How and When Presenting a Concept Map for Learning and an Accurate Self-evaluation?

A. Maillard, L. Motak, J. C. Sakdavong, C. Dupeyrat, N. Huet

2013

Abstract

Self-evaluation is not an easy step for learners even if it is a decisive step in self-regulated learning. The goal of our study was to test concept maps effect on learning performance and self-evaluation accuracy. 136 students were assigned over five experimental groups in which the format used (consultation/construction) and the moment of use (simultaneous of the learning task vs. after the learning task) of concept map varied. Cognitive load was also measured in order to explain differences in performance and self-evaluation. Results suggested that participants in the consultation conditions have a more accurate self-evaluation and better performance than participants in the construction condition. More studies are required to identify more precisely what factors influence the efficiency of use conceptual map.

References

  1. Amadieu, F., Marine, C. & Laimay, C., 2011. The attention-guiding effect and cognitive load in the compréhension of animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, pp.36-40.
  2. Bouffard, T., Vezeau, C., Chouinard, R. & Marcotte, G., 2006. L'illusion d'incompétence et les facteurs associés chez l'élève du primaire. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 155, pp.9-20.
  3. Cassidy, S., 2006. Learning style and student selfassessment skill. Education + Training, 48, 170-177.
  4. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P. & Glaser, R., 1989. Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, pp.145-182.
  5. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O., 1992. Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20, pp.374-380.
  6. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O., 1994. Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), pp.545-565.
  7. Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A., 2012. Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students' learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), pp.271- 280.
  8. Gama, C.A., 2004. Integrating Metacognition Instruction in Interactive Learning Environments. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Sussex, Grande Bretagne.
  9. Koriat, A., 1997. Monitoring one's own knowledge during study : A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, pp.349-370.
  10. Kornell, N. & Son, L. K., 2009. Learners'choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory, 17(5), pp.493-501.
  11. Nelson, T.O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G.H. Bower ed., 1995. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. Academic Press, San Diego. (Vol. 26,) pp. 125-169
  12. Nesbit, J. C., Adesope, O. O., 2006. Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76 (3), pp.413-448.
  13. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B., 1984. Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  14. Paas, F., 1992. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp.429-434.
  15. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E., 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, pp.33-40.
  16. Redford,J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J. & Griffin, T.D., 2012. Concept mapping improves metacomprehensionaccuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22, pp.262-270.
  17. Stull, A., Mayer, R. E., 2007, Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphics organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), pp.808-820.
  18. Sweller, J., 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, pp.257- 285.
  19. Tricot, A., 1998. Charge cognitive et apprentissage. Une présentation des travaux de John Sweller. Revue de Psychologie de l'Education, 1, pp.37-64.
  20. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E., 1986. The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock 2008. Handbook of research on teaching, Macmillan. New York.
  21. Winne, P. H., 2001. Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk eds., 2001. Selfregulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. NJ: Erlbaum, Mahwah.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Maillard A., Motak L., C. Sakdavong J., Dupeyrat C. and Huet N. (2013). How and When Presenting a Concept Map for Learning and an Accurate Self-evaluation? . In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-8565-53-2, pages 188-193. DOI: 10.5220/0004414401880193


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu13,
author={A. Maillard and L. Motak and J. C. Sakdavong and C. Dupeyrat and N. Huet},
title={How and When Presenting a Concept Map for Learning and an Accurate Self-evaluation?},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,},
year={2013},
pages={188-193},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004414401880193},
isbn={978-989-8565-53-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,
TI - How and When Presenting a Concept Map for Learning and an Accurate Self-evaluation?
SN - 978-989-8565-53-2
AU - Maillard A.
AU - Motak L.
AU - C. Sakdavong J.
AU - Dupeyrat C.
AU - Huet N.
PY - 2013
SP - 188
EP - 193
DO - 10.5220/0004414401880193