Students’ Reasoning Processes While Constructing Causal Diagrams

Öz

The use of causal diagrams to externalize the mental representation of a problem is recognized to be an important step in solving complex problems. In geography education several global challenges taught about in class are highly complex due to the interconnectedness of many causes and consequences. A systems thinking approach might be helpful to better understand these global challenges. Former studies have shown the effectiveness of concept maps and causal diagrams to foster students’ systems thinking. However, it is not always obvious for students to construct proper causal diagrams. In order to optimize teaching strategies concerning these complex systems in geography education, this study analyzes students’ cognitive strategies while constructing a causal diagram. We used task-based think-aloud interviews to study their cognitive strategies. Four different cognitive strategies were observed. The different types of cognitive strategies all resulted in an acceptable constructed causal diagram by the students. The presented insights are explorative, but it reveals the thinking processes that are mostly tacit and therefore has the potential to contribute to better teaching strategies. After all, if we know what processes novices go through while carrying out a complex skill, which are often taken for granted by experts, in this case geography teachers, we can raise awareness among teachers to explicitly take those processes into account while designing lessons.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cognitive Strategies,Reasoning Process,Causal Diagrams,Secondary Education,Systems Thinking,Geography Education,Think-aloud Interviews,Causality

Kaynakça

1. Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20061
2. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning : the SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press.
3. Bruillard, E., & Baron, G.-L. (2000). Computer-based concept mapping: a review of a cognitive tool for students. Proceedings of Conference on Educational Uses of Information and Communication Technologies, (august), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1.1.365.3379
4. Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematic. Knowing; Learning and Instruction: Essays in Honour of Robert Glaser, 453–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
5. Collins, a., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11, 38–46.
6. Cox, M., Elen, J., & Steegen, A. (2017). Systems thinking in geography : Can high school students do it ? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2017.1386413
7. Dogusoy-Taylan, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Cognitive analysis of experts’ and novices’ concept mapping processes: An eye tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.036
8. Dörner, D. (1986). Diagnostik der operativen Intelligenz [Assessment of operative intelligence]. Diagnostica, 32 (4), 290-308.

9. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol Analysis and Expert Thought : Concurrent Verbalizations of Thinking during Experts ’ Performance on Representative Tasks. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796
10. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503
11. Esters, I.G. & Ittenbach, R.F. (1999) Contemporary theories and assessments of intelligence: A primer. Professional School Counceling, 2(5), 373-376
12. Favier, T. T., & van der Schee, J. A. (2014). The effects of geography lessons with geospatial technologies on the development of high school students’ relational thinking. Computers and Education, 76, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.004
13. Fischer, A., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2012). The process of solving complex problems. The Journal of Problem Solving, 4(1), 19–42. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1118
14. Forrester, J. W. (1994). System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. System Dynamics Review, 10(2–3), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100211
15. Funke, J. (2001). Dynamic systems as tools for analysing human judgement. Thinking & Reasoning, 7(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780042000046
16. Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition? Cognitive Processing, 11(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0345-0
17. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., Gray, S., & Jordan, R. (2015). Using representational tools to learn about complex systems: A tale of two classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 6–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21187
18. Hogan, K., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cognitive comparisons of students’ systems modeling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012243102249
19. Horn, K. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966) Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253-270 International Geographical Union. (2016). International charter on geographical education. Retrieved from http://www.igu-cge.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/IGU_2016_def.pdf
20. Jeong, A. (2014). Sequentially analyzing and modeling causal mapping processes that support causal understanding and systems thinking. In D. Ifenthaler & R. Hanewald (Eds.), Digital Knowledge Maps in Education: Technology-Enhanced Support for Teachers and Learners (pp. 239–251). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3178-7_13
21. Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An Instructional design guide. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
22. Jonassen, D. H., & Henning, P. (1996). Mental models : Knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world. Technology, 39(3), 37–42. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428530
23. Karkdijk, J., van der Schee, J. A., & Admiraal, W. F. (2018). Students’ geographical relational thinking when solving mysteries. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2018.1426304
24. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7
25. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
26. Leat, D. (1998). Thinking through geography. Cambridge: Chris Kington Publishing.
27. Leat, D., & Nichols, A. (2000). Observing pupils’ mental strategies: Signposts for scaffolding. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 9(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382040008667627
28. Löhner, S., Van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2005). Students’ reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 441–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.037
29. McAleese, R. (1994). A theoretical view on concept mapping. Research in Learning Technology, 2(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v2i1.9487
30. Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming. (2017). Sociale en technische wetenschappen - derde graad TSO. Retrieved March 15, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.onderwijskiezer.be/v2/secundair/sec_detail.php?detail=225&var=3GTSO
31. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J. & Urbina, S. (1996) Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.
32. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
33. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, a J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. IHMC CmapTools. https://doi.org/Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 2008-01
34. Öllinger, M., Hammon, S., von Grundherr, M., & Funke, J. (2015). Does visualization enhance complex problem solving? The effect of causal mapping on performance in the computer-based microworld Tailorshop. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9393-6
35. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubieday. Retrieved from http://www.wz.uw.edu.pl/pracownicyFiles/id10926-the-fifth-discipline.pdf
36. Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10058
37. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695–1721. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500206408
38. Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students’ dynamic modeling processes: analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education Technology, 7(3), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021840407112
39. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review (Vol. 17). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
40. Weinstein, C. F., & Mayer, R. F. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (Third edit, pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
41. White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 10(2), 151–182. https://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:4046742