The Effectiveness of Concept Maps on Students’ Achievement in Science: A Meta-Analysis

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-03-27 DOI:10.1007/s10648-024-09877-y
Dimitris Anastasiou, Clare Nangsin Wirngo, Pantelis Bagos
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Concept Maps on Students’ Achievement in Science: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Dimitris Anastasiou, Clare Nangsin Wirngo, Pantelis Bagos","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09877-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of concept maps on science achievement among elementary and secondary education students, including low-achieving students. A systematic search located 55 studies about concept mapping in science achievement published in peer-reviewed journals and dissertations between 1980 and 2020. We extracted 58 independent standardized mean difference effect sizes from 55 eligible studies involving 5,364 students from Grade 3 to Grade 12 who used concept maps for learning in physics/earth science, chemistry, and biology that met the specified design criteria. A random-effects model meta-analysis revealed that the mean effect size was moderate for overall science (<i>g</i> = 0.776). The mean effect sizes varied from moderate to large based on the subject area (<i>g</i> = 0.671 for biology; <i>g</i> = 0.590 for chemistry; <i>g</i> = 1.040 for physics and earth science); these differences between groups were not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.220). Concept maps were generally associated with increased science learning across several learning and teaching conditions, and methodological features (low-achieving students, higher teaching guidance, intermediate grades, low- or middle-income countries, journal publications, and late year of publication). However, we found significant heterogeneity in most subsets. Implications for future research and practice recommendations are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09877-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of concept maps on science achievement among elementary and secondary education students, including low-achieving students. A systematic search located 55 studies about concept mapping in science achievement published in peer-reviewed journals and dissertations between 1980 and 2020. We extracted 58 independent standardized mean difference effect sizes from 55 eligible studies involving 5,364 students from Grade 3 to Grade 12 who used concept maps for learning in physics/earth science, chemistry, and biology that met the specified design criteria. A random-effects model meta-analysis revealed that the mean effect size was moderate for overall science (g = 0.776). The mean effect sizes varied from moderate to large based on the subject area (g = 0.671 for biology; g = 0.590 for chemistry; g = 1.040 for physics and earth science); these differences between groups were not statistically significant (p = 0.220). Concept maps were generally associated with increased science learning across several learning and teaching conditions, and methodological features (low-achieving students, higher teaching guidance, intermediate grades, low- or middle-income countries, journal publications, and late year of publication). However, we found significant heterogeneity in most subsets. Implications for future research and practice recommendations are discussed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
概念图对学生科学成绩的影响:元分析
本研究旨在评估概念图对中小学生(包括成绩较差的学生)科学学习成绩的影响。通过系统检索,我们找到了 1980 年至 2020 年间发表在同行评审期刊和学位论文上的 55 项有关概念图对科学成绩影响的研究。我们从 55 项符合条件的研究中提取了 58 个独立的标准化均值差异效应大小,这些研究涉及 5364 名三年级至十二年级的学生,他们使用概念图学习物理/地球科学、化学和生物,这些研究符合特定的设计标准。随机效应模型荟萃分析显示,总体科学的平均效应大小为中等(g = 0.776)。根据学科领域的不同,平均效应大小从中等到较大不等(生物的 g = 0.671;化学的 g = 0.590;物理和地球科学的 g = 1.040);这些组间差异在统计学上并不显著(p = 0.220)。在几种学习和教学条件以及方法特征(成绩较差的学生、较高的教学指导、中等成绩、低收入或中等收入国家、期刊发表以及发表年份较晚)中,概念图与科学学习的提高普遍相关。然而,我们在大多数子集中发现了明显的异质性。本文讨论了未来研究的意义和实践建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
On Being Accepted: Interrogating How University Cultural Scripts Shape Personal and Political Facets of Belonging Linking Disparate Strands: A Critical Review of the Relationship Between Creativity and Education Exploring the Nature-Creativity Connection Across Different Settings: A Scoping Review Bold, Humble, Collaborative, and Virtuous: The Future of Theory Development in Educational Psychology Effects of School-led Greenspace Interventions on Mental, Physical and Social Wellbeing in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1