Premium
Comparison of 1:1 and 1:m CSCL environment for collaborative concept mapping
Author(s) -
Lin C.P.,
Wong L.H.,
Shao Y.J.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of computer assisted learning
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.583
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2729
pISSN - 0266-4909
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00421.x
Subject(s) - collaborative learning , concept map , consistency (knowledge bases) , psychology , mathematics education , cooperative learning , class (philosophy) , quality (philosophy) , group (periodic table) , perception , educational technology , computer supported collaborative learning , computer science , teaching method , chemistry , artificial intelligence , philosophy , organic chemistry , epistemology , neuroscience
This paper reports an investigation into the effects of collaborative concept mapping in a digital learning environment, in terms of students' overall learning gains, knowledge retention, quality of student artefacts (the collaboratively created concept maps), interactive patterns, and learning perceptions. Sixty‐four 12‐year‐old students from two 6th grade classes (32 from each class) participated in the study. Guided by the methodology of quasi‐experimental research, group scribbles 1.0 was adopted in which students carried out collaborative concept mapping activities for social studies in two different settings: (1) 1:1 (one‐device‐per‐student) – students working in pairs with one Tablet PC assigned to each of them; and (2) 1:m (one‐device‐to‐many‐students) – multiple students sharing a Tablet PC. Both settings were evaluated and the interactional patterns of the student groups' concept mapping were identified. The results indicated that in both 1:1 and 1:m settings, students had improved their learning results and retention. Nevertheless, while 1:1 groups had demonstrated more consistency in group participation, improved communication and interaction, the 1:m groups had instead generated superior artefacts as all the notes were well discussed among the group members. The findings suggest that a higher quality of collaborative processes does not necessarily lead to improved student artefacts.