Does constructivist approach applicable through concept maps to achieve meaningful learning in Science?

Both cooperative spider and hierarchical concept map were significantly better than individual learning in science concept; therefore concept map is a constructivist learning.

With response to Q(1) (i.e. Is there any difference in spider concept map individual and cooperative modes to achieve meaningful learning in science?) Table 1a, 1b and 1c states cooperative spider concept map is more effective than individual modes of spider concept map and it provides meaningful learning in science.Table-1 is showing the mean, SD & t-ratio of immediate and Delayed Spider concept map scores of chemical science achievement and retention level among of students of cooperative and individual modes of learning. Spider concept map cooperative modes of learner’s (n=20) immediate map score mean (22.55) & SD (1.605) were nearly equal with their delayed map score mean (19.9) & SD (2.403). Their t-value (df 19, 0.00 p<.01) was not significant at 0.01 level. It means, there existed no significant difference between immediate and a month delayed map scores. Therefore, retention was high among the cooperative group learners.

With contrast to cooperative spider concept map, individual modes of immediate Spider concept map (n=14) mean (18.741) & SD (0.726) were higher than their delayed map scores mean (11) & SD (0.877).Their t-value (df 13, 3.67 p<.01) was significant at 0.01 level. It means, there existed significant difference in individual modes through spider map learning as recorded from their immediate and delayed map scores. The retention level was low among individual learners as comparable to cooperative modes of learning through spider map approach.Table-1c depicts the One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for map scores among SCM group of cooperative and individual modes of chemical science concepts states that there existed significant difference between two modes of learning. The F value (df 3/64, 30.248 p<.01) was significant at 0.01 level.

The result found from Q(2) (i.e. Is there any difference in hierarchical individual and collaborative concept maps to achieve meaningful learning in science?) was cooperative spider concept map was more effective than individual modes of spider concept map and it provided meaningful learning in science (table 2a, 2b and 2c).Table-2a shown the mean, SD & t-ratio of immediate and Delayed Hierarchical concept map scores of chemical science achievement and retention level among of students of cooperative and individual modes of learning. Hierarchical concept map cooperative modes of learner’s (n=15) immediate map score mean (22.333) & SD (1.759) were nearly equal with their delayed map score mean (20.866) & SD (1.884). Their t-value (df 14, 0.017 p>.01) was not significant. It means, there existed no significance difference between immediate and a month delayed map scores. Therefore, retention was high among the cooperative group learners. Similarly, individual modes of immediate Hierarchical concept map analysis in chemical science states that student’s (n=15) mean (19.867) & SD (1.533) were higher than their delayed map scores mean (12.666) & SD (1.345).Their t-value (df 14, 5.134 p<.01) was significant. It means, there existed significant difference in individual modes through spider concept map learning as recorded from their immediate and delayed map scores and it cleared that retention level was low among individual learners as comparable to cooperative modes of learning through Hierarchical concept map approach(table 2b).Table-2c depicts the One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for immediate & Delayed Map scores among Hierarchical concept map group of cooperative and individual modes of chemical science concepts states that there existed significant difference between two modes of learning with regards to their level of retention. The F value (df 3/56, 31.204 p<.01) was significant at 0.01 level. Therefore, cooperative modes of Hierarchical map approach were meaningful in chemical science than individual mode of learning.

In fact, to achieve the Q(3) (i.e. Out of spider and hierarchical maps, which one is more effective to achieve meaningful learning in science?), it was found, collaborative spider and hierarchical concept maps were better over both of individual maps on achieving meaningful learning in science(table 3a,3b and 3c).Table-3a depicts the Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparative analysis (q) of both in SCM and HCM cooperative groups’ immediate performance was better than their individual modes of learning. There q-value (df 33, 0.353 p>.01) was not significant at 0.01 level and there existed no significant difference between two teaching strategies with respect to their immediate test scores. The comparative analysis of SCM vs. HCM with their cooperative modes of learning for chemical science found that there existed no significance difference between two teaching strategies with respect to their delayed test scores. There q-value (df 33, 0.013 p>.01) was not significant. Therefore, there was no difference between SCM & HCM teaching strategies in chemical science on cooperative modes of learning (table-3b). Table-3c depicts the One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for immediate & delayed map scores between spider concept map & hierarchical concept map group of cooperative and individual modes of chemical science concepts states that there existed significant difference between two modes of learning concerning their level of retention. The F value (df 7/120, 25.048 p<.01) was significant at 0.01 level. Therefore, cooperative modes of Spider concept map and Hierarchical concept maps provide meaningful learning in chemical science than individual mode of learning.

With reference to table 1, 2 & 3 it was cleared that collaborative learning is useful than individual learning. Q(4)(i.e. Is this concept map applicable as a constructivist approach?) is in a right direction, and collaborative learning is characteristic of constructivist learning. In the present study, it was resulted high retention among learners in chemical science (i.e. meaningful learning) than individual learning. Therefore, concept map is a constructivist approach.