- Open Access
Link maps and map meetings: Scaffolding student learning
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010102 – Published 22 January, 2009
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010102
Abstract
With student numbers decreasing and traditional teaching methods having been found inefficient, it is widely accepted that alternative teaching methods need to be explored in tertiary physics education. In 2006 a different teaching environment was offered to 244 first year students with little or no prior formal instruction in physics. Students were invited to attend additional enrichment classes 1 h a week called map meetings. The focus of these classes was a different type of visual presentation of physics material called link maps. Link maps explicitly show the key concepts covered in lectures and how these interrelate to help novices establish their physics schemata. In each map meeting the link map for the different topic was interactively discussed by the researcher before the students worked on problems in groups using the link map. The class ended with the researcher going through one problem, talking aloud about how to logically attack it. The results were promising. Each week about 20% of the class voluntarily attended map meetings whereas 22% reported that they did not attend due to timetable clashes. Two questionnaires revealed that students thought the classes were helpful for gaining an overview of physics and for developing their problem solving abilities. In the final examination the 32 students who had attended at least eight out of ten map meetings achieved, on average, 9 points out of 90 better in the examination than a comparison group with similar academic background which had not attended map meetings. The results of this study suggest that map meetings are a valuable learning environment for physics novices. Further investigations are currently being undertaken.
Article Text
References (44)
- P. Ramsden, Improving teaching and learning in higher education: The case for a relational perspective, Studies in Higher Education 12, 275 (1987).
- S. Tobias and F. A. J. Birrer, Who will study physics, and why?, Eur. J. Phys. 20, 365 (1999).
- Mapping Physics Students in Europe (MAPS), a study undertaken by the European Physical Society (EPS), 2004 http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2004/sciprof/cd/pdf/extra/maps_abstract_en.pdf.
- M. Alarcon, Physics without tears, A World of Science (UNESCO Newsletter) 3, 2 (2005).
- A. Mayo, M. D. Sharma, and D. A. Muller, Qualitative differences between learning environments using videos in small groups and whole class discussions: A preliminary study in physics, Res. Sci. Educ. (in press, 2008).
- J. Handelsman, D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S. M. Tilghman, and W. B. Wood, Scientific Teaching, Science 304, 521 (2004).
- M. Wells and D. Hestenes, A modeling method for high school physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 63, 606 (1995).
- D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
- D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A mechanics baseline test, Phys. Teach. 30, 159 (1992).
- S. Tobias, They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier (Research Corporation, Tuscon, AZ, 1994).
- A. Van Heuvelen, Overview, case study physics, Am. J. Phys. 59, 898 (1991).
- J. D. Novak, Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1998).
- K. L. Rewey, D. F. Danserau, L. P. Skaggs, R. H. Hall, and U. Pitre, Effects of scripted cooperation and knowledge maps on the processing of technical material, J. Educ. Psychol. 81, 604 (1989).
- M. E. Patterson, D. F. Danserau, and D. Newbern, Effects of communication aids and strategies on cooperative teaching, J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 453 (1992).
- F. N. Keraro, S. W. Wachanga, and W. Orora, Effects of cooperative concept mapping teaching approach on secondary school students’ motivation in biology in Gucha District, Kenya, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 5, 111 (2007).
- P. G. Markow and R. A. Lonning, Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: Students’ perceptions and effects on achievement, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 35, 1015 (1998).
- L. A. Freeman and L. M. Jessup, The power and benefits of concept mapping: measuring use, usefulness, ease of use, and satisfaction, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 26, 151 (2004).
- J. D. Novak, Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge; Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1998).
- J. J. G. van Merriënboer and J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 17, 147 (2005).
- C. E. Wieman and K. Perkins, Transforming Physics Education, Phys. Today 58, 36 (2005).
- E. F. Redish, A theoretical framework for physics ecucation research, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics, “Enrico Fermi” Course CLVI, edited by E. F. Redish and M. Vicentini (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004), pp. 1-64.
- W. Damon and E. Phelps, Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education, Int. J. Educ. Res. 13, 9 (1989).
- W. Damon and E. Phelps, (Ref. [23]), p. 14.
- E. Forman, The role of peer interaction in the social construction of mathematical knowledge, Int. J. Educ. Res. 13, 55 (1989).
- H. W. Marsh and R. G. Craven, Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective; beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives, Perspective on Psychological Science1, 133 (2006).
- P. A. Alexander, The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency, Educ. Res. 32, 10 (2003).
- P. A. Alexander, J. M. Kulikowich, and S. K. Schulze, How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest, Educ. Res. 31, 313 (1994).
- P. A. Alexander, P. K. Murphy, B. S. Woods, K. E. Duhon, and D. Parker, College instruction and concomitant changes in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 22, 125 (1997).
- M. Pressley, L. Yokoi, P. van Meter, S. Van Etten, and G. Freebern, Some of the reasons why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier?, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 9, 1 (1997).
- P. B. Kohl and N. D. Finkelstein, Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010111 (2008).
- N. Webb, Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups, J. Res. Math. Educ. 22, 366 (1991).
- J. Sweller and G. A. Cooper, The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra, Cogn. Instruct. 2, 59 (1985).
- W. L. Neuman, Social Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, 2003).
- The authors are aware of the University of Maryland Physics Expectations Survey (MPEX) for probing student attitudes about physics. However, we decided to only create a few items on the questionnaire specifically targeting attitudes related to the treatment in this study, for which the items on the MPEX survey were not ideal.
- M. D. Sharma, R. Millar, and S. Seth, Workshop tutorials: Accommodating student-centred learning in large first year university physics classes, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21, 839 (1999).
- M. D. Sharma, A. Mendez, and J. W. O’Byrne, The relationship between attendance in student-centered physics tutorials and performance in university examinations, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 1375 (2005).
- M. D. Sharma, I. M. Sefton, M. Cole, A. Whymark, R. M. Millar, and A. Smith, Effects of re-using a conceptual exam question in physics, Res. Sci. Educ. 35, 447 (2005).
- H. M. Johnston, A. M. Hopkins, K. E. Varvell, M. D. Sharma, and R. Thornton, The research-teaching nexus in physics: scholarship into teaching and learning, Aust. Fam. Physician 44, 66 (2007).
- M. D. Sharma, J. Khachan, B. Chan, and J. W. O’Byrne, An investigation of the effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lecture classes, Aust. J. Eng. Educ. 21, 137 (2005).
- J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
- D. E. Pritchard and Y.-J. Lee, Mathematical learning models that depend on prior knowledge and instructional strategies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010109 (2008).
- A. L. Roberts, M. D. Sharma, S. Britton, and P. B. New, An index to measure the ability of first year science students to transfer mathematics, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 38, 429 (2007).
- J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (Erlbaum, New York, 1988).
- R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula, Am. J. Phys.66, 338 (1998).