CONCEPT MAPPING IN THE MODELING PHYSICS CLASSROOM 1
The Use of Concept Mapping in the Modeling Physics Classroom and Its Effects on Comprehension and Retention
Principal Investigator: Dr. Colleen Megowan
Co-Investigators: Melissa Girmscheid and Darrick Kahle
Arizona State University
This study was completed as Action Research required for the Master of Natural Science degree with concentration in physics.
Submitted July 2014
Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Rationale 3
Literature Review 4
Method 11
Procedure for Treatment 16
Timeline 21
Data Analysis 22
Results 24
Reflections 63
Conclusion 71
Appendix A 75
References 76
Abstract
Implementing a concept mapping method in our class allowed students to face what they know (metacognition) before investigations by drawing a concept map at the start of each instructional unit. As the unit progressed they incorporated new knowledge on the same diagram by way of concepts and visual models, simultaneously forming a new physical representation of their thinking and a more comprehensive mental model. We examined the progression of these concept maps for evidence of resolution of student misconceptions, the integration of new ideas into existing conceptual models and retention of introductory mechanics knowledge. The use of concept mapping produced statistically significant gains in both scientific reasoning skills when compared to the Modeling physics classroom as well as an increase in introductory physics knowledge among students with lower initial scientific reasoning skills. In addition, qualitative data is favorable with students reporting an increase in thought analysis and organization, knowledge analysis and confidence with academic content.
Rationale
We, the investigators, taught high school physics using the Modeling Method of Instruction developed at Arizona State University (Hestenes, 2010). While the Modeling Method of Instruction provided our students with multiple concept representations, our students still struggled to confront misconceptions that have been learned and cemented through experience. Classroom discussion helped students to verbalize and analyze thoughts; however a difficulty arose when translating these discussions into written form. As teachers we often witnessed students struggling to take notes that will be both useful and comprehensive. We believed that by confronting the difficulties in organizing and integrating thoughts and new concepts derived from class discussions and laboratory activities, students would be able to actively monitor their learning in a simple and practical way. The task at hand for our research team was to have students go one step further from our baseline Modeling approach and incorporate concept mapping as a metacognitive strategy, in the hope that they would achieve additional learning gains over those realized by students who used only the Modeling Instruction representational practices. Student-generated concept maps encompassed ideas, vocabulary, diagrams, equations and graphs were produced during lab experiences, small-group conferencing and class discussion. These maps promoted both personal learning and student confidence in the model under investigation and served as the comprehensive visualizations through which our students recorded preconceptions, confronted misconceptions, and made connections with new material. Through this study we strived to determine in what ways and to what extent concept mapping affected comprehension and retention in the Modeling physics classroom.
Literature Review
Physics education begins long before students set foot in a physics classroom. From being able to throw a ball with accuracy to gauging how to step on a moving object, personal observations help us construct mental explanations about moving objects (Norman, 1983). Making neural connections regarding motion, and seeking answers to complicated questions begins well before a student walks through a classroom (Vygotsky, Cole, John-Steiner, Scribner, & Souberman, 1978). Students often enter the physics classroom with preconceived notions regarding mechanics (Halloun & Hestenes, 1985b). Although students enter the class with all of this physics experience, they also inevitably bring an equal amount of misconceptions (Arons, 1997). One challenge in education is student lack of cognitive skills necessary to explain the complexities of a phenomenon (Collins, 2006). The goal is for students to develop a comprehensive Newtonian level of knowledge (Halloun & Hestenes, 1985a&b). Through the course of a physics class, students should evolve from simply experiencing concepts to gaining a working model of observed phenomena by using multiple representations, and demonstrate coherence of a concept by having all the necessary elements, operations, relations and rules properly represented and connected with one another (Hestenes, 2010; Lesh & Doerr, 2003).
Overcoming preconceptions has proven to be difficult for some students for many reasons. Prior knowledge can determine how a student will accept and decipher instruction while leading to unacceptable explanations (Roschelle, 1995). According to McDermott, for students to discover and correct their own misunderstandings, instruction should elicit students’ ideas, then confront students with errors in those ideas, and finally offer students the opportunity to resolve the errors (McDermott, 1993). “A person's prior knowledge is part of his or her personal identity in society. Conceptual change almost always involves a transformation of identity- the specialization of concepts about motion not only enables a child to think more like a scientist, but also allows a child to progress towards becoming a scientist. Becoming a participant in a community can be a stronger motivation the gaining knowledge. This is a useful corrective to educators who focus on the ‘right knowledge’ and forget to ask who a learner is becoming” (Roschelle, 1995).
Assessing student mastery of a concept begins by considering student preconceptions. Concept maps are an excellent way to track students’ prior knowledge as well as track learning progression and thoughts related to class material and assist students in recognizing gaps in information that need to be addressed (Cañas, 2008). Valid, as well as invalid ideas held by students can be identified through the use of concept maps, pinpointing relevant knowledge before and after instruction in a manner as effective as a clinical interview (Edwards & Fraser, 1983).
While many students recognize when a misconception has been addressed or momentarily realize a connection between ideas, they rarely memorialize these events to fit reality (Clement, 1982). Placing ownership in the hands of the student, to operate independently, is an expectation well-established in traditional schooling, yet this expectation is not met by many (Hake, 1998). Some students are able to recall past events, and some students are not, and it is this difference that prevents these students from actively rejecting a prior misconception or adopting a new one (Herman, Caczmarczyk, Loui, & Zilles, 2008). By concept mapping periodically throughout a class, students must confront misconceptions and are forced to memorialize, thus producing and retaining connections between ideas (Novak & Gowin, 1984). According to Novak and Gowin, concept maps break down the required material into small segments, making learning easier for the student, and simplifying instructional planning (Novak & Gowin, 1984). Concept maps externalize a person’s knowledge structure and can serve to point out any conceptual misconceptions the person may have, and this explicit evaluation of knowledge and subsequent recognition of misconceptions allows for finely targeted remediation (Novak & Gowin, 1984). Since concept maps are visual images therefore they tend to be more easily remembered than text (Safdar, Hussain, Shah, & Rifat, 2012).
Modeling Instruction was developed at Arizona State University by Dr. David Hestenes and Malcolm Wells beginning with a framework designed in 1987 (Hestenes, 2010). “A key to the astounding success of science in discovering the inner workings of natural phenomena has been the development of a powerful way of thinking called modeling. To describe and understand the structure of things, from raindrops to animals, and the regularities in natural processes, from evaporation to locomotion, scientists create conceptual models of things and processes” (Hestenes, 1993). Scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) in Modeling has its own “flavor” it is, theoretically, student-led, user-friendly, hands-on, group-based and mandates cognitive dissonance through student enrichment activities that use whiteboards as a tool to increase Newtonian-centered discourse (Megowan, 2007). Modeling Instruction done well produces discourse that is consistent with an activity that is intrinsically motivating (Megowan, 2007).
In a study conducted in 1992, research showed that the use of Modeling Instruction produced an increase in post-test scores and normalized gains amongst ninth-grade general physics students, a result that was supported by later studies on the usefulness of Modeling (Hake, 1998). The work of H. Simon provides additional validation for modeling, stating that the ability to create and use representations as problem-solving tools is a “major intellectual achievement” that is often underestimated in its significance for both science and instructional design (Simon, 1977). Teachers who understand modeling recognize not only the importance of representations in aiding student comprehension, but they are also trained on how to model a concept in different ways (Wells, Hestenes, & Swackhamer, 1995). If done correctly, Modeling Instruction becomes student-led, demonstrating the next step by the student beyond comprehension and into retention (Megowan, 2007).
Modeling provides easy access to the main ideas or nodes forming “the big picture” by nature of whiteboard presentations during which ideas are submitted, reviewed and dissected by students (Wells, Hestenes, & Swackhamer, 1995). Quite often students completely misinterpret this “zoomed out” model as they are mentally preoccupied on the intricacies making the model (Megowan, 2007). The use of concept mapping aims to generate a more meaningful and self-regulated set of classroom activities geared toward remembering meaningful vocabulary and concepts in a hierarchical way so that interpretations of phenomena are represented physically on a consistent basis (Novak, 1990).
Concept maps provide a medium for building important contextual language and connections and making material more easily understood (Rafferty & Fleschner, 1993). “The act of mapping is a creative activity, in which the learner must exert effort to clarify meanings, identifying important concepts, relationships, and structure within a specified domain of knowledge… and concept maps facilitate the process of knowledge creation for individuals and for scholars in a discipline” (Novak & Cañas, 2004). Concept mapping is a tool for representing the interrelationships among concepts in an integrated, hierarchical manner (Novak, 1990). Concept maps should not simply list information from text randomly, or even in a linear fashion (Novak, 1990). Rather, concept maps should depict the structure of knowledge in propositional statements that illustrate the relationships among the concepts in a map (Novak & Gowin, 1984).
Meaningful learning, according to Ausubel, results when a person consciously and explicitly ties new knowledge to relevant concepts or propositions that he or she already possesses (Ausubel, 1963). Information is retained meaningfully by storing it in long-term memory in association with similar, related pieces of information (Ausubel, 1963). In contrast, rote learning provides little or no attempt to make the information meaningful or to understand it in terms of things one already knows (Ausubel, 1963). If such information is stored in long-term memory at all, it is stored unconnected to, and isolated from, other related information (Ausubel, 1963). Information stored in this unconnected fashion becomes difficult to retrieve (Jegede, Alaiyemola, & Okebukola, 1990). The structure of the concept map merges the above plan of action with both Robert Gagne‘s hierarchical thought and Richard C. Anderson's schema diagrams (Davis, 1991).
Novak’s work with concept mapping was based on the learning psychology of David Ausubel (Novak & Gowin, 1984). The fundamental idea in Ausubel’s cognitive psychology is that learning takes place by the assimilation of new concepts and propositions into existing concept and propositional frameworks held by the learner (Ausubel, 1963). This knowledge structure as held by a learner is also referred to as the individual’s cognitive structure (Leake, et al., 2003).
It is the individual student who structures a fluid concept map with clear precise language in an interconnected hierarchical drawing promoting newly learned information who will have the ability to assimilate the material into a more complete model (Novak & Cañas, 2004). Novak's work stressed the importance of prior knowledge in being able to learn new concepts: "The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach accordingly" (Ausubel, 1978). Correcting prior knowledge and misconceptions through the employment of experiential knowledge will allow students to create a more comprehensive view of the Newtonian world (Hestenes, 1992). “The Newtonian World must enter the student, for it is a conceptual world which must be recreated in the mind of anyone who would know it. Each student must literally reinvent the Newtonian World in his/her own mind to understand it” (Hestenes, 1992).
Modeling is a research-based pedagogy that allows for understanding by way of using multiple representations in multiple ways effectively (Hake, 1998). This method encourages students to confront misconceptions and utilize the multiple representations in student friendly conversations and white-boarding sessions (Wells, Hestenes, & Swackhamer, 1995). However, we have found the success of modeling relies heavily on the students being self-regulated learners (Wells, Hestenes, & Swackhamer, 1995) and this is often not our reality.
We introduced concept mapping into our modeling class in order to supplement the Modeling Method of Instruction. We believed this might help students to confront and relinquish their misconceptions and memorialize the connections that they make between different concepts and representations in physics. This allowed for a more productive overall “flavor” of modeling that promoted more effective physics thinking and learning.
Method
Data was collected from a combination of four high school Physics classes taught by the investigators and compared to data collected from additional classrooms as discussed below in the ‘Treatment Groups’ and ‘Comparison Groups’ sections. The investigators taught at high schools within the metropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona, one in a West Valley suburban school of 2,100 students, the other at an East Valley suburban school of 2,700 students. Our General Physics classes consisted of juniors and seniors for whom Physics is their third high school science class. Prior to taking Physics, our students had taken a general science course and a Biology course, in addition to passing a basic course in algebra. We both used the Modeling method of teaching in our Physics classes with a high emphasis placed on inquiry learning methods and student-led learning.
The investigation for our research consisted of having our students using concept maps throughout the school year as a way to better develop the physics models. Our application for concept mapping started at the beginning of each instructional unit, which began with a lab activity. Students individually constructed concept maps after being exposed to the lab apparatus. Prompting questions such as “What can we change?” and “What will change?” allowed the teacher to focus thinking on possible experimental variables. Addressing preconceptions before a lab required students to confront their model of how a system works. In addition, this process enabled the instructor to walk around and perform a concept check while the pre-lab concept map was completed.