The Use of Concept Maps as a Tool to Measure Higher Level Thinking Skills in Elementary School Science Classes

Abstract

The need for assessing higher level thinking skills and using appropriate evaluation methods in programs for the gifted is necessary to better evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. The purpose of this study was to test the claim of Novak and Gowin (1984) that concept maps required higher level thinking skills. A related purpose of the study was to assess which type of measure, a multiple choice test or concept maps, could yield a more accurate or detailed picture of the gains in content understanding of students performing at the highest level on the instruments. A mixed method research design was used to answer the research questions. We concluded that concept maps and multiple choice tests did not measure or require the same thinking skills because of non-significant correlations between the two instruments. Three judges’ qualitative analysis also indicated that the number of items requiring higher level thinking skills on multiple choice tests was limited. Concept mapping as a whole process and the crosslinks component of concept mapping required analysis or higher level thinking skills. Also we concluded that concept mapping as a whole process has the potential to show greater gains in scores of the students than the multiple choice items, and crosslinks component of concept mapping that required analysis or higher level thinking skills. To have an alignment between the curricula of programs for gifted students and assessment methods used in these programs, the search for assessment methods requiring higher thinking skills is necessary and needs more investigation.

Keywords

• concept maps,multiple choice tests,higher level thinking skills,gifted students,Bloom’s Taxonomy

References

1. Asan, A. (2007). Concept mapping in science class: A case study of fifth grade students. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 186-195. Retrieved from http://ifets.info/journals/10_1/17.pdf
2. Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1993). Concept mapping of high and average achieving students and experts. European journal of ability, 4(2), 180-195. doi: 10.1080/0937445930040207
3. Ausubel, D.P., Novak, D.J., & Hanesian, H. (2 ed.). (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
4. BouJaoude, S., Attieh, M.(2008). The effect of using concept maps as study tools on achievement in chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 233-246.
5. Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Teaching Talented Art Students: Principles and Practices. New York: Teachers College Press
6. Clark, L. (2005). Gifted and growing. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 56-60
7. Diket, M. R., & Abel, H. T. (2001). Metacognitive instrument for tracking graduate student learning in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1), 24-34. doi: 10.1177/001698620104500105
8. Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1967). Scientific creativity. Science Journal, 3(9), 80-84, retrieved from http://www.apa.org/

9. Getzels, J. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.
10. Frasier, M. M., & Passow. A. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential (Research Monograph 94112). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm94112/rm94112.pdf
11. Haertel, E. H. (2006) Reliability in Brennan, R L. (Ed.) Educational Measurement, Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger Publishers, 4th edn, 65-110.
12. Irazioz Sanzol, N. & Gonzalez Garcia, M. F (2008) The concept map as an aid to cooperative learning in primary education: A practical Experiment. In Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators. Proc. Of the Third Int. Conference on Concept Mapping A. J. Cañas, P. Reiska, M. Åhlberg & J. D. Novak, Eds. Tallinn, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland.
13. Krathwohl, R. D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
14. Maker, C. J. (1982). Teaching Models in Education of the Gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corp.
15. Maker, C. J. (1993a). Creativity, intelligence, and problem-solving: A definition and design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education International, 9, 68-77. doi: 10.1177/02614294930090020
16. Maker, C. J. (2001). DISCOVER: Assessing and developing problem solving. Gifted Education International, 15, 232-251.
17. Maker, C. J. (2005). The DISCOVER project: Improving assessment and curriculum for diverse gifted learners. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT). retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm05206/rm05206.pdf
18. Maker, C. J, Schiever, S.W. (2005). Teaching Models in Education of the Gifted. (3rd ed.) Austin, TX: Pro-ed Inc.
19. Maker, C. J, Schiever, S.W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
20. Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. (2nd ed.). Austin,TX: Pro-Ed Inc.
21. Maker, C. J. & Zimmerman, B. (2008). Problem solving in a complex world: Integrating DISCOVER, TASC, and PBL in a teacher education project. Gifted Education International, 24, 160-178.
22. Maker, C. J., Zimmerman, B., Gomez-Arizaga, P. M., Pease, R., & Burke, M. E. (2010). Developing Real-Life Problem Solving: Integrating the DISCOVER Problem Matrix, Problem Based Learning, and Thinking Actively in a Social Context In Vidergor, H. E.
23. Harris, C. R. & Subhi, T. Y. , The Practical Handbook for Teaching Gifted and Able Learners. The International Centre for Innovation in Education.
24. Maker, C. J., Zimmerman, B., Alhusaini, A., Pease, R. (2015) Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving (REAPS): An evidence-based model that meets content, process, product, and learning environment principles recommended for gifted students. APEX: The New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, (19), 1. Retrieved from www.giftedchildren.org.nz/apex.
25. Markow, P., & Lonning, R. (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboraties: Students’ perceptions and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1015-1029.
26. McCoach, B. D., Rambo, E. K., & Welsh, M. (2013). Assessing the growth of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 56-67. doi: 10.1177/0016986212463873
27. Novak, J. D., Cañas, A. J. (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization, 5(3), 175-184. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
28. Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York : Cambridge University Press.
29. Novak, J. D., Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American educational research journal, 28(1), 117-153. Sage Publication.
30. Qarareh. O. A. (2010). The Effect of Using Concept Mapping in Teaching on the Achievement of Fifth Graders in Science. Stud Home Comm Sci, 4(3): 155-160. Retrieved from http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/S-HCS/HCS-04-0-000-10-Web/HCS-04-3-000-2010-Abst-PDF/HCS-04-3-155-10-127-Qarareh-A-O/HCS-4-3-155-10-127-Qarareh-A-O-Tt.pdf
31. Rice, C. D., Ryan, M. J., & Samson, M. S. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1103-1127.
32. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of research in science teaching, 33(6), 569-600. doi: CCC 0022-4308/96/060569-32
33. Ruiz-Primo,M.A., Shavelson, R.J., Schultz, S.E. (1997). On the validity of concept maps-base assessment interpretations: An experiment testing the assumption of hierarchical concept maps in science (CSE 455). Los Angeles, CA: National center for research on evaluation, standards, and students testing; Center for the study of evaluation; University of California Graduate School of Education and information studies.
34. Tortop, H.S. (2015). Üstün Zekalılar Eğitiminde Farklılaştırılmış Öğretim Müfredat Farklılaştırma Modelleri [Differentiated Instruction and Curriculum Differentiation Models in Gifted Education]. Düzce: Genç Bilge Yayıncılık.
35. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1994). The national curriculum development projects for high ability learners: Key issues and findings. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds), Talent Development: Proceedings the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, (pp. 19-38). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.
36. Zimmerman, R., Maker, C. J., Gomez- Arizaga, M.P., Pease, R. (2011). The use of concept maps in facilitating problem solving in earth science. Gifted Education International 27(3): 274-287.