 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 13, Issue 1, Article 7 (Jun., 2012) |
A short literature review points out that it is an attempt to find a clear effect of spider and hierarchical concept map with individual and cooperative modes on elementary science concept. Based on this an immediate and delayed map test study was conducted, focusing on the effectiveness of map learning. The present study was an experimental design because this design provides control of when and to whom the instruction is applied and has randomly assigned to the experiment to the two schools. Pupils in the two experimental groups were continuously exposed to concept map learning for two months on concepts (e.g. chemical science( acids, bases & salts, physical and chemical changes). Secondly, pupils constructed a concept map in groups as well as individually on these concepts. There was no control group, but only two experimental groups, one was hierarchical group and second was spider concept map group. Finally, the pupils of both groups were assigned to construct concept map on concept chemical reaction. The subjects were requested to construct first map test (i.e. immediate test) and after two months, again the same map (i.e. delayed map test) on same concept chemical reaction. The data were analyzed in the quantitative analysis technique like ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons Test.
The study was linked with the 7th grade elementary school of India, and the researcher has taken 64 subjects as the sample of the study. In this connection, 7th grade, sec B, students (n=34), were randomly undertaken as spider concept map group and 7th grade sec C students (n=30) were treated as hierarchical concept map group for the experiment. The researcher for his experiment has been purposely selected those participants.
In this study, the researcher has used two types of instructional tools. Because of related literature, Spider Concept Map Approach and Hierarchical Concept Map instructional strategies were used in the present study. After instruction, learners’ first map (i.e. immediate map test), and second maps test (i.e. delayed map test) were evaluated by a standard scoring procedure (Jena & Panda, 2009) was the measuring tool for the study.
Out of thirty-four students (i.e. spider concept map), twenty and fourteen students were assigned to cooperative and individual instruction respectively. Similarly, hierarchical concept map students (n=30) was assigned into fifteen and fifteen for cooperative and individual instruction respectively, then instruction started by the researcher with why and how types of questions, to the students, related to the chemical science. To achieve the skeletal question’s answer, the researcher has advised the students to read the textbook page carefully twice and he has advised the students to select the big word or super concept first, which is necessary to answer the skeletal questions, then sub concepts, very sub concepts and examples, to construct spider and hierarchical concept map. The researcher facilitated the learner to arrange concepts, like spider net, all sub concepts, super concepts the students were arranged radially for the super concept. After, Spidery arrangement of concepts and sub concepts, students are advice to connect the concepts by to arrows and linking words to make the propositions. The researcher has advised to the entire group to exchange their maps for necessary modification, addition, and deleting of the concept by the peers. The best map, the researcher has generalized in front of all students for the clarification of their doubt and misunderstanding. The researcher has also prepared the spider concept map for all concepts in his own activity plans. In the end, he has drawn the map on the blackboard for student’s very sensible clarification. Similarly, hierarchical individual and collaborative groups constructed their maps in hierarchical manner. The spider and hierarchical individual group students learned and practised the map individually, but collaborative students learned and practised the map cooperatively.
Figure 1. Spider concept map activity on acid (During instruction)
Figure 2. Hierarchical concept map activity on acid (During instruction)
After the end of the instructional session, the researcher has advised the students of both the group to construct chemical reaction map as an immediate test. The spider concept map individual and collaborative students advised to draw map on chemical reaction and similarly hierarchical map group students of both modes advised to draw map in the hierarchical manner.
After one month, the researcher has advised to construct the same map, to know their retention and learning performance.
The study conducted by Markham et al,1994; Novak,1993; Roth & Roy Choudhary,1994; are intermediate response format has followed 1 point, 5 points, 10 points & 1 points to the number of propositions, hierarchical level, cross links, examples respectively. For open-ended task, Ruiz Primo et al, 1996 has established, scoring based on propositional accuracy.
In the recent study, the researcher has followed open-ended task or response format to score the students’ map. 1-point to the meaningful proposition, 3 points for each hierarchy, 2 point for each cross-link &1 point for each example respectively by following recent technique (i.e. Jena & Panda, 2009).
