Results and discussion of beyond sharing

All 34 participants had sufficient time to finish their personal construction projects and

to evaluate, select, and integrate ideas from their peers’ maps into new, integrated concept maps. Participants needed an average of 2.15 hours to construct their personal concept maps following two one-hour introductions to concept mapping and BeyondShare. Average time spent in the sharing construction process was 1.07 hours. Sample concept maps are shown in Figure 6. Just over one-half (53.5%) of the participants reported positive attitudes about the general ease of use of BeyondShare (Table 6).

Table 6. Student perceptions of BeyondShare ease-of-use

Percentage of Respondents

strongly disagree strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. In general, BeyondShare was difficult to use. 0.0 32.1 21.4 28.6 7.1 10.7 0.0 2. Creating a concept map using BeyondShare was

more convenient than using pencil and paper.

3.6 17.9 7.1 32.1 17.9 14.3 7.1

3. The personal construction interface was clear and its functional guides were helpful.

0.0 0.0 17.9 14.3 32.1 14.3 21.4

4. The personal construction visual aids were helpful when creating a concept map.

0.0 3.6 14.3 14.3 14.3 39.3 14.3

5. The interlink function procedure was simple and thoughtfully designed.

0.0 0.0 14.3 14.3 17.9 32.1 21.4

6. The system operating description was helpful when I first became acquainted with

BeyondShare. (n = 26)

0.0 0.0 7.1 21.4 28.6 17.9 17.9

Concept mapping has been criticized for requiring exceptional effort and numerous modifications (Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson, 1996). The questionnaire data indicate that 39.3 percent of the participants regarded concept mapping using BeyondShare as more convenient than using pencil and paper. Negative opinions regarding the procedure were reported by 28.6 percent—an indication that BeyondShare requires revision. Just over two-thirds (68%) stated that the personal construction interface was helpful, with 71.4 percent describing the interlink function as easy to use.

Table 7. Student perceptions of personal map constructions (first level)

Percentage of Respondents strongly disagree strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Constructing a concept map helped me in

memorization.

0.0 3.6 3.6 10.7 7.1 57.1 17.9

2. When constructing a personal concept map, I had a chance to summarize critical points of the material.

0.0 3.6 3.6 7.1 14.3

39.3 32.1

3. I tried to use examples of events or concepts outside of textbooks to clarify the meaning of my concept map.

3.6 7.1 21.4 17.9 25.0 17.9 7.1

4. Constructing a concept map encouraged me to rethink relationships between concepts.

0.0 7.1 0.0 3.6 17.9 42.9 28.6

5. Constructing a concept map helped me organize key points in the learning material.

0.0 3.6

3.6 7.1 14.3

39.3 32.1

6. When constructing a personal concept map, organizing a concept hierarchy encouraged me to rethink knowledge synthesis.

3.6 0.0 3.6 14.3 21.4 25.0 32.1

7. When constructing a personal concept map, I understood some of my shortcomings regarding the learning concepts.

0.0 3.6 3.6 7.1 17.9

50.0 17.9

8. Although concept mapping was beneficial for meaningful learning, I felt it was not worth the trouble.

14.3 35.7 17.9 25.0 0.0 3.6 3.6

9. I am willing to construct concept maps to aid my learning in other courses.

0.0 3.6 7.1 14.3 17.9 28.6 28.6

As shown in Table 7, large percentages of students (50-89%) reported that they had actively engaged in the following cognitive functions:

1. Memorization (item 1): 82.1 percent agreed with the statement that concept map construction is an effective way to memorize learning material.

2. Summarization (item 2): 85.7 percent agreed with the statement that concept map construction gave them opportunities to summarize the most important points of the presented material.

3. Understanding (item 3): 50 percent stated that they used other materials in

addition to textbooks when searching for examples that would give them a deeper understanding of a concept.

4. Conceptual organization (items 4, 5, 6): 89.4 percent asserted that drawing a concept map enhanced their comprehension of relationships between concepts, 85.7 percent stated that constructing a concept map helped them organize major concepts, and 78.5 percent agreed that concept hierarchy organization encouraged knowledge synthesis.

5. Reflections on own weaknesses (item 7): 85.8 percent agreed with the statement that drawing a concept map helped them reflect on their deficits, discrepancies, and/or flaws in learning concepts.

Only 7.2 percent of the participating students stated that concept map construction was not helpful in the learning process (item 8). The majority (75.1%) stated a willingness to construct concept maps to facilitate learning in other courses (item 9). These results suggest that personal construction (first-level beyond-sharing activity) encouraged student

engagement in low- and high-level cognitive strategies and meaningful learning, which fits well with the active learning and higher-order thinking criteria described by Johnson et al.

(1998), Moreno and Mayer (2000), and Turner et al. (1998).

Data on responses to peer assessment and competition (second-level) items are shown in Table 8. A majority (82.2%) agreed that the peer assessment procedure helped them learn how to assess concept map quality (item 1) and 82.1 percent agreed that peer concept map evaluation encouraged them to reflect on properties that a good concept map should possess (item 2).

Most of the participants (75.1%) stated that they were aware of the competitive aspect of BeyondShare and viewed it as motivation to generate better personal construction products

(item 3); 74 percent acknowledged that they were expected to compete with their peers for best-fit map votes (item 4). According to these results, the majority of participants were motivated to achieve personal learning goals when constructing quality maps. I believe this awareness of competition can reduce social loafing during beyond-sharing activities.

Approximately one-fifth of the participants (18.5%) complained about their maps not receiving votes even though they felt the quality was high (item 5), and 30 percent

complained about a lack of satisfaction with their choices (i.e., they felt forced to choose from collections of poorly constructed maps) (item 6). A discussion mechanism such as that

integrated by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1991) into their CSILE might help resolve this issue by encouraging modifications that increase map quality and/or coherence.

Table 8. Student perceptions of peer assessment and competition (second level)

Percentage of Respondents strongly disagree strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. I learned how to assess concept map quality by

evaluating and choosing concept maps from other learning units.

0.0 3.6 3.6 7.1 17.9 46.4 17.9

2. Evaluating and choosing a concept map encouraged me to consider the essential features of a “good” map.

0.0 3.6 3.6 7.1 21.4 28.6 32.1

3. Competition with peers to have my map be selected as

“best-fit” for my unit encouraged me to generate a better personal construction.

0.0 7.1

3.6 10.7 17.9

42.9 14.3

4. I tried to gain more votes for “best-fit” concept map by generating a better personal construction.

0.0 7.4 3.7 14.8 25.9 33.3 14.8

5. I felt that the work I did was good, yet my peers did not chose my map as their favorite. (n=26)

7.4 7.4 14.8 44.4 11.1 7.4 0.0

6. During the interlinking stage, I felt dissatisfied with what I chose as my favorite concept maps.

0.0 14.8 22.2 29.6 29.6 0.0 0.0

Data on the extent to which sharing construction (third-level) activities helped students achieve active learning using high- and low-level cognitive strategies are presented in Table 9. As shown, the majority (85.7%) viewed the sharing construction activity as an

effective means of helping them inspect and model their peers’ maps (item 1); 78.6 percent stated that observing their peers’ concept maps helped them make improvements to their own (item 2). Over half (57.1%) acknowledged that the sharing process allowed them to

summarize key concepts in the chapters they did not work on and therefore gain general knowledge of all learning units (item 3), 57.2 percent agreed with the statement that they had achieved an in-depth understanding of the target material via the sharing construction

procedure (item 4), and 64 percent agreed that the sharing construction approach was

meaningful because it provided opportunities to integrate concepts from different units (item 5). However, 78 percent agreed with the statement that it required much effort to create meaningful interlinks between concepts (item 6). In summary, between 57 and 85 percent of the participating students agreed that the BeyondShare approach encouraged them to use the cognitive functions emphasized by Johnson et al. (1998), Moreno and Mayer (2000), Novak and Gowin (1984), and Turner et al. (1998).

The actively engaged students created high quality concept maps for sharing, offered valid ratings of their peers’ concept maps, and constructed coherent global concept maps that integrated ideas from other units. Different combinations of high and low personal and sharing construction scores were used to create the four cells presented in Table 10. High scores indicate that the student’s work exceeded the mean. According to the peer rating scores, 38 percent were high active learners (i.e., active in both sharing and personal construction), 29% were active only in terms of sharing construction, and 9% were active only in terms of personal construction. In other words, approximately 75 percent were active in at least one part of the beyond-sharing activities and 25 percent were not active during any part of the BeyondShare evaluation project. According to these results, it was easier for the participating students to actively engage in sharing construction than in personal construction.

Table 9. Student perceptions of sharing construction (third level)

Percentage of Respondents strongly disagree strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. The sharing construction process allowed me to model

my peers’ works.

0.0 3.6 0.0 7.1 25.0 35.7 25.0

2. The sharing construction process gave me chances to observe my peers’ works in a manner that helped my subsequent work. (n = 27).

0.0 7.1 3.6 7.1 17.9 39.3 21.4

3. The sharing construction allowed me to concentrate on my own work while referring to others’ concept maps for quick impressions of the other learning units.

0.0 7.1

17.9 14.3

21.4 21.4 14.3

4. The sharing construction process helped me achieve an in-depth understanding of the learning material.

0.0 7.1 7.1 25.0 17.9 28.6 10.7

5. The sharing construction process which encouraged me to integrate concepts from different learning units was a meaningful learning approach.

0.0 7.1 10.7 14.3

21.4 21.4 21.4

6. It was difficult to think of meaningful interlinks

between two concepts. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.9 17.9 28.6 32.1

Table 10. Scores on personal and sharing construction

Sharing construction scores