 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 13, Issue 1, Article 7 (Jun., 2012) |
Does constructivist approach applicable through concept maps to achieve meaningful learning in Science?
Ananta Kumar JENA
Faculty of Educational Sciencs, Assam University, Silchar-788011 Assam, INDIA
E-mail: anantajena2020@yahoo.com
Received 28 Jul, 2011
Revised 17 Apr., 2012
Contents
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Role of the Concept Maps
- Collaborative and Individual Modes of Concept Mapping
- Constructivist Approach use through Concept Maps
- Concept Map provides Meaningful Learning
- Purpose of the Study
- Significance of the Study
- Research Questions
- Methodology
- Design
- Sample
- Instrumentation
- Procedure of Data Collection
- Immediate Test
- Delayed Test
- Technique of Scoring
- Analysis and Results
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- Acknowledgement
- References
- Appendix
This study deals with the application of constructivist approach through individual and cooperative modes of spider and hierarchical concept maps to achieve meaningful learning on science concepts (e.g. acids, bases & salts, physical and chemical changes)). The main research questions were: Q (1): is there any difference in individual and cooperative modes of spider concept maps’ to achieve meaningful learning in science? Q (2): is there any difference in individual and cooperative modes of hierarchical concept maps’ to achieve meaningful learning in science? Q (3): out of spider and hierarchical maps, which one is more effective to achieve meaningful learning in science? Q (4): is this concept map is being applicable for constructivist approach? Sixty-four 7th grade students from an Indian elementary school participated in the study. Thirty-four and thirty participants treated through spider and hierarchical concept map approach with both cooperative and individual modes. It was an immediate and delayed test experimental design. Two teaching approaches used for two experimental groups: one based upon spider concept map approach and other was hierarchical map approach. After all, students’ immediate and delayed, cooperative and individual map of both groups were scored and analyzed by using, Jena & Panda, 2009 scoring procedure. The parametric tests, such as one-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons Test used to identify any differences between spider and hierarchical map approach, concerning cooperative and individual modes of learning. Both cooperative spider and hierarchical concept map were significantly better than individual learning in science concept. Therefore, concept map is a constructivist learning.
Keywords: Constructivist learning, cooperative learning; elementary school; hierarchical concept map; individual learning; spider concept map
