Implementation of concept mapping to novices: reasons for errors,a matter of technique or content?

Concept mapping is discussed as a means to promote meaningful learning and in particular progress in reading comprehension skills. Its increasing implementation necessitates the acquisition of adequate knowledge about frequent errors in order to make available an effective introduction to the new learning method. To analyse causes of errors, 283 A‐level sixth graders produced concept maps about two differently complex subject matter lessons, we implemented in a pre‐lesson. We defined six types of errors and analysed the distribution and contingency tables in both subject matters. Students in general produced more complex concept maps in the context of the easier subject matter (A) than that of the difficult content (B). Whereas in the former errors simply indicated knowledge gaps, in the latter they often reflected technical misconceptions. The occurrence of a content‐dependent technical error in (B) pointed to a cognitive overload, since the more difficult content is hypothesised to cause higher intrinsic load. From this following, concept mapping could provoke an instructional enrichment by additionally revealing specific knowledge gaps.     

Knowledge presented in concept maps: correlations with conventional cognitive knowledge tests

Our study focuses on the correlation of concept map (CMap) structures and learning success tested with short answer tests, taking into particular account the complexity of the subject matter. Novice sixth grade students created CMaps about two subject matters of varying difficulty. The correlation of the complexity of CMaps with the post-test was small but highly significant in both subject matters. The complexity of the CMaps correlated with the long-term knowledge in the difficult subject matter but not in the context of the easy one. Furthermore, the high number of technical errors makes it close to impossible to estimate students’ knowledge. In summary, CMaps do not provide an adequate alternative to conventional short answer knowledge tests, but together with them they may offer a better comprehension of a student’s knowledge structure and aid in the preparation of further instruction tailored to individual needs.     

Testing Creativity and Personality to Explore Creative Potentials in the Science Classroom

Integrating creativity into science classes may pave the way to tapping complex scientific phenomena. Although not yet conclusively defined nor assessed using standardized measures, creativity is understood to support cognitive learning in formal and informal settings. However, the successful integration of creativity in educational modules depends on many factors. As our knowledge of how to identify these factors is still limited, teachers may have difficulties effectively monitoring and fostering creativity. Consequently, a valid means to measure creativity would help teachers to identify creativity and its influencing factors within the limited scope of science lessons. In the present study, we collected data from 538 Bavarian secondary school students (M?±?SD?=?16.96?±?2.99; 65.4%, female) focussing on personality and creativity measures. Comparable to previous studies, two subscales for creativity were applied: act, comprising conscious and adaptable cognitive processes, and flow, describing a creative mental state of full immersion. Since personality is understood to be linked to creativity, we used the Big Five scale with its shortened item battery to assess personality. We found that personal characteristics such as conscientiousness and flow, openness and agreeableness, and extraversion and neuroticism were significantly correlated. Anticipated gender and age differences were only evident when extreme groups were compared: age influenced act in younger male students and flow in older female students. Drawing on the literature and our results, we suggest pedagogical approaches to provide opportunities for creativity in science classrooms.