The Effectiveness of Concept Maps on Students’ Achievement in Science: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of concept maps on science achievement among elementary and secondary education students, including low-achieving students. A systematic search located 55 studies about concept mapping in science achievement published in peer-reviewed journals and dissertations between 1980 and 2020. We extracted 58 independent standardized mean difference effect sizes from 55 eligible studies involving 5,364 students from Grade 3 to Grade 12 who used concept maps for learning in physics/earth science, chemistry, and biology that met the specified design criteria. A random-effects model meta-analysis revealed that the mean effect size was moderate for overall science (g = 0.776). The mean effect sizes varied from moderate to large based on the subject area (g = 0.671 for biology; g = 0.590 for chemistry; g = 1.040 for physics and earth science); these differences between groups were not statistically significant (p = 0.220). Concept maps were generally associated with increased science learning across several learning and teaching conditions, and methodological features (low-achieving students, higher teaching guidance, intermediate grades, low- or middle-income countries, journal publications, and late year of publication). However, we found significant heterogeneity in most subsets. Implications for future research and practice recommendations are discussed.

Validation of the use of concept maps as an evaluation tool for the teaching and learning of mechanical and industrial engineering

“…While group work remains valuable, instructors should recognize the unique strengths of individual concept mapping. Although when it comes to concept mapping, individual construction can sometimes lead to limited perspectives, while collaborative work fosters creativity (Anastasiou et al, 2024), given the limitations of this work, collaborative work may have faced coordination and consensus challenges as it performed worse in all areas of assessment. Balancing individual and collaborative assessments ensure a comprehensive evaluation of students' conceptualization abilities.…”