Paper‐based and computer‐based concept mappings: The effects on computer achievement, computer anxiety and computer attitude

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to compare the effects of paper-based and computer-based concept mappings on computer hardware achievement, computer anxiety and computer attitude of the eight grade secondary school students. The students were randomly allocated to three groups and were given instruction on computer hardware. The teaching methods used for each group were the conventional method, paper-based concept mapping and computerbased concept mapping. At the end of a 4-week instruction, posttests were administered to assess computer hardware achievement, computer anxiety and computer attitude of the students. The findings indicate that paper-based and computer-based concept mapping strategies produce better results than the conventional method. However, the effects of paper-based and computerbased concept mapping strategies were not significantly different.

Pedagogical knowledge representation through concept mapping as a study and collaboration tool in teacher education

“…As can be observed from the participants' perceptions, this study reveals that CM can facilitate such processes, which, in turn, as shown by the regression analysis, is associated with student achievement. Similar findings were reported in previous research studies on various subjects (Asan, 2007;Chiou, 2008;Erdogan, 2009;Kwon & Cifuentes, 2007;Liu, Chen & Chang, 2010;Schaal, 2010). Therefore, teacher educators should try to provide pre-service teachers with more opportunities of constructing concept maps in their pedagogical courses.…”

“…Furthermore, the results recommend that the CM strategy can also be integrated successfully into teacher education programs in which students do not have prior experience with CM and access to computers. Consistently, former studies revealed that both paper-based and computer-based CM methods produced positive effects on concept learning and attitudes toward CM, but there were no significant differences between the two methods (Erdogan, 2009;Hsieh & Cifuentes, 2006). This research reveals crucial practical implications for future implementations of CM.…”

“…Some indicated no significant differences between paper-based and computer-based CM in concept learning (Erdogan, 2009;Hsieh & Cifuentes, 2006). On the other hand, computer-based CM that provides learners with an incomplete expert map as a scaffold was found to be more effective for learning than computer-based CM without scaffolding aid, and paper-based CM (Chang, Sung & Chen, 2001).…”

“…Mackinnon (2006) showed positive impact of CM on students' abilities to formulate arguments, lead effective discussions, and substantiate their conceptual frameworks. Contemporary research indicated that CM had a positive effect on student achievement (Asan, 2007;Chiou, 2008;Erdogan, 2009;Kwon & Cifuentes, 2007;Liu, Chen & Chang, 2010).…”

The Effects of a Collaborative Computer-based Concept Mapping Strategy on Geographic Science Performance in Junior High School Students

“…Compared with the traditional paper-and-pencil concept mapping approach, computer-based concept maps are more user-friendly and can be more easily corrected (Erdogan, 2009). The use of computer-based concept maps benefits teachers and learners due to the following characteristics: (1) ease of use and making corrections: nodes can be quickly added, corrected, and deleted in computer-based concept mapping, and, guided by simple instructions, users can adjust the concept map structure to make it more visually clear; (2) ease of communication with peers: learners can obtain clear information by displaying their concept maps on the screen and through discussion with others; (3) support for multiple resources: computer-based concept mapping can offer feedback, evaluation, and map history functions, as well as collaborative online tools for map composition (Chiou, Lee, Tien, & Wang, 2017).…”