Probing understanding: The use of a computer-based tool to help preservice teachers map concepts
✍ Scribed by Brian Ferry
- Publisher
- Springer Netherlands
- Year
- 1996
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 712 KB
- Volume
- 7
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1046-560X
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
The advantages of the presentation of information in the form of a network or concept map have been recognized for many years (Ausubel, 1968;Novak & Gowin, 1984;West &Pines, 1985). In recent years, science educators have begun to use concept mapping strategies with preset-vice teachers to see how they structure their subjectmatterknowledge (Lederman & Latz, 1995). Beyerbach and Smith (1990) showed that concept mapping techniques could enhance preset-vice teacher thinking about effective teaching.
Holley and Dansereau (1984) claimed that "if network representations are the most adequate model of human knowledge available, then presenting information in the form of a network will be the most adequate parallel to the knowledge presented in the text" (p. 25). They identified three general strategies: (a) networking, (b) mapping, and (c) schematizing. All of these strategies overlap to some extent and, for this article, are included under the general heading of mapping strategies.
Mapping strategies can be content dependent (e.g., the construction of flow charts that relate to specific content such as a computer program) or content independent (e.g., the strategies of matrixing, networking, or concept mapping that can be applied to a variety of subject matter content). These mapping strategies cannot be applied universally with equal success as they tend to be context specific (Holley & Dansereau, 1984). For example, concept mapping is popular with science educators, and sufficient interest was aroused for the December 1990 issue of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Volume 27, Number 10) to be devoted to research associated with concept mapping. Yet, the less formal technique of semantic networking tends to be more popular with educators of language and literacy (Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986).