AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
information but they do not learn meaningfully. We think that if
learners’ understanding of the content of the subject of history is
to be improved it is necessary to assess and compare different
teaching strategies. The range of our analysis lies in the
comparison of the application of nonlinear and linear structuring
of the curriculum to mental representations of learners recorded
through conceptual mapping. The results of the experiment show
that nonlinear structuring of the curriculum is a more appropriate
strategy than linear structuring which presently is predominantly
used during the teaching of history classes.
In the research survey we assumed that students who were
presented with the study material by nonlinear structuring
would achieve a significantly higher level statistically of
graphical visualization of the map than the students who were
presented with the study material by linear structuring. We state
that the hypothesis has been confirmed. Within the hypothesis
we focused on the final quality and effect of the concept map.
We paid attention to the clarity of the recorded statements, the
colour of the map, the partial use of the paper and the overall
overview of the thematic unit by the student. From the results we
conclude that the students of the experimental groups achieved
better evaluations. An interesting finding lies in the awareness of
the fact that students of the control and experimental groups
were evaluated (in the analyzed item) at all levels on a scale of
1-5.
In the concept maps of the students of the control groups we
recorded several cases of misunderstanding of the thematic unit,
possibly a partial insight into the curriculum. Pointing out the
above during the analysis of the concept maps of the control
group students we found that they often placed the key concept
on the edge of the paper so they were subsequently unable to
develop the rest of the concepts in all directions. In many cases
the information on the map was not partially correctly recorded
therefore the concept maps of the pupils of the control groups
cannot be considered clear. It can be seen in the Figure that the
students of the experimental groups had the graphic visualization
of the maps processed better. Their depictions were non-linearly
complex, clear and showed a high degree of understanding of the
given thematic unit. In addition we can speak about a holistic
view of the thematic unit as all the essential parts of the
curriculum have been graphically highlighted. It is interesting
and it pointed to the fact that although we worked with students
using mostly one type of concept map (although all types and
methods of mapping were introduced in the instruction), the
outputs of students in the experimental groups were diverse. We
believe that the students themselves chose the method of
mapping that suited them best and were able to record their
mental representations in as much detail as possible.
6 Conclusion
Knowledge as such can only be considered as "dead capital" if
one lacks the ability to use it adequately and effectively in
everyday life. Unfortunately too much emphasis is placed on
knowledge in our schools and insufficient attention is paid to
how to make optimal use of it. Modern understanding of
teaching is not about conveying finished knowledge
to students. The current goal of the educational process is to
educate a critical-thinking person with an open mind, naturally
curious, flexible, looking for new information, looking for
further perspectives and arguments for formulating final
decisions. This is only achievable if the teacher is able to choose
such teaching methods as directly stimulate the development
of given skills.
We believe that it is necessary for conceptual mapping to be
used in educational practice as a common learning strategy. The
concept map represents an individual construction of knowledge
with regard to the specific level of cognitive competence of
individual students - it is about respecting the individual
construction mechanisms of the brain, creating and modifying
preconcepts in specific subject matter.
Literature:
1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A.,
Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., Zhang, D. 2008. Instructional
interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A
stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, vol. 78,
n. 4, 1102–1134.
2. Bathke, A. C. – Harrar, S.W. 2008. “Nonparametric Methods
in Multivariate Factorial Designs for Large Number of Factor
Levels.” In Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference,
vol.138, no. 3, p. 588–610.
3. Ertmer, P. A. - Newby, T. J. 2013. Behaviorism, cognitivism,
constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional
design perspective. In Performance Improvement Quarterly,
[online ]2013, vol. 26, no. 2, p. 43-71 [cit.2018- 03-02].
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/piq.21143/full
4. Halpern, D. F. 2014. Trought and Knowledge. An Introduction
to Critical Thinking. (5 ed.) New York, London: Taylor &
Francis,
5. Heyman, G. D. 2008. Children’s critical thinking when
learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, vol.17, n. 5, pp.344–347.
6. Kneedler, P. 1985. California Assessing Critical thinking. In
A. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for
Teaching Thinking. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
7. Maydeu-Olivares, A. - Joe, H. 2006. An Overview of Limited
Information Goodness-of.Fit Testing an Multidimensional
Contingency tables. In New trends in Psychometrics. 2006. p.
253–262.
8. Nesbit, J. C. - Adesope, O. O. 2006. Learning with concept
and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. In Review of Educational
Research, 2006. vol.76, p.413 – 448.
9. Resnick, L. 1996. Situated Learning. In: De Corte, E., Weiner,
F. E. (Eds.): International Encyclopedia of Developmental and
Instructional Psychology. Oxford: Elsevier Science 1996, p.
341-347.
10. Rizopoulos, D. 2006. ln: An R package for Latent Variable
Modelling and Item Response Theory Analyses. In Journal of
Statistical Software, vol. 17, no. 5, p. 1-25.
Primary Paper Section: A
Secondary Paper Section: AM
- 211 -