Participatory Concept Mapping as an Integration Tool in Mixed Methods Research: Exploring Preservice Teachers’ Epistemic Cognition and Teaching Orientation

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 247 - 264, 15.05.2019

Lisa D. Bendixen Nicole Klimow

https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.2.247

Abstract

Our goal for this article is two-fold: 1) to examine the efficacy of participatory concept mapping as an integration tool for mixed methods research (MMR), and 2) to explore, using concept mapping, pre-service teachers’ epistemic cognition (EC) and its relationship to teaching orientation (TO).  Using a combined developmental and dimensional framework, preservice teachers’ (N=48) concept maps about their (EC) and (TO) were investigated.  Analyses revealed that the majority of the participants were consistent with the EC profiles of either: 1) absolutist, 2) multiplist, or 3) evaluativist.  Participants’ EC and TO were clearly linked and implications for learning, instruction, and teacher education are discussed. Finally, concept mapping was deemed an effective tool for MMR especially as it pertains to integration.

Keywords

Mixed methods research, concept mapping, integration, teachers’ epistemic cognition, teaching orientation

References

• Barzilai, S., & Weinstock, M. (2015). Measuring epistemic thinking within and across topics: A scenario-based approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 141-158.
• Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Bendixen, L. D. (2016). Teaching for epistemic change in elementary classrooms. In J. Greene, W. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 281-299). London, UK: Routledge.
• Bendixen, L. D., Winsor, D., & Frazier, R. (2017). Exploring Bloom’s taxonomy as a bridge to evaluativism: Conceptual clarity and implications for learning, teaching, and assessing. In G. Schraw, J. Lunn, L. Olafson, & M. Vanderveldt (Eds.), Teachers’ personal epistemologies: Evolving models for transforming practice (pp. 191-214). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Buehl, M. M. & Fives, H. (2016). The role of epistemic cognition in teacher learning and praxis. In J. Greene, W. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 247-264). London, UK: Routledge.
• Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
• Burke, J. G., O’Campo, P., Peak, G. L., Gielen, A. C., McDonnell, K. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2005). An introduction to concept mapping as a participatory public health research method. Qualitative Health Research, 15(10), 1392-1410.
• Cañas, A. J., Carvajal, R., Carff, R., & Hill, G. (2004). CmapTools, web pages & web sites (IHMC CmapTools Technical Report 2004-01). Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
• Certo, J. L., Apol, L., Wibbens, E., & Hawkins, L. K. (2012). Living the poet’s life: Using an aesthetic approach to poetry to enhance preservice teachers’ poetry experiences and dispositions. English Education, 44(2), 102-146.
• Plano Clark, V. L. (2019). Meaningful integration within mixed methods studies: Identifying why, what, when and how. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 106-111.
• Creswell, J. W. (2015). Revisiting mixed methods and advancing scientific practices (pp. 57-71). In S. Hesse-Biber, & R. B. Johnson, (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Daley, B. J. (2006). Using concept maps in qualitative research. Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Technical Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain.
• Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping, and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279-301.
• Fram, S. M. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 18(1), 1-25.
• Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London, UK: Falmer.
• Greene, J. A., Torney-Purta, J., & Azevedo, R. (2010). Empirical evidence regarding relations among a model of epistemic and ontological cognition, academic performance, and educational level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 234–255.
• Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Gregory, M. R. (2007). A framework for facilitating classroom dialogue. Teaching Philosophy, 30(1), 59-84.
• Guetterman, T., Creswell, J. W., & Kuckartz, U. (2015). Using joint displays and MAXQDA software to represent the results of mixed methods research. In M.T. McCrudden, G. Schraw, & C.W. Buckendahl (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting and reporting data (pp. 145-175). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
• Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53–90.
• Hesse-Biber, S., & Johnson, R. B. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Hofer, B. K. & Bendixen, L. D. (2012). Personal epistemology: Theory, research, and future directions. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, vol. 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 227–256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Johnston, P., Woodside-Jiron, H., & Day, J. (2001). Teaching and learning literate epistemologies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 223–233.
• Kang, N. H. (2008). Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals, and practices of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 478-498.
• Kang, E. J, Bianchini, J. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2013). Crossing the border from science student to science teacher: Preservice teachers’ views and experiences learning to teach inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 427-447.
• Kind, V. (2016). Preservice science teachers’ science teaching orientations and beliefs about science. Science Education, 100(1), 122-152.
• Koksal, M. S. (2011). Epistemological predictors of ‘self-efficacy on learning biology’ and ‘test anxiety related to evaluation of learning on biology’ for pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(7), 661-677.
• Kuhn, D. & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Lennard, J. (2005). The poetry handbook: A guide to reading poetry for pleasure and practical criticism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Maxwell, J., Chmiel, M., & Rogers, S. E. (2015). Designing integration in multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber, & R. B. Johnson, (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research (pp. 223-239). NY, NY: Oxford University Press.
• McCrudden, M. T., Marchand, G., & Schutz, P. (2019). Mixed methods in educational psychology inquiry. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 1-8.
• Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377.
• Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical model. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 3 – 54. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6.
• Newell, G., VanDerHeide, J., & Wynhoff Olsen, A. (2014). High school English language arts teachers' argumentative epistemologies for teaching writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(2), 95-119.
• Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, (Technical Report IHMC, Cmap Tools 2006-01). Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
• Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergrast, C. (1997). Open dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Olafson, L., Feucht, F., & Marchand, G. (2013). A typology of visual displays in qualitative analyses. In G. Schraw, & M. McCrudden (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 359-380). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446-455.
• Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogres, J., & Sequeira, L. (2012). Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 288–306.
• Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48, 114-133.
• Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.
• Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and evaluation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261 – 275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Trochim, W. M. K. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for program planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 1-16.
• VERBI Software. (2016). MAQDA Analytics Pro (Computer Program). Berlin, Germany: VERBI.
• Wheeldon, J., & Faubert, J. (2009). Framing experience: Concept maps, mind maps, and data collection in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 68-83.
• Wilson, J., Mandich, A. & Magalhaes, L. (2016). Concept mapping: A dynamic, individualized and qualitative method for eliciting meaning. Qualitative Health Research, 26(8), 1151-1161.