The BeyondShare environment

I incorporated concept mapping into the BeyondShare environment as an activity

based on the assertions of Novak and Gowin (1984), Roth and Roychoudhury (1992), and others that concept maps are effective tools for knowledge construction. Instead of requiring students to participate in group discussions to create collaborative maps (a process that can lead to unequal contributions), I applied the CCL strategy (Lin, Sun , & Kao, 2002) as a more effective approach to evaluating, synthesizing, and incorporating ideas from maps created by their peers. In implementing this strategy, the learning material must be divided into several units (in this study, three units). As part of the BeyondShare process, final concept map products reflect individual and shared construction efforts that fulfill the requirements of independence and interaction (Katz, 2002). In classrooms that have access to state-of-the-art learning technologies, teachers can use concept map approaches that focus on synchronous (real-time) cooperative behavior (Komis et al., 2002). Although these systems have clear advantages, I purposefully designed BeyondShare with the characteristic of asynchronous distributed learning based on the belief that it is available in a larger percentage of

classrooms.

3.4.1. Primary interfaces

I used a combination of Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 and SQL Server7 to design two BeyondShare interfaces:

1. A personal construction interface that provides a form-based environment. This interface is disabled when students proceed to the sharing construction phase, thereby preventing students from modifying their own concept maps based on the work of others in the same learning unit (Fig. 5). After reading personal

assignments for a given learning unit, students begin the personal construction activity in the concept mapping section by pressing the start button (which triggers a time log) and using the construction forms to build and connect

self-defined concept nodes with links. A concept map in progress is shown in the current personal concept map section. Concept nodes and linking words are not fixed, giving students greater flexibility for knowledge construction. They use the current personal concept map area to observe and change node positions to revise concept hierarchies. Nodes and linking words can be removed from the storage section once they become irrelevant to the concept map. Students move back and forth between procedures to construct their maps as they see fit.

2. A form-based sharing construction interface consists of interlinks among different concept maps. Interlinks differ from links, which connect ideas within individual concept maps. In Figure 6, the bold arrows with dashed lines indicate interlinked connections between two concept maps. Students can use this

interface to view their own completed maps in the personal concept map section.

In the modeling section, a system of anonymous selector IDs prevents students from purposefully choosing concept maps made by their friends as their favorites.

After choosing selector IDs from the other units, students can study maps in their peer concept map sections, then press the start button to begin the sharing

construction process. Students can establish interlinks between their own and their chosen maps in the interlinking section and make comments in the feedback section according to a set of reference criteria. As in the personal construction interface, students can delete interlinks displayed in the storage section. The interlinking process consists of selecting single concept nodes from two maps and adding a linking word. Students can establish as many interlinks as they want between concept map nodes.

During the sharing construction phase, students evaluate all peer concept maps in

other units, select “personal best-fit” concept maps, and establish interlinks between their own and selected maps. Interlinks can be established between near concept nodes or nodes in remote categories. Links in the latter category are known as “cross-links,” implying

associations between concepts that many people would not recognize (Novak & Gowin, 1984).

In BeyondShare, such links are considered signs of creativity.

Choices for establishing interlinks represent cooperative partner selection—the result of a peer assessment evaluation process that encourages critical thinking. Sharing and

incorporating information across units with cooperative partners are both encouraged; within units, competition is encouraged.

3.4.2. Teacher observation

BeyondShare contains a teacher interface for monitoring student progress, meaning that students who fall behind the learning schedule can be given special attention. The monitor interface presents a student’s personal concept map, information on the student’s chosen favorites, the number of interlinks between two maps, how much time a student spends on constructing interlinks, and how many other students choose the same map as their favorite. The interface also allows teachers to view information on how many choose the target student’s concept map as their favorite, their personal concept maps, and respective interlinks. All preference data can be logged for peer rating analysis.

3.4.3. Evaluating results

After the sharing construction phase is completed, concept maps are arranged in decreasing order of score (number of votes) for each learning unit. The map receiving the most votes within one unit earns the designation of “best-fit.” Reflective thinking is triggered via comparisons of personal maps with best-fit maps. Furthermore, teachers can construct

their own “expert” concept maps for comparison with best-fit maps for two purposes:

determining which knowledge structures are acknowledged by the greatest number of students, and helping students make adjustments to incomplete or incorrect concept maps.

Figure 5. Personal construction interface example

Figure 6. Sharing construction interface example