Comparative Effects of Computer-Based Concept Maps, Refutational Texts, and Expository Texts on Science Learning

Abstract

This study used a between-subjects experimental design to examine the effects of three different computer-based instructional strategies (concept map, refutation text, and expository scientific text) on science learning. Concept maps are node-link diagrams that show concepts as nodes and relationships among the concepts as labeled links. Refutational texts are designed specifically to elicit common misconceptions that learners typically hold about a particular topic, directly refute the misconceptions, and present scientific explanations as compelling alternatives. Expository scientific texts consist of texts that are written specifically to present correct scientific information. Sixty-seven participants were randomly assigned to study one of three computer-based presentations on climate change. The dependent measures were tests of free recall and transfer. The concept map group significantly outperformed the refutational and scientific text groups on both free recall and transfer tests. Practical and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

Enhancing Summary Writing of ESL Learners via a Theory-Based Online Tool: System Development and Evaluation

“…The use of advance organizers can activate information processing on the part of the learner, and this helps to prepare the student for active learning (Rohman, 2017). Regardless of the numerous advance organizers available, concept mapping appears to be the best for summary writing (Desoiza, 2011; Yang, 2015) due to its graphical features that embed multiconcepts for grasping essential gist in summary writing (Tseng, Chang, Lou, Tan, & Chiu, 2012), and it also make it easier for students to see how big ideas in a passage are related or connected to (Adesope, Cavagnetto, Hunsu, Anguiano, & Lloyd, 2017). In addition, Farshi and Tavakoli (2014) stated that concept mapping helps students to organize their ideas in a network of relationships and link new knowledge with prior knowledge.…”

Refutation Text Facilitates Learning: a Meta-Analysis of Between-Subjects Experiments

“…We note that not all forms of refutation text that were included in this study followed an identical format. For example, some used explicit refutation (Rodrigues & Thacker, 2019 ), examined the credibility of the explanation (Van Boekel et al, 2017 ), or used more implicit refutation (Adesope et al, 2017 ). In addition, some studies used questions rather than statements of misconceptions (Ariasi & Mason, 2011 , 2014 ), and some aligned more with the conceptual change text format but still contained the components of refutation text (Wang & Andre, 1991 ).…”

“…In practical terms, we preferred comparisons within studies that compared refutation texts to other types of texts (often expository) while ignoring other treatment conditions present in the study. For example, some studies contained multiple comparisons, such as Adesope et al ( 2017 ), who examined the use of a concept map, refutation text, and scientific text. In this case, we coded the comparison of the refutation text and scientific text, ignoring the concept map condition.…”

Development of software to support argumentative reading and writing by means of creating a graphic organizer from an electronic text

“…This strategy includes the use of concept maps (Novak and Gowin 1984), knowledge maps (O'Donell et al 2002), and similar approaches (Makany et al 2009), which are graphic organizers that represent ideas as node-link assemblies (for a review, see Nesbit and Adesope 2006). These graphic organizers are employed in reading research (McCagg and Dansereau 1991;Chmielewski and Dansereau 1998;Chang et al 2001;Conlon 2008;Adesope et al 2017) and for the creation of texts (Czuchry and Dansereau 1996;Straubel 2006;Giombini 2008;Davies 2011;Simper et al 2016). It is well known that representing the content of a text spatially in the format of a map is effective in recreating the text's content in terms of the relationships between key elements in the text and the text's structure (McCagg and Dansereau 1991;Chmielewski and Dansereau 1998), especially when the text material is highly complex (Fiorella and Mayer 2016), thus achieving text comprehension at the situation level (Kools et al 2006).…”