E XPERIMENT 1

2.3.1.1 Participants

The study was conducted with three classes consisting of Dutch students of secondary education. The students are in the second year of pre-university education (VWO). The study was conducted with 44 Dutch students of secondary education. The students were in the second year of pre-university education (VWO). The group consisted of 17 boys and 27 girls. Participants were on average 13.00 years old with a standard deviation of 0.482.

Design

Two conditions were compared in an experimental study with a pre-test post-test, between-subjects design. Participants in the experimental condition were asked to construct a concept map during the Orientation phase. Participants in the control condition followed the same instruction, except for the concept map.

2.3.1.2 Materials Learning environment

Students in both conditions worked in an online Go-Lab learning environment on relative density. The learning environments in both conditions were identical, except for the concept mapper tool in the orientation phase in the experimental condition.

Virtual laboratory: Splash

Splash is a virtual laboratory in which students can conduct experiments to learn about buoyancy and Archimedes’ principle. It consists of several sub labs that have different

levels of difficulty. The current study focused on one of these sub labs, namely the lab about relative density. In the lab containers filled with (variable) liquids are displayed.

Students can drop balls in those containers. Students can choose the mass, volume and density of the balls by means of sliders. After the properties of the balls are chosen they can run experiments. The balls are dropped in the containers and students can observe whether the balls sink, drift or float in the liquid (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Splash sub lab on relative density.

The Concept Mapper Tool

The Concept Mapper Tool used in the experiment didn't provide domain related terminology. Participants could enter their own terms instead.

Figure 2.2. The Concept Mapper Tool.

2.3.1.3 Assessment

Students’ conceptual knowledge was assessed both before and after the intervention with a parallel knowledge test that was designed for this study. The test consisted of two parts.

The first part of the test (25 questions) concerns buoyancy and covers the topics of Splash:

floating, drifting and submerging, density, and relative density. The test measured students’ understanding of the key concepts and principles. Students were asked to write down definitions of the key concepts and they had to apply this knowledge by providing the masses, volumes and densities of balls in different situations, the amount of displaced water, and/or forces that act upon the ball or the displaced water. For example, in the first question they were first asked to: “Give a definition of density. Include the terms volume and mass in your definition”. In the second question, they had to: “Give the volume, the mass, and the density of three different balls”. To do this they were required to understand that density equals mass in grams divided by volume in cm³. Students received one point for each correct answer. In the example they could receive one point for the correct definition and one point for each correctly composed ball. The second part of the test contained one item that was intended to assess structural knowledge. Here, students were asked to note the concepts relevant to the domain of relative density and to indicate their relations. For this item, a maximum number of 12 points could be obtained. Points were assigned on the basis of a scoring rubric. The students' responses to this item were scored by a panel of four independent raters. In cases where scores were different, the raters discussed the scoring with each other until consensus was reached.

2.3.1.4 Procedure

During the first session, participants completed the pre-test. One week later, the actual experiment took place. The lesson started with a series of six quiz questions about floating and sinking of several exploratory questions on the subject. After taking the online quiz, the instruction began. At the end of the lesson, another online quiz was presented, basically similar to the first one, except for some surface features. After the participants finished the online lesson, they completed the post-test, which was a parallel version of the pre-test.

2.3.2 Results

On the first part of both the pre-test and the post-test, the students were able to achieve a total of 25 points. The average test scores are displayed in Table 2.1 Test scores (first part) of pre-test and post-test (max. score = 25).

Table 2.1. Test scores (first part) of pre-test and post-test (max. score = 25) Control (n = 21) Experimental (n = 23)

Test M SD M SD

Pre-test 15.57 5.11 16.09 6.95

Post-test 16.19 4.21 15.65 6.33

A repeated measures Anova was performed on the data in Table 2.1 Test scores (first part) of pre-test and post-test (max. score = 25), with time as dependent variable and condition as independent variable. The outcomes showed that there was no main effect of time (Wilks’ Lambda F (1, 42) = 0.03, p = .88) and neither was there an interaction effect between time and condition (Wilks’ Lambda F (1, 42) = 0.18, p = .68).

The second part of the pre- and post-test consisted of an overview of relevant domain concepts and relations between them. The scores on these items are displayed in Table 2.2 Test scores (second part) of pre-test and post-test (max. score = 12).

Table 2.2. Test scores (second part) of pre-test and post-test (max. score = 12)

Control (n = 21) Experimental (n = 23)

Test M SD M SD

Pre-test 5.62 2.11 5.78 2.21

Post-test 5.67 1.32 5.91 2.15

A repeated measures Anova was performed on the data in Table 2.2 Test scores (second part) of pre-test and post-test (max. score = 12), with time as dependent variable and condition as independent variable. The outcomes showed that there was no main effect of time (Wilks’ Lambda F (1, 42) = 0.05, p = .82) and neither was there an interaction effect between time and condition (Wilks’ Lambda F (1, 42) = 0.01, p = .92).

2.3.3 Conclusion and discussion

In this study, we investigated whether making a concept map affects knowledge acquisition. The lesson the students have followed about relative density was based on the principles of inquiry learning. The experimental group had the opportunity to create a concept map during the orientation phase of the inquiry cycle. Participants in the control condition did not have this tool. In order to verify whether the students in the experimental condition indeed benefited from the making of a concept map, their pre-test post-test gains were compared with those of participants in the control condition. Before and after the class there is a test conducted to measure the knowledge. At the beginning and at the end of the lesson there was a quiz in the curriculum, but the results could not be retrieved and analysed. It was found that there is no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group.

For further research, it is advisable to analyse whether the concept maps have effects in the long term. As a study by Taskin and colleagues (2011) showed then concept maps have effect if these are made over a long period.

There are some limitations to this study. During the experiment, the internet did not work properly due to circumstances beyond the experimenters' control. Therefore, not all students could see the entire lesson at the start of the session. Because the concept map was also meant to be constructed at the beginning of the lesson, this may have prevented students from using the tool. The internet connectivity problems at the beginning of the session caused agitation in the classroom. The students therefore may not have been able to concentrate optimally. Finally, at the end of the lesson, a concert scheduled for the students started. The students indicated they would like to stand in front and it was only after they had gone through the entire lesson, this may have influenced the results of the post-test.

If we look at the distribution of the measurements before and after, we see that the average close to maximum points. Probably, there is a ceiling effect. This means that there are students for which the test was too easy.