attributed identity” (Holley & Dansereau, 1984, p. 23).

The Innovation

According to White & Gunstone (1992), concept maps can be used to: 1. explore understanding of a limited aspect of the topic, 2. check whether learners understand the purpose of instruction, 3. see whether learners can make links between concepts, 4. identify changes that learners make in relationships between

concepts, 5. find out which concepts are regarded as key ones, and 6. promote learner discussion. This article describes an innovation designed to capitalize on these

benefits and use computer software with preset-vice teachers to enable them to construct concept maps that represent their current subject matter knowledge. During the process of construction of a concept map, learners identified and defined important concepts or ideas and graphically represented the interrelationships among their selected concepts (Armbruster, 1979; Goetz & Armbruster, 1980; Holley & Dansereau, 1984; White & Gunstone, 1992). The result was a structured two-dimensional map representing the spatial organization of their knowledge structure. This structure is of little value, however, unless the links are labeled. White and Gunstone (1992) claimed that the writing of links is crucial; therefore, the learner should be encouraged to add notes and labels to their map (Holley & Dansereau, 1984). This is not an easy task, and White and Gunstone (1992) maintained that students find this “the most irksome task . . . and would skip it if they could” (p. 18).

Learner Creation of Concept Maps

Holley & Dansereau (1984) recommended that learners employ six

286 BRIAN PERRY

steps when they create concept or network maps: 1. Select key concepts. This is a recognition process that activates

relevant knowledge and assists in topic identification. 2. Write the key concepts. 3. Make an attribute list of the key concepts. 4. Relate key concepts in a spatial relationship. 5. Rearrange spatial representations. 6. Compare representation to the text. It is important for the instructor to model the process of concept map

creation to students and provide assistance in the form of named links, structured hierarchies, chains, or clusters of concepts. Harlan (1992) and White and Gunstone (1992) suggested that a period of direct instruction is necessary before learners can successfully employ this process. The following instructional steps are recommended by White and Gunstone (1992):

1. Begin with a simple topic that is familiar to students so that it is easier for them to concetrate on the learning process. Ensure that a small number of terms are involved.

2. Model the construction of a concept map for the class. This can be done with an overhead projector or computer with projection capability.

3. Encourage students to think of all possible links and to write down the nature of each link.

4. It is unlikely that students will produce good maps on their first attempt. Provide constructive criticism.

5. Provide a suggested layout the first time, but it is important to remove these prompts from subsequent maps.

6. Tell students that there is not a single correct answer to the task. Students could use a set of cards as concept labels and pieces of string

for links. They can arrange these on a large sheet of cardboard and attach them with tape. Then, the relations between pairs of concepts is written next to each link.

Computer technology can be used to replace cardboard and string as concepts and links can be easily manipulated on a computer screen. The use of a computer-based conceptmap tool makes it easier forpreservice teachers to construct a concept map of subject matter knowledge. Also, the process of concept map construction provides preservice teachers an insight into their own understanding of science content knowledge associated with the science topics that they will be teaching.

The concept map tool described in this article is considered to be a cognitive tool. Cognitive tools are defined by Jonassen (1991) as ” generalizable tools that can facilitate cognitive processing” (p. 2). They are

CONCEPT MAPS 287

both mental and computation devices that support, guide, and extend the thinking processes of the users. Such tools are external to the learner and engage the learner in meaningful processing of information.

The Concept Map Tool

A HyperCardTM programming environment was used for the project because Apple MacintoshW computers were used across the campus and most preset-vice teachers had at least one session (14 two-hour classes) of experience with these computers. Figure 2 shows a concept map that was created with the concept map tool. The functions of the on-screen buttons are described below.

Figure 2. A view of a concept map in the process of creation.

288 BRIAN FERRY

Concept Map. When the user clicks on this button a pop-up pallet (labeled concept tools) appears in the bottom right hand comer. This pallet consists of six buttons designed to help in the process of creating a concept map. The six buttons have the following functions:

1. The concept button allows the user to make concept labels and to move these labels in two-dimensional space.

2. The link button allows the user to draw link arrows between concepts. Arrows indicate the direction of these links.

3. The note button allows the user to attach explanatory notes to the links or concept labels; therefore, concepts and links can be explained.

4. The eraser allows the user to correct mistakes or to make improvements.

5. The help button provides access to a simple help screen. 6. The print button allows the user to print the concept map and the

notes. Help. When a user clicks on this button, a pop-up window provides

instructions for the use of the button that is currently activated. Save. Users can use this button to save the concept map they created to

their own disc. Quit. When the user quits the application, the concept map is also

automatically saved to a file server.

Implementation of the Innovation

Seventy-one third-year students enrolled in an undergraduate education course (Elementary Teaching) at the University of Wollongong participated in this innovation. Most of the students had prior instruction with the Apple MacintoshTM computer and with HyperCardTM presentations of learning materials. The preservice teachers were given a period of direct instruction in a lecture theater that contained computer projection facilities. The concept mapping software was demonstrated for the students, and the instructor modelled the process of concept map construction. All class periods were conducted in a computing laboratory, and each time, the instructorusedcomputerprojectionfacilities atthestartto revise procedures.

The preservice teachers were then given the choice of working alone or in pairs to construct their first concept map. Astronomy was chosen as the topic for the first concept map because astronomy had been previously covered by the students in their science class. As an aid to memory, a brief list of key concepts was provided to the students. Complete maps were printed at the end of the class period and collected for analysis.

After analysis, the concept maps were returned to the students, and

CONCEPT MAPS 289

during the next class period, ways of improving concept maps were discussed. Once again, the process was modelled for the students using the computer. The students then revised their maps and printed the revised versions. Again, the concept maps were collected and analyzed using the same method as before.

During the final class period, the presetvice teachers worked alone to improve their final concept maps. Four additional hours of computer laboratory time were allocated to the students so that they could finalize their concept maps and do another one. The total amount of time for this activity was six hours in the computer room with the instructor and an additional four hours of unsupervised computer time.

When the preservice teachers completed their concept maps, 12 preservice teachers were interviewed by the instructor abouttheirexperiences with the concept mapping process. Twelve other preservice teachers kept a reflective journal about their experiences with the process. Both groups were asked to include comments that they thought could help improve the process. These interview transcripts and written responses were analyzed for trends.

Outcomes

The First Concept Maps

Approximately half of the first concept maps showed that the presetvice teachers had limited understandings of the topic and construction of a concept map. For example, 41 concept maps contained concepts that were limited to those presented in lectures, and only nine concept maps had notes to explain the links. All maps except one had notes attached to concepts and this seemed to indicate that individual concepts may have been understood but the links among the concepts were not. Cross-links (links between pairs of concepts at the same level of hierarchy) were present in 11 maps, and concepts were arranged in three or more hierarchical levels in 18 maps.

During the interviews, the preservice teachers suggested two things that they could do to improve their concept maps: (a) improve their content knowledge and (b) practice constructing concept maps. When they came to the second class, most presetvice teachers brought a revised concept map and support materials such as books and summaries. It appeared that many of them were keen to improve their concept maps and had made an effort to improve their knowledge and concept map construction skills between the first and second class sessions.

BRIAN FERRY

Improvements in the Concept Maps

The main improvements were more levels of hierarchy, greater use of lii notes to clearly explain links between pairs of concepts, and greater use of cross-links. Also, the revised maps contained more concepts, and 33 were organized in a hierarchy that contained four or more levels. Similar improvements were observed in the second maps.

Use of the Software

During initial class sessions, three independent observers (the director of the computing laboratory, a doctoral student, and an instructor) each spent 30 minutes observing the preset-vice teachers construct their concept maps and talking to them informally about their maps. The observers reported that few of the teachers met with any problems when they used the software. Indeed, they felt that the concept map tools quickly became transparent, and this enabled the teachers to focus on the cognitive processes involved in constructing the concept maps.

Initially, most of the preservice teachers worked in pairs, and this supports research by Ramsden (1992) which showed that supportive pairs were beneficial to adult learning. The few experienced computer users in the group, however, preferred to work alone, and as one graduate in computer programming said, “I find that I can’t play around with the program if I work with a partner.” Transcripts of interviews with the less experienced computer users revealed that these teachers found working with a peer allowed them to bounce ideas off each other. By the final class session, all preservice teachers were ready to work alone on their own map.

Comments About the Software

Written responses about the software were collected from twelve of the preservice teachers. Three of the 12 teachers mentioned that a printed sheet to explain how the program worked would have been helpful and would have allowed the experienced computer users to work on their own. Two teachers said that they felt the link arrows should be moveable so that the concepts and arrows could be moved together. Ten of the 12 teachers found the note tools to be very helpful and one of the strengths of the software. Future versions of the program will take into account these suggested improvements.

CONCEPT MAPS

Comments About the Concept Mapping Process

The following comment, in response to the question “How difficult was it for you to construct concept maps ?,‘I sums up many of the comments made by the preservice teachers during the interviews.

We were shown how to use the program and hadpractice so I didn’t find it too hard, but when I began my second map, and I looked back at the notes that I made for the first one . . . they were not so good because I wasn’t well-prepared. You need to know the topic well and have heaps of books to help you. Look at my second map. You can see it’s much better.

While the software may make the physical taks of construction easier, the learner still has to acquire and organize the knowledge. Furthermore, it appears that many of the preservice teachers did not realize that their understanding of the subject matter knowledge was inadequate until they began to create concept maps

Conclusion

Concept mapping and other related metacognitive strategies may assist preservice teachers map their current subject matter knowledge and identify areas that need further development. An aspect that needs further study is whether or not preservice teachers will become motivated to acquire more subject matter knowledge when they are aware of inadequacies in their current knowledge.

It appeared that the concept mapping tool was easy to use and quickly became transparent to the learner. This allowed the learner to focus on the cognitive processes involved in the construction of their concept maps; however, the use of the concept mapping tool requires careful instruction as the construction of concept maps is a complex skill (Novak & Gowin, 1984; White & Gunstone, 1992). The preservice teachers involved in this study received careful instruction that modelled the process before they used the computer application. This is an important point as, too often, it is assumed that just providing the hardware and software is enough.

While this innovation challenges science educators to experiment with similar tools, it also challenges instructional designers to consider incorporating such metacognitive tools in quality computer-based instructional materials.

292 BRIAN FERRY

References

Armbmster, B. B. (1979). An investigation of the effectiveness of “mapping”textasastudyingstrategyformiddleschoolstudents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Beyerbach, B . A., & Smith, J. M. ( 1990). Using a computerized concept mapping program to assess preservice teachers’ thinking about effective teaching. Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 961-971.

Clarke, J. H. (1991). Using visual organizers to focus on thinking. Journal of Reading, 34(7), 526-534.

Department of Education. (1989). Discipline review of teacher education in mathematics and science. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Fisher, K. M., Faletti, J., Patterson, H., Thornton, R., Lipson, J., & Spring, C. (1990). Computer-based concept mapping SemNet software: A tool for describing knowledge networks. Journal of College Science and Technology, 19,347-352.

Goetz, E. T., & Armbruster, B. B. (1980). Psychological correlates of text structure. InR. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectivesfrom cognitivepsychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 201-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harlan, W. (1992). The teaching of science: Studies inprimary science. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Harlan, W., Macro, C., Schilling, M., Malvem, D., & Reed, K. (1990). Progress in primary science. London: Routledge.

Heimlich, J. E., & Pittelman, S. D. (1986). Semantic mapping: CZassroom applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Holley, C. D., & Dansercau, D. F. (1984). Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues. Sydney: Academic Press.

Jegede, 0. J., Alaiyemola, F. F., & Okebukola, P. A. 0. (1990). The effect of concept mapping on students’ anxiety and achievement in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 950-960.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). What are cognitive tools? In M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning computers and system sciences (pp. l-6). Berlin: Springer-Verland.

Langfield-Smith, K. (1992). Exploring the need for a shared cognitive map. Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 349-369.

Margulies, N. (1991). Mapping inner space: Learning and teaching

CONCEPT MAPS 293

mind mapping. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New

York: Cambridge University Press. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London:

Routledge. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on

instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan.

Wandersee, J. H. (1990). Concept mapping and the category of cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 923-936.

West, L. H. T., & Pines, A. L. (1985). Cognitive structure and conceptual change. Sydney: Academic Press.

White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.