{"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.
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.