Catherine Conradty

Implementation of concept mapping to novices: reasons for errors, a matter of technique or content?

Concept mapping is discussed as a means to promote meaningful learning and in particular progress in reading comprehension skills. Its increasing implementation necessitates the acquisition of adequate knowledge about frequent errors in order to make available an effective introduction to the new learning method. To analyse causes of errors, 283 A‐level sixth graders produced concept maps about two differently complex subject matter lessons, we implemented in a pre‐lesson. We defined six types of errors and analysed the distribution and contingency tables in both subject matters. Students in general produced more complex concept maps in the context of the easier subject matter (A) than that of the difficult content (B). Whereas in the former errors simply indicated knowledge gaps, in the latter they often reflected technical misconceptions. The occurrence of a content‐dependent technical error in (B) pointed to a cognitive overload, since the more difficult content is hypothesised to cause higher intrinsic load. From this following, concept mapping could provoke an instructional enrichment by additionally revealing specific knowledge gaps.

Knowledge Presented in Concept Maps: Correlations with Conventional Cognitive Knowledge Tests.

Our study focuses on the correlation of concept map (CMap) structures and learning success tested with short answer tests, taking into particular account the complexity of the subject matter. Novice sixth grade students created CMaps about two subject matters of varying difficulty. The correlation of the complexity of CMaps with the post-test was small but highly significant in both subject matters. The complexity of the CMaps correlated with the long-term knowledge in the difficult subject matter but not in the context of the easy one. Furthermore, the high number of technical errors makes it close to impossible to estimate students’ knowledge. In summary, CMaps do not provide an adequate alternative to conventional short answer knowledge tests, but together with them they may offer a better comprehension of a student’s knowledge structure and aid in the preparation of further instruction tailored to individual needs.

From STEM to STEAM: How to Monitor Creativity

Creativity is a broad and complex construct, difficult to define and to quantify, assumed to introduce new impulses into science education (STEM), and leading to better acceptance of science by adolescents. Therefore, increasing efforts are being undertaken to integrate traditional creativity (Arts), in modifying STEM to STEAM. Consequently, a valid way of empirically quantifying of creativity of adolescents is needed. In this study, part of a European initiative (CREATIONS), an 8-item Likert-scale questionnaire quantifying individual creativity was administered to a sample of 2,713 students, aged 11–19 (M ± SD = 15.71 ± 2.24; 54.7% females), revealing two subscales: one, labelled Act, covering conscious and trainable cognitive processes; the second, named Flow, contained items describing elements of flow experiences, a mental state of creativity. Analyses indicated that there were no gender differences and that younger students’ creativity scores were higher than those of older students. Recommendations for implementation in STEAM lessons are discussed.