Doing the right thing versus doing the right thing right: Concept mapping in a freshmen

physics laboratory

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2001 Eur. J. Phys. 22 501

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/22/5/306)

Download details:

IP Address: 129.8.242.67

The article was downloaded on 23/05/2013 at 12:40

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS

Eur. J. Phys. 22 (2001) 501–511 PII: S0143-0807(01)23842-2

Doing the right thing versus doing theright thing right: Concept mapping in afreshmen physics laboratory

Ava Zieneddine1 and Fouad Abd-El-Khalick2

1 Science and Mathematics Education Center, American University of Beirut, PO Box: 11-0236,Bliss Street, Beirut, Lebanon2 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA

Received 11 April 2001, in final form 12 July 2001Published 6 September 2001Online at stacks.iop.org/EJP/22/501

AbstractThis study assessed the effectiveness of concept maps as learning tools indeveloping students’ conceptual understanding in a freshmen college physicslaboratory course, and explored students’ perceptions regarding the usefulnessof concept maps in the laboratory. The intervention group participants whoconstructed pre- and post-laboratory concept maps scored substantially higher(on the order of 12 percentage points) on a test that assessed their conceptualunderstanding of the target physics concepts than participants who did notconstruct such maps. This difference, however, was not statistically significant.Moreover, the intervention group participants noted that concept mappinghelped them to organize their knowledge and prepare for the course experiments,and promoted their understanding of the target physics content.

1. Introduction

Many science educators believe that the laboratory is an essential and indispensable componentof the science curriculum, and that it has the potential to engender positive attitudestoward science among students, and promote their inquiry, problem-solving, manipulative,organizational, cooperative and communication skills (Lazarowitz and Tamir 1994, Pickering1993, Renner et al 1985, Trowbridge and Bybee 1990). More importantly for the purpose ofthe present study, science educators also argue that the laboratory has the potential to promotestudents’ conceptual understanding of science content. Available research, however, indicatesthat laboratory activities fall short of achieving this latter potential (Lazarowitz and Tamir 1994,Tobin and Gallagher 1987). Such failure could be attributed to several factors, among whichare that laboratory activities often: (a) take the form of verification or ‘cookbook’ activities inwhich students are not actively engaged in meaningful and interesting investigations (Markowand Lonning 1998, Renner et al 1985, Trowbridge and Bybee 1990); (b) lack adequatestrategies, such as meaningful pre- and post-laboratory discussions, that help students focus

0143-0807/01/050501+11$30.00 © 2001 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 501

502 A Zieneddine and F Abd-El-Khalick

on key concepts and reflect on their laboratory experiences (Nakhleh and Krajcik 1993); and(c) utilize non-practical paper-and-pencil assessment procedures that focus on rote learningand assess knowledge-level instructional outcomes (Lazarowitz and Tamir 1994, Tamir 1989).

Concept mapping is a tool for visualizing the interrelationships between concepts in anintegrated, hierarchical manner (see figures 1 and 2). Based on Ausubel’s (1963) theory ofmeaningful learning, concept mapping was developed by Novak and his colleagues at CornellUniversity to elicit learners’ knowledge structures in a content domain (Novak and Gowin1984). Ausubel argued that prior knowledge is the single most important factor influencingsubsequent learning. As such, meaningful learning occurs when new knowledge is consciouslyrelated to prior knowledge. Novak and Gowin (1984) and Novak (1991) argued that conceptmapping could promote meaningful learning and conceptual understanding of science contentthrough actively engaging students in visually relating new concepts to previously acquiredones and contemplating relationships between and among interrelated sets of concepts.

Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that concept mapping could promote conceptualunderstanding in science classrooms (Jegede et al 1990, Novak et al 1983, Pankratius andKeith 1987). However, such evidence remains, at best, equivocal (see Briscoe and LaMaster1991, Heinze-Fry and Novak 1990, Roth and Roychoudhury 1992, 1993). In the context oflaboratory experiences, the limited research available (Markow and Lonning 1998, Stensvoldand Wilson 1990) revealed no significant differences in terms of conceptual understandingbetween students who constructed concept maps and those who did not. However, interviewdata collected in these latter studies indicated that concept mapping might improve learners’understandings of the concepts underlying the experiments undertaken.

2. Purpose

This study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of concept maps as learning tools indeveloping students’ conceptual understanding of physics content, and explore students’perceptions regarding their use of concept maps in the laboratory. The guiding researchquestions were: (a) does the use of concept mapping in a freshman physics laboratory courseenhance students’ conceptual understanding of the target physics concepts? (b) How dofreshman science students perceive the use of concept mapping in the physics laboratory?

3. Method

The study had a non-randomized post-test comparison group design (Cook and Campbell1979). Nonetheless, an interpretive stance was adopted in collecting and analysing ‘rich’ data,which focused on the meanings that participants ascribed to the target science concepts andthe perceptions they derived from their laboratory experiences (Strauss and Corbin 1990).

3.1. Participants

Participants were 49 freshman science students, 11 female (22%) and 38 male (78%), enrolledin five sections of an introductory college physics laboratory course (Physics 105). Participants’ages ranged from 16 to 20 years (M = 17.7, SD = 0.8 year). Intact laboratory sectionswere randomly assigned to an intervention and a comparison group. The intervention groupcomprised 28 participants in three laboratory sections. The first author taught two sectionsand a Physics Professor taught the third. The comparison group comprised 21 participants intwo laboratory sections. To control for instructor effect, one of these latter sections was taughtby the first author while the Physics Professor taught the other section.

Concept maps in a physics laboratory 503

3.2. Context of the study: an introductory physics laboratory course

Physics 105 is a 1-credit semester-long introductory laboratory course in mechanics takenpredominantly by freshman science students. Students meet for one 2 1

2 -hour session perweek over the course of 12 weeks. Following an introductory session in which students areacquainted with their laboratory instructor and familiarized with the course procedures andrequirements, students perform 11 laboratory experiments. The experiments deal with forces,gravitational acceleration, conservation of energy and momentum, and rectilinear, projectile,circular, and simple harmonic motions. A laboratory manual details the objectives, apparatusand materials, and theoretical background for each experiment, and provides step-by-stepinstructions for conducting the experiments. Students are expected to read sections in themanual corresponding to any one experiment before coming to the laboratory. The instructordedicates the first few minutes of each session to presenting an overview of the experimentat hand. Next, student pairs assemble apparatus, collect data, and complete a correspondingreport sheet before leaving the laboratory. Student grades in the course are determined bytheir laboratory report grades (40%), instructor’s evaluation (20%), and performance on a finalpaper-and-pencil examination (40%).

3.3. Procedure and intervention

The comparison group participants went through the course as detailed in the above section. Atthe beginning of the course, the intervention group participants received a two-hour instructionand training session on constructing concept maps. This session, which was conducted bythe first author, followed procedures adapted from Novak and Gowin (1984) and included:(a) introducing participants to the meaning of concept mapping, its potential, and the purposesof bringing it into the laboratory; (b) defining key terms, such as concepts, linking words,propositions, relationships, branches, hierarchy, and cross-links; (c) constructing two practiceconcept maps using generic lists of concepts; and (d) presenting and discussing the scoringcriteria, followed by applying these criteria to the practice maps.

Following this initial training, participants in the intervention group were supplied witha list of concepts from the laboratory manual one-week prior to each experiment. The listscomprised the major concepts relevant to each experiment and were arranged alphabetically inorder to avoid providing participants with any hints as to the hierarchical relationships betweenthe concepts. For each experiment, students used the corresponding concept list to construct aconcept map, which they submitted at the beginning of a laboratory session. On completing anexperiment, students were asked to restructure their pre-laboratory concept map as homework.Overall, students constructed pre- and post-laboratory concept maps for ten experiments.

To ensure that the intervention group participants would devote time to construct and revisetheir concept maps, their weekly pre- and post-laboratory maps were scored and returnedto them with extensive feedback. Moreover, concept map scores constituted 20% of theseparticipants’ final course grade. Concept maps were scored according to criteria advancedby Novak and Gowin (1984), whereby one point is assigned for every valid and meaningfullink, five points for every valid level of the hierarchy, and ten points for every valid crosslink.

At the conclusion of the course, all participants were administered a 12-item multiple-choice test designed to assess their conceptual understandings of key concepts. Next, 45% ofall participants were randomly selected for semi-structured individual interviews.

3.4. Instruments

3.4.1. Conceptual understanding test. The test comprised 12 multiple-choice items, ten ofwhich were adopted from the ‘Mechanics Diagnostic Test’ that was designed by Halloun andHestenes (1985) and validated with a sample of about 1000 students in introductory collegelevel physics courses. Halloun and Hestenes reported KR-20 reliability coefficients for this

504 A Zieneddine and F Abd-El-Khalick

test that ranged from 0.86 to 0.89. The remaining two items on the conceptual understandingtest were adopted from questions designed by Gunstone (1987) to probe students’ conceptualunderstanding in mechanics. The conceptual understanding test was reviewed by two physicsprofessors and a science educator to ensure its face and content validity, and its alignment withthe concepts covered in Physics 105. Additionally, to further establish its content validity, thetest was administered to 17 grade 12 students and six college students enrolled in a mechanicscourse for senior physics majors. Statistical analyses showed that college students (M = 79.2;SD = 11.5) scored significantly higher (t = 11.2; p < 0.000) than grade 12 students(M = 25.0; SD = 9.8), indicating that the conceptual understanding test did discriminatebetween novices and relative experts on their understanding of mechanics.

3.4.2. Semi-structured individual interviews. Interviews were conducted with a randomsample of participants: 13 from the intervention group and nine from the comparison group.The interviews aimed to probe participants’ conceptual understanding of the target physicsconcepts, and assess the perceptions of the intervention group participants regarding their useof concept maps. In the case of the intervention group participants, the interviews comprisedtwo parts. The first part focused on interviewees’ use of concept maps in the laboratory.During the second part, interviewees were provided their conceptual understanding test andasked to choose an answer to each item and justify their choice. Interviews with participantsfrom the comparison group were limited to the second part. A core set of questions guidedthe interviews. However, digressions were common and students’ lines of thought were oftenpursued. All interviews, which lasted from about 20 to 40 minutes, were audiotaped andtranscribed verbatim for analysis.

3.5. Data analysis

Participants’ scores on the conceptual understanding test were statistically analysed. Giventhat the intervention and comparison groups, and the laboratory sections did not contain thesame number of participants, analysis started by inspecting the possibility of non-homogeneityof group variances. The Levene statistic indicated that the major assumption of homogeneity ofvariances was not violated (F = 0.620, df = 4/44, p > 0.05). As such, one-way analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) was used to compare the intervention and comparison group participants’mean scores on the test in the different laboratory sections (Green et al 1997).

Interview transcripts were analysed using a technique consistent with constant comparisondata analysis methods (Strauss and Corbin 1990). The first author analysed these data and thesecond author conducted a blind round of analysis. Discrepancies were resolved by furtherconsultation of the data and/or consensus. This analysis resulted in profiles of the interventionand comparison group interviewees’ conceptual understanding of the target physics concept.These profiles were systematically compared and contrasted. Moreover, the analysis resultedin a profile of the intervention group participants’ perceptions regarding the use of conceptmaps in the course.

4. Results

4.1. Concept mapping and conceptual understanding

Table 1 presents the intervention and comparison group participants’ mean scores on theconceptual understanding test (the scores range from 0 to 100). An ANOVA revealed nostatistically significant differences between the mean scores of students in the participantlaboratory sections (F = 0.890, p > 0.05). Nonetheless, table 1 indicates that the interventiongroup sections mean scores on the test were higher than those of the comparison group sections.This was the case for both the first author (59.2 and 52.7 versus 49.9) and the participant PhysicsProfessor (72.0 versus 58.9). As such, participants who constructed pre- and post-laboratory

Concept maps in a physics laboratory 505

concept maps achieved higher scores on the conceptual understanding test than those whodid not construct such maps. Moreover, the observed differences were not small and rangedfrom 9.3 to 13.1 percentage points. These differences, however, did not achieve statisticalsignificance.

Table 1. Intervention and comparison group participants’ mean scores on the conceptualunderstanding test.

Second author Physics professor

Group n M SD n M SD

Intervention 11 59.2 26.2 8 72.0 20.69 52.7 28.6 — — —

Comparison 9 49.9 26.9 12 58.9 26.9

4.2. Participants’ naı̈ve conceptions and understanding of the target physics concepts

As evident in table 1, participants’ scores on the conceptual understanding test were low.And even though the intervention group mean scores were relatively higher than those of thecomparison groups, these scores (M = 52.7, 59.2 and 72.0) still reflected minimal to averageconceptual understandings and warranted closer examination of participants’ understandingsduring individual interviews conducted at the conclusion of the study.

4.2.1. Interviewees’ naı̈ve conceptions. The majority of interviewees (about 62%) held naı̈veviews of some of the target mechanics concepts, which were consistent with ones documentedin the literature (e.g., Clement 1982, Dykstra et al 1992, Gunstone 1987, Sequeira and Leite1991) and incompatible with classical Newtonian Physics. Also, an equal percentage (about62%) of the intervention and comparison group interviewees ascribed to these naı̈ve views. Inwhat follows, a coding system is used to identify individual interviewees. The letters ‘I’ and‘C’ refer to the intervention and comparison groups respectively. The letter ‘S’ followed by anumber refers to individual students.

During the interviews, students invariably chose the same answers to the conceptualunderstanding test items as ones they selected during the administration of the test. Asmany interviewees proceeded to justify their answers, three of their naı̈ve conceptions becameapparent. The first naı̈ve conception was related to gravity. About 19% of all intervieweesseemed to believe that gravity requires the presence of air and that it cannot act in vacuum.As one participants noted: ‘Well, I chose this answer because . . . I actually thought it is invacuum; gravity does not act in vacuum’ (I-S13). Second, 43% of all interviewees believedthat a moving body has a ‘force of motion’ in it, and that it slows down and stops as ‘its force’is gradually used up. This naı̈ve conception, which is remnant of Aristotelian impetus theory,was evident in participants’ responses to an item depicting a ball sliding down an incline,then along a frictionless, horizontal track. As one participant noted while justifying her beliefthat the speed of the ball along the horizontal track will increase continuously, ‘It is goingand gaining speed since there is a slope here . . . it will be faster by over here [end of theslope] . . . Only after all the power of the push is used up, then it [the speed] will be constant’(C-S6). Third, about 29% of all interviewees believed that if a body is at rest, then there areno forces acting on it. If the body were moving, however, then there is a force acting on itin the direction of motion. A constant, increasing, or decreasing force produces a constant,increasing, or decreasing speed respectively.

4.2.2. Interviewees’ surface approach to learning. During the interviews, it became apparentthat a large majority of students had acquired superficial understandings of Newton’s laws.About 69% of the intervention group and 75% of the comparison group interviewees could

506 A Zieneddine and F Abd-El-Khalick

can be can be is determined by

has changing

measured by

with the use of

has changing

magnitude ishas

is determined by

is determined by

measured bymeasured by

Motion

UniformNon-

uniformPosition

Acceleration

Vibrating machine

Paper-tape

Velocity

SpeedDirection

TimeDistance

Stop watchRuler

Figure 1. Concept map for Experiment 2 (speed and acceleration) constructed by student IP-S1.

enunciate Newton’s laws, but were unable to apply them to particular situations. For instance,when asked to justify why a projectile follows a parabolic path, one student noted, ‘I don’tknow. I have been taught that it goes in a parabola, but I never understood why’ (C-S3).Similarly, when asked to explain why two balls dropped from the same height, one verticallydownward and the other with an initial horizontal velocity, would hit the ground at the sametime, many students either provided vague justifications or noted that they simply did notknow why: ‘Well, because we took it in physics class. Yea, we took it theoretically, thetwo balls should hit the ground at the same time . . . Actually, it does seem strange to me!’(C-S5). Moreover, many interviewees (19%) were not able to discriminate between variouskinematical concepts such as speed, distance and acceleration.

Concept maps in a physics laboratory 507

is study of is study of

acting onbodies

acting onbodies with

acting on bodiesundergoing

measured by the

has

is measuredusing

caused bydropping a

is measuredby

sum of which is

haveno

is directlyproportional to

is directlyproportional to

is inverselyproportional to

as marked on

at equalintervals of

as measured byvibrations of

draws graph on

have zero

resulting in resulting in

is onekind of

means equaldistance in

equal

Mechanics

Statics Dynamics

has twobranches

Forces

At restConstantvelocity

Changes in motion

Bodies at equilibrium

Fletchertrolley

Acceleration

Net force

Position

Weight

Paper tape

Mass

TimeSteelblade

Figure 2. Concept map for Experiment 4 (forces) constructed by student IP-S1.

4.3. Students’ perceptions regarding concept maps

Of 13 intervention group interviewees, 11 (85%) noted that concept mapping was a usefullearning tool in the physics laboratory, and identified four ways in which they thought this toolhelped them ‘learn better’. First, four interviewees (36%) noted that concept mapping helpedthem ‘organize the knowledge’ into a hierarchical structure in which more specific conceptsare subsumed under general ones: ‘We look at all the terms that we had, and the one which was

508 A Zieneddine and F Abd-El-Khalick

most important we’d put it at the top, and then we work our way downwards. We did it overand over again to get it right’ (I-S5). Second, eight students noted that constructing conceptmaps helped them ‘recognize relationships among concepts’ involved in the experiments theyperformed. Some noted that such relationships would have escaped them had they not thoughtof linkages while organizing the concept lists into a meaningful map: ‘I would not know thatone of the terms was related to something else . . . like we know that velocity and speed arerelated, but then we wouldn’t know that velocity is related to something else and the conceptmap helped us see this’ (I-S12). Furthermore, many students reported that as they constructedthe maps, they often found it hard to find appropriate words to link concepts they ‘knew’ wererelated. This difficulty, however, had favourable consequences for students’ understanding.Faced with difficulties when connecting two concepts in a way that ‘made sense’, students feltthat their understanding was lacking. This perceived lack of understanding resulted in an activesearch for meaningful links between concepts, which culminated in a better understanding ofthe concepts: ‘If I did not find a linking word, it is more helpful for me because I would searchhere and there and know more and more . . . Every time the map is harder it is more beneficial’(I-S11).

Third, seven interviewees (64%) explained that concept mapping forced them to prepareeach experiment before coming to the laboratory. This helped them focus on key conceptsand objects, and interpret observed events as they engaged in the laboratory activities: ‘Themaps helped us make sense of the experiment to come, and also with these linking words, youknow what is the relationship between the things, so you can work through the experimentwith ease’ (I-S5). Fourth, five interviewees (45%) noted that concept mapping helped themdevelop a better understanding of the nature and structure of the physics concepts underlyingthe laboratory experiments: ‘[The map] basically gave us a conceptual idea about what wasthe lab going to be instead of doing a set of experiments and getting a set of results withoutknowing what the concept behind it is’ (I-S6).

Finally, many participants noted that they faced difficulties when constructing conceptmaps. It could be argued that the relatively limited influence that constructing concept mapshad on participants’ conceptual understanding in this study was due to their lack of proficiencyin constructing maps. To examine this possibility, each participant’s maps over the course ofthe term were examined. As it turned out, participants grew more proficient in constructingmore elaborate and accurate concept maps as the term progressed. At the outset, participants’maps were poorly constructed, contained several inaccurate links, lacked integration, and weremostly linear in nature. By comparison, concept maps prepared toward the middle and end ofthe term showed better hierarchical structure and more integration (compare figures 1 and 2,which were constructed by the same student at the beginning and towards the middle of theterm). However, it should be noted that maps constructed throughout the term still revealedthe sort of naı̈ve conceptions outlined earlier.

5. Discussion and implications

The majority of the intervention group participants asserted that concept mapping helped themto better understand the physics concepts underlying the laboratory experiments in whichthey were engaged. This assertion was compatible with the finding that the interventiongroup participants scored substantially higher on the conceptual understanding test thanthe comparison group participants. The difference, however, did not achieve statisticalsignificance. These results are consistent with those reported in previous studies that examinedthe utility of concept mapping in the science laboratory (e.g., Markow and Lonning 1998,Stensvold and Wilson 1990).

Concept maps in a physics laboratory 509

5.1. Concept mapping and achieving conceptual understanding: one piece in a puzzle

Concept mapping is assumed to enhance both the meaningful learning and conceptualunderstanding of science concepts (Novak 1991, Novak and Gowin 1984). However, it seemsthat concept mapping by itself might not be sufficient to achieve such a goal. The relativeineffectiveness of concept mapping as a learning tool in influencing participants’ conceptualunderstanding in the present study could be explained by several factors including participants’entrenched naı̈ve conceptions of the relevant physics content, participants’ predominatelysurface approach to learning, and traditional approaches to instruction in college level courses.

First, research indicates that students enter formal physics courses with a system ofconceptions that differ from those of physicists in major ways (diSessa 1982, Halloun andHestenes 1987, McDermott 1984, Wandersee et al 1994). These alternative conceptionsmanifest themselves as ‘useful’ commonsense beliefs about the world and are grounded inlong personal experiences. Furthermore, research indicates that alternative conceptions ofmechanics are highly resistant to change even in the face of formal instruction and present asignificant obstacle to achieving accurate understandings of related concepts (Clement 1982,diSessa 1982, McClosky 1983, Minstrell 1982, Gunstone 1987). Participants in this study wereno exception and their naı̈ve conceptions were evident in their concept maps and responsesto the conceptual understanding test. The researchers provided extensive written feedback tostudents whenever a naı̈ve conception was identified. However, no time was built into thelaboratory schedule to allow addressing or even discussing any of these naı̈ve ideas.

Second, participants’ approach to learning might have limited the effectiveness of conceptmapping in promoting their conceptual understanding. In general, college science studentsspend more time and energy committing verbal information to memory than internalizingconcepts meaningfully and developing conceptual understanding of science content (Briscoeand LaMaster 1991, Mason 1992). This surface approach to learning is reinforced by auniversity culture that emphasizes low-level knowledge and comprehension instructionaloutcomes, and ‘passing tests’ at the expense of promoting deep understanding of content(National Science Foundation (NSF) 1996). Indeed, a majority of participants (about 71%)seem to have adopted such a surface approach to learning as was evident in their responsesduring individual interviews concerning the difficulties they faced when constructing conceptmaps at the beginning of the term. Many voiced their frustrations as they struggled to associateconcepts and find appropriate linking words, or revise their maps. In a sense, some participantsviewed concept mapping as ‘too much work’. Concept mapping requires learners to activelyand consciously seek connections, organize ideas, and build meaning. This approach stands insharp contrast with rote learning, which a majority of participants have engaged for the largerpart of their learning careers.

The third factor that might have negatively impacted the effectiveness of concept mappingin promoting participants’ conceptual understanding is the instructional context within whichthe present intervention was embedded. College science teaching is, by and large, still‘traditional’ in nature (NSF 1996). Undergraduate teaching, for instance, adopts a transferview of learning in which students are perceived as passive receivers of knowledge, andreinforces a surface approach to learning through assessment techniques that place undueemphasis on memorization of information and algorithmic problem solving. Moreover, rarelydo students’ prior conceptions of content figure in the planning and course of college instruction.Many science educators argue that traditional physics instruction does not address students’alternative conceptions, neither in the physics classroom nor in the physics laboratory (Dykstraet al 1992, Wandersee et al 1994). Presenting students with logical arguments supportingNewtonian mechanics does not engender conceptual learning because such reasoning makeslittle sense in the context of students’ own beliefs. A conceptual change teaching approachis needed to seriously challenge students’ naı̈ve ideas and help them internalize canonicalconceptions of mechanics by providing plausible alternatives (Dykstra et al 1992, McDermott1984, Posner et al 1982, Wandersee et al 1994). In the present study, as in previous ones (e.g.,

510 A Zieneddine and F Abd-El-Khalick

Roth and Roychoudhury 1992, 1993), the use of concept mapping served as a crucial first stepin promoting conceptual understanding through revealing students’ naı̈ve conceptions. Thisuse, however, did not lead to conceptual restructuring because it was not coupled with teachingstrategies that aim at inducing conceptual change.

5.2. Pre-college and college science teaching: the two cultures

To be effective in promoting conceptual understanding, concept mapping as a learning toolshould be embedded in a larger conceptual change approach to teaching and learning. In otherwords, it is not enough to do the ‘right’ thing: The right thing needs to be done right. However,such teaching approach and the associated assumptions and values regarding the goals ofscience education are better publicized and received in the culture of pre-college as comparedwith college science teaching. Indeed, these latter cultures differ in major ways. Collegescience teaching is still primarily geared toward initiating students into the various disciplinesfor the purpose of preparing future scientists. In contrast, pre-college teaching has witnesseda shift from this latter goal, which dominated school science teaching up till the early 1970s(Trowbridge and Bybee 1990). Reform documents in pre-college science education havestressed the primacy of preparing scientifically literate students for informed citizenry ascompared to preparing future scientists for disciplinary careers (American Association forthe Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1990, National Research Council (NRC) 1996).

Along with endorsing scientific literacy for all, recent reforms in school scienceeducation have advocated teaching pedagogies and approaches commensurate with promotingmeaningful and conceptual understanding of a few major scientific theories and concepts(AAAS 1990, NRC 1996). This ‘less is more’ principle entails covering less content andattending to students’ preconceptions as a departure point for instruction. Coupled withthese advocated changes in instructional emphases and pedagogies are changes in assessmentstrategies and techniques (especially authentic assessments). These priorities for pre-collegescience teaching might not be shared in college settings. Thus, utilizing learning tools designedto achieve the goals of pre-college reform efforts might not find a place within the current cultureof college teaching.

This study indicates that concept mapping might serve as a potentially useful tool inintroductory physics laboratories by helping students better prepare for laboratory experimentsand understand the underlying concepts. However, to achieve its potential in promotingmeaningful and conceptual understanding, concept mapping should be embedded within alarger conceptual change approach. Nonetheless, learning tools such as concept mapping,and pedagogies, such as conceptual change teaching, might require an accommodation of theinstructional priorities in such courses. For instance, college physics professors might findit necessary to advance the goal of insuring conceptual understanding over that of coveringcontent. It is understandable that the priorities and goals of college science teaching cannot (andprobably should not) be totally aligned with those of pre-college teaching. However, a discoursebetween disciplinary science professors and science educators might help to meaningfullyintegrate tools such as concept mapping into college physics laboratory courses for the sake ofachieving goals valued by both. Such collaboration is not only crucial for allowing disciplinaryscience professors and educators become aware of each others’ priorities and goals, but alsofor the sake of advancing undergraduate science teaching.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science 1990 Science for all Americans (New York: Oxford UniversityPress)

Ausubel D P 1963 The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning (New York: Grune and Stratton)Briscoe C and LaMaster S U 1991 Meaningful learning in college biology through concept mapping The American

Biology Teacher 53 214–19Clement J 1982 Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics Am. J. Phys. 50 66–71

Concept maps in a physics laboratory 511

Cook T D and Campbell D T 1979 Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (London:Houghton Mifflin)

diSessa A 1982 Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning Cognitive Sci. 6 37–75Dykstra D, Boyle F and Monarch I 1992 Studying conceptual change in learning physics Sci. Education 76 615–52Green S B, Salkind N J and Akey T M 1997 Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and Understanding Data (Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall)Gunstone R F 1987 Students understanding in mechanics: A large population survey Am. J. Phys. 55 691–6Halloun I A and Hestenes D 1985 The initial knowledge state of college physics students Am. J. Phys. 53 1043–55——1987 Modeling instruction in mechanics Am. J. Phys. 55 455–62Heinze-Fry J A and Novak J D 1990 Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning Sci.

Education 74 461–72Jegede O J, Alaiyemola F F and Okebukola P A 1990 The effect of concept mapping on students’ anxiety and

achievement in biology J. Res. Sci. Teaching 27 951–60Lazarowitz R and Tamir P 1994 Research on using laboratory instruction in science Handbook of Research on Science

Teaching and Learning (New York: Macmillan) ed D Gabel, pp 94–128Markow P and Lonning R 1998 Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: Students’ perceptions

and effects on achievement J. Res. Sci. Teaching 35 1015–29Mason C 1992 Concept mapping: A tool to develop reflective science instruction Sci. Education 76 51–63McClosky M 1983 Naı̈ve theories of motion Mental Models ed D Gentner and A Stevens (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum)McDermott L C 1984 Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics Phys. Today 37 24–32Minstrell J 1982 Explaining the ‘at rest’ condition of an object The Physics Teacher 1 10–14Nakhleh M B and Krajcik J S 1993 A protocol analysis of the influence of technology on students’ actions, verbal

commentary, and thought processes during the performance of acid–base titrations J. Res. Sci. Teaching 301149–68

National Research Council 1996 National Science Education Standards (Washington, DC: National Academic Press)National Science Foundation 1996 Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science,

Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (Arlington, VA: Author)Novak J D 1991 Clarify with concept maps: A tool for students and teachers alike The Science Teacher 58 45–9Novak J D and Gowin D B 1984 Learning How to Learn (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press)Novak J D, Gowin D B and Johansen G T 1983 The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior

high school science students Sci. Education 67 625–45Pankratius W J and Keith T M 1987 Building an organized knowledge base: Concept mapping in secondary school

science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, Washington DC(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 280 720)

Pickering M 1993 The teaching laboratory through history J. Chem. Education 70 699–700Posner G, Srike K, Hewson P and Gertzog W 1982 Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of

conceptual change Sci. Education 66 211–27Renner J W, Abraham M R and Birnie H H 1985 Secondary school students’ beliefs about the physics laboratory Sci.

Education 69 649–63Roth W M and Roychoudhary A 1992 The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription

device and tool for social thinking in high school science Sci. Education 76 531–57——1993 The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school

physics students J. Res. Sci. Teaching 30 503–34Sequeira M and Leite L 1991 Alternative conceptions and history of science in physics teacher education Sci. Education

75 45–56Stensvold M S and Wilson J T 1990 The interaction of verbal ability with concept mapping in learning from a chemistry

laboratory activity Sci. Education 74 473–80Strauss A and Corbin J 1990 Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (London,

Sage Publications)Tamir P 1989 Training teachers to teach effectively in the laboratory Sci. Education 73 59–69Tobin K and Gallagher J J 1987 What happens in high school science classrooms? J. Curriculum Studies 19 549–60Trowbridge L W and Bybee R W 1990 Becoming a Secondary School Science Teacher 5th edn (New York: Merrill)Wandersee J, Mintzes J and Novak J 1994 Research on alternative conceptions in science Handbook of Research

on Science Teaching and Learning ed D Gabel (Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association)pp 177–210