Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education

Exploring The Complexity of Student-Created Mind Maps, Based On Science-Related Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Core Ideas
Helen Semilarski 1 * , Regina Soobard 1, Jack Holbrook 1, Miia Rannikmäe 1
More Detail
1 University of Tartu, ESTONIA
* Corresponding Author
Research Article

Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2021 - Volume 17 Issue 1, Article No: e2227
https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/9153

Published Online: 10 Nov 2020

Views: 192 | Downloads: 121

How to cite this article
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Semilarski et al., 2021)
Reference: Semilarski, H., Soobard, R., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2021). Exploring The Complexity of Student-Created Mind Maps, Based On Science-Related Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Core Ideas. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(1), e2227. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/9153
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Semilarski H, Soobard R, Holbrook J, Rannikmäe M. Exploring The Complexity of Student-Created Mind Maps, Based On Science-Related Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Core Ideas. Int J Env Sci Ed. 2021;17(1):e2227. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/9153
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Semilarski H, Soobard R, Holbrook J, Rannikmäe M. Exploring The Complexity of Student-Created Mind Maps, Based On Science-Related Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Core Ideas. Int J Env Sci Ed. 2021;17(1), e2227. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/9153
Chicago
In-text citation: (Semilarski et al., 2021)
Reference: Semilarski, Helen, Regina Soobard, Jack Holbrook, and Miia Rannikmäe. "Exploring The Complexity of Student-Created Mind Maps, Based On Science-Related Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Core Ideas". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2021 17 no. 1 (2021): e2227. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/9153
Harvard
In-text citation: (Semilarski et al., 2021)
Reference: Semilarski, H., Soobard, R., Holbrook, J., and Rannikmäe, M. (2021). Exploring The Complexity of Student-Created Mind Maps, Based On Science-Related Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Core Ideas. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(1), e2227. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/9153
MLA
In-text citation: (Semilarski et al., 2021)
Reference: Semilarski, Helen et al. "Exploring The Complexity of Student-Created Mind Maps, Based On Science-Related Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Core Ideas". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 17, no. 1, 2021, e2227. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/9153
ABSTRACT
The success of science education is in promoting conceptualisation, both disciplinary and interdisciplinary, in meeting desired learning goals. This research seeks to identify the quality of, upper secondary school students’ dimensions of knowledge and conceptualisation, related to a set of science-related disciplinary and interdisciplinary core ideas. Using validated guidelines, data collected from grade 10 (N=254) students, and an abductive thematic analysis approach are used to subsequently analyse student-created mind maps. Results show that most students are able to create mind maps, although these tend to be very general and indicate few interconnections between the different dimensions of knowledge presented. The results further suggest that, in general, it is difficult for students to conceptualise the interrelationships between science-related disciplinary and interdisciplinary core ideas and even show that some students hold misconceptions. The use of mind maps is seen as a meaningful approach to identifying learners’ ability to relate dimensions of knowledge applied to disciplinary and interdisciplinary core ideas in science education. The research identifies a need to investigate learning approaches in secondary school studies so as to promote more emphatically interconnections between disciplinary and interdisciplinary core ideas.
KEYWORDS
REFERENCES
  • AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (2001). Project: 2061 Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.project2061.org/publications/atlas/
  • Alavi, M. & Leidner, D.E. (2001). Knowledge management and Knowledge Systems. Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
  • Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. et al (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group).
  • Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt Rinehart: NewYork.
  • Bransford, J. D. Brown, A. L. & Cocking, K. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. 38.
  • Brinkmann, A. (2003). Graphical knowledge display-mind mapping and conceot mapping as efficient tools in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Review, 16, 35-48.
  • Bloom, B. S. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green.
  • Buzan, T. (2005). Mind map handbook. Great Britain: Thorsons
  • Buzan, T. (2009a). Akıl haritaları: yaratıcılığınızı harekete geçirin ve dönüştürün. Hakan Öneş (Ed.). Istanbul: Boyut.
  • Buzan, T. (2009b). Muhteşem hafızanızla tanışın. Hakan Öneş (Ed.), İstanbul: Boyut.
  • Buzan, T. & Buzan, B. (2007). The mind map book. Edinburg, England: BBC Active.
  • Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, 1sr ed.; Vosniadou, S., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 61-82.
  • Cho, H. H. Kahle, J. B. & Nordland, F. H. (1985). An investigation of high school biology text-books as sources of misconceptions and difficulties in genetics and some suggestions for teaching genetics. Science Education, 69(5), 707-719.
  • Cooper, M. M. Posey, A. L. & Underwood, M. S. (2012). Core ideas and topics: Building up or drilling down? Journal of Chemical Education, 94, 531-548.
  • Dhindsa, H. S. Makarimi-Kasim & Anderson, O. R. (2010). Constructivist-visual mind map teaching approach the quality of students’ cognitive structure. Journal of Science Education and Technology, (20), 186-200.
  • Erdem, A. (2017). Mind maps as a lifelong learning tool. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(12), 1-7.
  • Freedman, S. W. (1994). Exchanging writing, exchanging cultures. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
  • Gafoor, A. K. & Akhilesh, P. T. (2008). Misconceptions in physics among secondary school students. Journal of Indian Education, 34(1), 77-90.
  • Harlen, W. Devés, R. Garza, G. F. Léna, P. Millar, R. Reiss, M. Rowell, P. & Yu, W. (2015). Working with Big Ideas of Science Education. Published by the Science Education Programme (SEP) of IAP.
  • Harlen, W. Devés, R. Garza, G. F. Léna, P. Millar, R. Reiss, M. Rowell, P. & Yu, W. (2010). Principles and big ideas of science. Published by the Association for Science Education.
  • Hildebrand, D. L. (2018). Experience is not the whole story: The integral role of the situation in Dewey’s democracy and education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(2), 287-300.
  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
  • Kinchin, I. M. & Hay, D. B. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43-57.
  • Kinchin, I. M. (2011) Visualising knowledge structures in biology: Discipline, curriculum and studnets understanding. Journal of Biology Education, 45(4), 183-189.
  • Krajcik, J. & Delen, I. (2017a). Engaging learners in STEM education. Estonian Journal of Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2017.5.1.02b
  • Krajcik, J. & Delen, I. (2017b). How to support learners in developing usable and lasting knowledge of STEM. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and technology, 5(1), 21-28. http://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.18663
  • National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press. http://doi.org(10.17226/13165/
  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press. http://doi.or/10.17226/11625/
  • Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge and New York; University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173468
  • OECD (2016). “Students’ attitudes towards science and expectations of sciencerelated careers“. In: PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.
  • Potvin, P. & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 level: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85-129.
  • Ruiz- Primo, M. A. (2000). On the use of concept maps as an assessment tool in science: What we have learned so far. Revista Electro´nica de Investigacio´n Educativa. 2(1), 29–52.
  • Schwendimann, B. A. (2015). Concept maps as versatile tools to integrate complex ideas: from kindergarten to higher and professional education. Knowledge management and E-learning: An International Journal, 7(1), 73-99.
  • Semilarski, H., Soobard, R., & Rannikmäe, M. (2019). Modelling students perceived self-efficacy and importance towards core ideas in science education. Science Education International, 30(4), 261-273.
  • Soobard, R., Rannikmäe, M. (2015). Examining curriculum related progress using a context-based test instrument – a comparison of Estonian grade 10 and 11 students. Science Education International, 26(3), 263−283.
  • Soobard, R., Semilarski, H., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2018). Grade 12 Students’ perceived self-efficacy towards working life skills and curriculum content promoted through science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(5), 838–850.
  • Stevens, S. Sutherland, L. & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). The big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  • Tavory, I. & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. The University of Chicago Press. Abduction and Method, 51-67.
  • Tayaben, J. L. (2018). Reflecting on the book of Alvesson and Skoldberg’s Reflexive Methodology: New insights and its importance in qualitative studies. The Qualitative Report, 23(10), 2261-2263. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss10/2
  • Teppo, M., Semilarski, H., Soobard, R., Rannikmäe, M. (2017). Grade nine students’ learning motivation and interest towards science topics presented in different contexts. Estonian Journal of Education, 5(1), 130-170.
  • Thompson, P. (2000). Radical constructivism: Reflections and directions. In L. P. Steffe, & P. Thompson Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glaserfield (pp. 412-448). London: Flamer Press.
  • Wilson, S. T. (2001). Research on history teaching. In V. Richardson (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 527–544). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  • You, H. S. Marshall, J. A. & Delgado, C. (2018). Assessing students disciplinary and interdisciplinary understanding of global carbon cycling. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 55(3), 377-398.
LICENSE
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.