When students build physical models from prefabricated components to learn about model systems, there is an implicit trade-off between the physical degrees of freedom in building the model and the intensity of instructor supervision needed. Models that are too flexible, permitting multiple possible constructions require greater supervision to ensure focused learning; models that are too constrained require less supervision, but can be constructed mechanically, with little to no conceptual engagement. We propose "model-dissection" as an alternative to "model-building," whereby instructors could make efficient use of supervisory resources, while simultaneously promoting focused learning. We report empirical results from a study conducted with biology undergraduate students, where we demonstrate that asking them to "dissect" out specific conceptual structures from an already built 3D physical model leads to a significant improvement in performance than asking them to build the 3D model from simpler components. Using questionnaires to measure understanding both before and after model-based interventions for two cohorts of students, we find that both the "builders" and the "dissectors" improve in the post-test, but it is the latter group who show statistically significant improvement. These results, in addition to the intrinsic time-efficiency of "model dissection," suggest that it could be a valuable pedagogical tool.

No abstract

Concept‐maps are widely used to assess students' conceptual understanding in different subject areas. Conventionally, it is mostly built maps which are assessed. In this study, we explore if “concept‐mapping” could be used as a case for constructive alignment of both the process and the outcome of learning. Specifically, we have studied how a simple measure of looking at the order in which concept map elements‐concepts (cards, C), links (arrows, A), and linking phrases (phrases, P)‐ are placed on the working space reveals information about the quality of the final generated map. We report findings from analysis of the concept‐mapping process in two separate groups of university students (N = 38 (18 + 20)) who were asked, individually, to build concept maps related to two separate concepts in biology and chemistry respectively. We found that, across both groups, students consistently followed the same order of element placement that they began with and found significant differences in the quality of eventual maps resulting from students' map building strategies. Our results suggest that the quality of students' concept maps depends considerably on the strategy used to build it, and point to the supplementary role that the physical working space of the concept‐mapping exercise offers to students' own working memory as a possible explanation for these quality differences.

Holistic assessment is a common challenge in pedagogical settings. Conceptmapping based assessments have been proposed as a possible solution to this problem, but tend to be difficult and effort-intensive to evaluate in practice. We are examining the possibility of deriving alternative measures from physical concept-mapping to perform low-cost, low-effort holistic assessment in low-resource developing economy classrooms. Our basic hypothesis is that externalizing students' thinking process by means of having them manipulate physical concept-map elements provides observable insights into their mental representations, which in turn can be used both for assessment and remediation. We report findings from an experimental assessment of college students' conceptual-understanding. The primary finding is a frugal assessment strategy predictive of students' global comprehension of the subject matter.