Concept mapping and pupils’ learning in primary science in Singapore

The learner and learning: philosophical and theoretical principles

Meaning of meaningful learning

Studies (e.g. Gabel, 1987) have shown that pupils may produce correct answers to various kinds of problems, but their understanding of the underlying science concepts is lacking. On the surface pupils are able to perform the required operations but their shallow understanding results in under performance in the subject.

The key factors contributing to the low level of conceptual understanding and large number of misconceptions among pupils is that current science teaching methods employed do not seek to diagnose or engage pupils' prior knowledge. Didactic instruction encourages passive learning on the part of pupils. This results in pupils coming to science classes with misconceptions, preconceptions or alternative conceptions already formed as a result of their interactions with the world. These alternative conceptions influence how they interpret and construct new conceptions in science lessons. Pupils not exposed to the tools to synthesize information from multiple sources are handicapped at integrative reconciliation of concepts.

The current situation is well summarised by Novak (1993) as “The unfortunate truth is that much school instruction inhibits pupil learning.”

Constructivist learning

Meaningful learning occurs when individuals “choose to relate new knowledge to relevant concepts and propositions they already know" (Novak & Gowin, 1984). This is based on the constructivist perspective on learning, where learning is an active process in which the learner is constantly creating and revising his or her internal representation of knowledge when new concepts are linked to familiar concepts existing in the learner's cognitive structure and can be applied to all subject matter. (Duffy, 1992).

Meaningful learning of super ordinate concepts also gives new meaning to relevant subordinate concepts and propositions, which facilitates integrative reconciliation of concepts.

Concept mapping

Novak and Gowin pioneered concept mapping based on the meaningful learning theory by David Ausubel (1963,1968). Concept maps are two–dimensional hierarchical diagrams which illustrate the relationships between and among individual concepts. The basic Novakian concept map illustrate a hierarchy of concepts where more specific and less inclusive concepts are linked together by valid and meaningful propositions and therefore are subsumed under the broader, more inclusive concepts. They rely on three fundamental qualities; hierarchical structure, progressive differentiation and integrative reconciliation (Novak & Gowin,1984).

Links between concepts are shown by the hierarchical structure in which the lower concepts are subsumed beneath those of the higher levels, and the super ordinate concepts are more general than subsumed concepts. Two or more concepts linked together by words create a proposition. The propositions, along with arrows indicating the direction of the relationship help to develop the connections between linked concepts more precisely.

Concept maps are intended to tap into a learner's cognitive structure and to externalize for both the learner and teacher what the learner already knows (Novak & Gowin, 1984). Based on constructivist theory, concept mapping mirrors the constructivist definition of curriculum as the set of learning experiences which enable the learners to develop their understanding (Driver & Oldham, 1986). Researchers (e.g., Heizne-Fry & Novak, 1990) have touted concept mapping as a strategy for promoting meaningful learning. After going through concept mapping, learners are able to link what they have leant to the main concepts.

Concept maps as learning tools in science education

Concept mapping has been applied at all levels of learning and instruction in many contexts. The use of concept maps is becoming more widespread in areas of science education abroad.

In science education, concept mapping has been widely recommended and used in a variety of ways. It has been used to help pupils build and organize their knowledge base in a given discipline or on a given topic. Concept mapping has also been used as a study tool for synthesizing information from multiple sources.

Concept mapping engages the learner in the construction of knowledge by linking sub concepts to more general, inclusive, and abstract concepts, thus bringing about meaningful learning. This tool, when employed by pupils, help them "learn how to learn" (Novak & Gowin 1984) which in turn facilitates pupils to be more aware about the structure of knowledge and the process of knowledge production or meta-knowledge (Novak & Gowin, 1984).

Concept mapping has not only been found useful in promoting pupils' understanding of science concepts, it also facilitate pupils' abilities to solve problems and to answer questions that require application and synthesis of concepts .Concept maps has been used to observe change in pupils' understanding of concepts over time .It can be used to assess what the learner knows as concept maps can be tapped to measure pupils' understanding and to reveal unique thought processes.

Numerous studies have shown that pupils bring relevant knowledge frameworks or varying degree of quantity and quality to learning tasks (Novak, 1987). Concept mapping has not only helped pupils elaborate the conceptual understanding theory they already possess but especially to recognize and modify those knowledge structures that contains misconceptions, alternative conceptions or framework (Feldsine, 1983; Novak & Gowin, 1984). Thus the acquisition of powerful super ordinate concepts should be a primary goal of effective science teaching. The ability of the mapper to identify and relate the salient concepts to these super ordinate concepts requires and understanding the constitution of the science concepts involved. Thus concept mapping when adopted as an instructional and revision tool promotes higher order thinking and positively impacts on science teaching and learning.

Concept mapping has some effect on achievement and a large positive effect on pupils' attitudes. It has been used to promote positive self-concepts, positive attitudes toward science (Novak & Gowin, 1984) and increased responsibility for learning (Gurley, 1982).As a learning strategy, concept mapping is most effective if it is conducted on an ongoing basis over the course of instruction. This allows pupils to modify their maps as learning occurs and conceptual understanding grows.

From the perspectives of both the theory of learning and the theory of knowledge, the challenge is for science educators to design an instruction strategy that encourage high levels of meaningful learning, including the development of well-organized conceptual frameworks and well-integrated super ordinate concepts. Concept mapping is a locally under tapped means of eliciting pupils' concept structure in a content domain in the area of primary science.

In the area of science curriculum, concept mapping has been used in its development (Starr & Krajcik,1990) and the evaluation of instructional activities for promoting conceptual understanding. Concept mapping is potentially useful to pupils in the local primary science as the local primary science curriculum thematically and spirally groups topics taught across the four years of primary science education. The connections that concept maps facilitate, not only allow local primary pupils to draw associations among the main concepts being presented, but also generate greater retention, application, and understanding of concepts. Concept mapping can therefore be an invaluable instruction and revision tool for primary science pupils for the PSLE tests as they test the science concepts learnt in all four years of Primary science education.

Concept maps as learning tools for young learners

The usefulness of concept mapping as a learning strategy for young children from kindergarten through primary five has been demonstrated (e.g. Stice & Alvarez, 1987; Stow, 1997).

Stow (1997), for example, shows how concept mapping can help children focus on their own learning and hence provide a simple framework for young children (aged 8 to 10) to review and celebrate their achievements in science. Stice and Alvarez (1987) suggest that concept mapping is not only a useful revision tool for young learners but also a means to show pupils that knowledge is more than facts.

Primary grade pupils are capable of developing very thoughtful concept maps which they can explain intelligently to others. (Symington & Novak, 1982).Pupils in class using concept mapping when compared with a group using conventional expository instruction received significantly higher mean scores on an achievement test dealing with nutrition in green plants and respiration in cells (Jegede, Alaiyemola & Okebukola (1990). Novak, Gowin & Johansen (1983) found that 7th and 8th grade science pupils who used concept mapping demonstrated superior problem-solving performance after six months of use.