Exploring teacher's perceptions of concept mapping as a teaching strategy in science: an action research approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to promote science literacy in the classroom, students need opportunities in which they can personalize their understanding of the concepts they are learning. Current literature supports the use of concept maps in enabling students to make personal connections in their learning of science. Because they involve creating explicit connections between concepts, concept maps can assist students in developing metacognitive strategies and assist educators in identifying misconceptions in students' thinking. The literature also notes that concept maps can improve student achievement and recall. In an effort to explore concept mapping from the perspective of elementary educators, an action research group of 5 educators and myself was established and met regularly from September 1999 until June 2000. All of the educators taught in the Toronto area. These teachers were interested in exploring how concept mapping could be used as a learning tool in their science classrooms. In summary, this study explores the journey of five educators and myself as we engaged in collaborative action research. This study sets out to: (1) Explore how educators believe concept mapping can facilitate teaching and student learning in the science classroom. (2) Explore how educators implement concept mapping in their classrooms. (3) Identify challenges educators experience when they implement concept mapping. (4) Explore factors that impact on facilitating collaborative action research. (5) Provide insight into my growth as an action research facilitator. Much of the current literature focuses primarily on concept mapping at the secondary and university levels, with limited focus on the elementary panel. The research rarely considers teachers' thoughts and ideas about the concept mapping process. In order to effectively explore concept mapping from the perspective of elementary teachers, I felt that an action research approach would be appropriate. Action research enabled educators to debate issues about concept mapping and test out ideas in their classrooms. It also afforded the participants opportunities to explore their own thinking, reflect on their personal journeys as educators and play an active role in their professional development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".