AC 2010-1997: UTILIZING SOFTWARE-GENERATED CONCEPT MAPS BASEDON CUSTOMIZED CONCEPT INVENTORIES TO ILLUSTRATE STUDENTLEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE GAPSRicky Castles, Virginia TechVinod Lohani, Virginia Tech Page 15.1349.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Utilizing Software-Generated Concept Maps Based on Customized Concept Inventories to Illustrate Student Learning and Knowledge GapsAbstractConcept inventories have been developed for a variety of disciplines over the last 20 years inorder to evaluate student understanding of subjects within the discipline at the conceptual level.Concept inventories have served as a
the learning barriers for non-major engineering students in aservice course?” To seek an answer the study attempted to measure student learning in twodomains of the Bloom’s taxonomy: cognitive and affective9. For the cognitive domain a specifictopic of the course was chosen to gauge student learning of the core concepts. For the affectivedomain, student attitude towards learning in the service course was measured. For this purposetwo instruments were developed: a survey questionnaire for the entire class, and a concept map Page 15.833.2assignment on the specific topic for one-on-one interview sessions with a representative sample.This paper
knowledge structures that humanshave in their minds, they can be represented spatially as concept maps. The mental schemas inmemory and the concept maps that represent them consist of nodes, or ideas, and labeled linksthat represent the relationships among them [6].The construction of concept maps aids student learning by requiring students to analyze theunderlying structure of the concepts they are studying [10]. This process of creating conceptmaps engages a learner through her identification of the important concepts in the knowledgedomain under study, arranging those concepts spatially, identifying the links or relationshipsamong those concepts, and labeling the nature of the links between concepts. The construction ofconcept maps leads to
instructional redesign process. Two majorcharacteristics of threshold concepts, integrativity and transformativity were used to identifyhorizontal alignment candidate-concept for the highway design process.Using concept maps generated as guides through the integrativity of learning associated with thehorizontal alignment, several adjustments to the structure of lecture materials and project taskswere made. In addition, reflective assessment items were administered after each redesignedinstructional task and at the end of the course. Students’ answers to these reflective assessmentshelped identifying trends associated with the transformativity of horizontal alignment in thecontext of highway design. The analysis of students’ reflective assessment
the team having a shared vision of the problem they are solving. The goal ofthis research is to determine which factors improve the performance of an engineering team.One of the aspects explored is the effectiveness of arranging teams based upon each teammember’s cognitive problem solving style preference using the Adaption-Innovationframework1. This paper presents a complete experiment evaluating concept map data from thedesign stage of engineering, graduate student, teams.IntroductionIn previous research we showed that the Cognitive Collaborative Model (CCM) can improveteam performance in systems design2 and may also be effective in facilitating a shared vision, ormental model of the problem being solved by a team3. Research indicates
critical step in understanding the teaching Page 15.430.5 of the Technology/Engineering content in the classroom 4 ≠ The establishment of a useful learning community is critical to the success of any ongoing effort in this project, and that learning community must be “born” at the workshop ≠ Educational theory on how to promote deep and meaningful learning—such as the use of narrative to engage the imagination or concept maps to help students frame their learning—were as important to
, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations, Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1998.13. Novak, J., and Gowin D.B., Learning How to Learn, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.14. Turns, J., Atman, C., and Adams, R., “Concept Maps for Engineering Education: A Cognitively Motivated Tool Supporting Varied Assessment Functions,” IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 43, No 2, 2000.15. Besterfield-Sacre, M., Gerchak, J., Lyons, M.R., Shuman, L.J., and Wolfe, H., “Scoring Concept Maps: An Integrated Rubric for Assessing Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 93, No. 2, 2004, pp. 105–115.16. Deisenroth, Michael P., Brian M. Kleiner, Russell D. Meller
in Table 1.A concept map is a graphical tool which enables students to organize and connect a concept torelated topics and facts. In one study [25] concept maps were used to compare the performance ofstudents instructed using methods for concept based learning with the performance of studentsinstructed using traditional methods. Comparisons of instructor and student maps werecompleted with CMap Tools, freeware which enables the construction and subsequent analysisof concept maps. Table 2 shows that on average, a student’s ability to correctly relate keythermodynamic terms increased by 17% from the initial introduction of the material to the end ofthe course using concept based learning. By week 3, all of the terms on the activity had
through concept maps and revealedthat the visual representation had a positive impact on inventory searching and increasedsatisfaction among students. Graphing techniques in the course on data acquisition only addresssmall-scale data applicable to a limited number of equipments. Little attention has been paid tothe use of visualization to convey large-scale data to students.3. MethodologyIn response to the difficulties identified in the previous section, we develop a new, effective wayfor incorporating large-scale real-world sensor data into engineering learning environments.First, we propose a new approach to simplifying the process of sensor data acquisition. Ourimplementation transparently provides engineering students, faculty, and other
content knowledge and pedagogy in science and engineering in order to meetthe requirements set by the NCLB legislation14 and to answer the call of the Rising Above theGathering Storm report4. It is the intention of this program to increase the content knowledge ofstudents in science and engineering by bolstering the content knowledge and pedagogy ofteachers who are enrolled in this program16.MethodsA quasi-experimental study using mixed methods was used to assess the program. Specifically,the following data were collected from our treatment group teachers during the 2-week summerinstitute: (1) pre and post test, (2) results from formative assessments (e.g. end of the dayevaluation, concept mapping, discussion, and questions), (3) and the STEM
thorough InstructorEvaluation which assess the instructor on his or her abilities to address topics discussed in class,what the instructor did well, and what they can improve.Lastly, participating engineers reflect on their own teaching by studying videos taken by theirpartner during the courses. Participating engineers are required to self-assess their teaching andwrite what they did well during their instruction, and what they can improve.EvaluationWe use a multi-method research approach to evaluate program impact on families’ andengineers’ understanding and behaviors. We gather data using surveys, interviews, pre- and post-test scores, concept mapping, and fieldwork25-30.We administer pre and post assessments about families’ STEM experience and
communication. The course syllabus withweekly training details and the lesson plan template can be accessed from our website(www.IridescentLearning.org), under “Programs” and “Engineer Training”.EvaluationWe use a multi-method research approach to evaluate program impact on families’ andengineers’ understanding and behaviors. We gather data using surveys, interviews, pre- and post-test scores, concept mapping, and fieldwork65-71. We administer pre and post assessments aboutfamilies’ STEM experience and knowledge, social capital and interest and engineers’ publiccommunication skills. We measure how multiple contextual factors such as socio-economicfactors, quality and accessibility of experts and educational and technology resources affectparticipants
format.To assess content knowledge, the PBL Challenges include a test bank consisting of multiple-choice questions, closed-ended problems, and higher-level thought provoking questions centeredon specific technical content associated with the particular problem. Conceptual knowledge Page 15.985.9refers to a student’s understanding of and relationship between key concepts underlying aparticular domain of knowledge. To assess conceptual knowledge, the PBL Challenges include alist of main concepts related to the topic being explored, a reference or “expert” concept map forinstructors, detailed instructions for students on how to construct a concept map, and
examinedwithin the humanities and the sciences, not engineering. While disciplinary borders andinterdisciplinary programs in the humanities and the sciences have been examined for decades,this is not the case for engineering disciplines and programs.7 In other cases, the core elements ofan interdisciplinary curriculum were discussed theoretically8, yet these discussions lacked anexplanation of how such a curriculum could be implemented. Other studies focused on only oneor two of the dimensions of interdisciplinary understanding. In a green engineering program, forinstance, concept maps were used to assess the students’ ability to integrate the differentconcepts.9 Another assessment of interdisciplinary collaborative efforts measured students’awareness
. Draw a concept map of how product parts interact. in a way that describes a product’s make-up and functionality. F. Draw a functional relation diagram describing how a product functions. Page 15.713.74. Propose a plausible improvement to G. Propose a design modification to improve the the product. functioning of the product.The faculty and assessment specialists reviewed the mapping and alignment of each task tostudent learning objectives. Table 2 illustrates how each of the tasks were mapped to theobjectives or learning outcomes for the project. Mapping these
[13] and [14]. These experiences were shared with Indianparticipants to emphasize the role of modern technologies to introduce the concept of feedbackbased learning in the classroom.Engineering Education Research Projects: One of the co-authors (Castles) shared his PhDresearch with the workshop participants. In this research, education is modeled as a closed loopfeedback controller and the principles of feedback control theory are extended to "Teaching andLearning" process. An XML (Extensible Markup Language) based software is developed tocouple concept inventories with concept maps in order to generate knowledge maps representingstudents’ understanding of a discipline based upon their responses to a custom-designed conceptinventory. The
). An electronic engineering curriculum designbased on concept-mapping techniques. International Journal of Technology & Design Education 17(3), pp. 341-356. 15 O. Rompelman and E. De Graaff. (2006, 05). The engineering of engineering education: Curriculum development from adesigner's point of view 1. European Journal of Engineering Education 31(2), pp. 215-226. 16 W. E. Eder and V. Hubka.(2005, 02). Curriculum, pedagogics and didactics for design education. J. Eng. Des. 16(1), pp. 45-61.17 M. Harris and R. Cullen. (2009, 06). A model for curricular revision: The case of engineering. Innovative Higher Education34(1), pp. 51-63.18 K. W. Jablokow. (2007, Engineers as problem-solving leaders : Embracing the humanities. IEEE Technology &
• Mindmap – The mindmap, or concept map, organizes the results of brainstorming and suggests categories that can lead to further concept generation, as shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15. Page 15.366.15 Figure 14: Student Sample of Mindmap Example One Figure 15: Student Sample of Mindmap Example Two• 6-3-5 Method – This graphical concept generation technique complements brainstorming (which is verbal). The 6-3-5 method forces designers to think in Page 15.366.16 terms of the physical world and how each function will be physically realized
as a whole?How can resources be synergistically integrated to support such an effort? What are the majorchallenges or barriers present that must be overcome in order to create such a system?In response to these questions, they present a concept map to explore how faculty educationaldevelopment could support and greatly enhance an entire system revolving around faculty Page 15.975.4development in teaching and learning. Utilizing and reflecting upon the literature, major issuesconsidered that relate to the questions above include various roles in the higher educationengineering community; relationships between educational research, student
target concepts ofthe challenge in a similar way to the example presented next for the Electronicschallenge: Concept Map: following is a categorized list of target concepts in this challenge. à Electronic components ″ Understand and use potentiometer, transistor, amplifier, thermocouple, DC fans, and power supplies ″ Understand units of voltage, temperature, current, power, and energy ″ Understand symbols and schematic diagrams for electronic circuits à Electronic Instruments ″ Understand and use breadboards and DMMs ″ Understand and measure of resistance, voltage, current, and power à On/off controller ″ Understand and use comparator integrated circuits
illustrate signal paths through acontrol algorithm or transfer system (circuits, fluid systems, power distribution, feedbacksystems), and concept maps can represent the interdependent relationship between componentsin a particular system. Engineering students‟ thinking is made visible when they construct ormanipulate these graphical representations, or graphical models, as they analyze various aspectsof a system‟s performance. Therefore, students‟ abilities to construct and interpret graphicalmodels can be used to diagnose a learner‟s comprehension of a system in a specific context.With this diagnostic capability we are exploring ways to provide automated formative feedbackto refine students‟ ability to use the tool, strengthen their conceptual
activities. Defining Objectivesinvolves identifying the objectives, identifying sub-objectives, identifying potential difficulties inaccomplishing those objectives, and identifying real-world applications of the objectives.Creating a Model of Knowledge involves indentifying concepts and skills involved and how theyrelate to one another (i.e., creating a concept map), prioritizing the concepts and skills into thecategories of Enduring Understanding, Important to Know and Do, and Worth Being FamiliarWith. Determining Evidence involves reviewing the objectives to determine acceptable evidenceand planning the assessments to be used (e.g., Formative assessments for the LC Test YourMettle step, and Summative assessments for the LC Go Public step). In
learning domains (cognitive, affective, andpsychomotor) have been developed and distributed49-51 that rely on learning theory52, 53 andestablished methods for teaching engineering.54-57 For example, concept inventories help toidentify student misconceptions and measure the impact of interventions.58, 59 Student surveysare also frequently applied to collect opinions on teaching approaches and their effectiveness.Turns et al.50 reviewed 12 different instruments (concept maps, interviews, focus groups,laboratory/classroom observation, etc.) that can be utilized for different purposes. Informationregarding these instruments can be readily obtained through various channels.60 The ASEE 2006workshop paper prepared by NSF engineering-education program
Learner Satisfaction Page 15.211.20APPENDIX J: Three Important ModelsThe Concept Mapping Model utilizes the principles of a learning paradigm (Tagg, 2003). Theprinciple is to select an appropriate learning paradigm approach, preferably categorize, andassign the needed information into the various components of that chosen paradigm. A model forknowledge acquisition and content delivery can be suggested however, this is normallyaccomplished utilizing well-established and standardized building blocks of a learning paradigm(Barr and Tagg, 1995).The Structured Content Model may be chosen as an alternative when the instructor finds that theConcept Mapping Model may not be suitable. Here subject matter
approach. This began with the co-authors generating a concept map of the key ideas andterms central to their understanding of the problem – i.e., the misunderstandings and misuses ofranking and rating systems. Because the authors operated on both sides of the Atlantic, twosignificantly different contexts formed the backdrop to this study. The general concept map weused is shown below: University College Rankings Department Ratings Program Comparisons Quality Performance