The Effects of Mapping Content for the Study of Technology

on Lesson Design and Delivery

Kenneth Welty

School of Education

Project Summary

Over the last 10 years I have observed aspiring teachers struggle with the development of instruction that targets the broad understandings that have been recommended for the profession (AAAS, 1993, ITEA, 2000, Pearson & Young, 2002). Too often, their work suggests an inclination to focus on superficial ideas, unduly specific details, and obscure technical vocabulary. People have difficulty learning content that can be easily viewed as collections of disconnected words, facts, or concepts. In general, it is easier to learn ideas that have clear relationships with one another (Hyerle, 1996). In the absence of logical connections, it is not unusual for people to create connections in an effort to make knowledge easier to learn. These efforts might include making rhymes, word associations, abbreviations, or mental images. Since making connections plays an important role in learning, it is important for aspiring teachers to learn how to articulate the intrinsic structure embedded within a body of knowledge and use it to design instruction that targets understandings that help people make sense of the human-made world. With this goal in mind, I initiated a line of inquiry that explores how the use of visual tools (a.k.a., concept maps) might effect pre-service teachersπ ability to develop unified bodies of knowledge that target broad understandings and articulate the peripheral concepts and subordinate details that aid in the construction of knowledge.

Course Context

The study in question was implemented in the context of TECED-460: Advance Curriculum, Methods, and Assessment in Technology Education (3 credits). The purpose of this course is to help students develop the tools and techniques they need to teach concepts, skills, and attitudes in technology education. More specifically, students will learn how to prepare lesson plans, conduct demonstrations, pose questions, facilitate learning activities, assess student understanding, and maintain a learning climate. During this course, students are required to design, conduct, and record at least three lessons on videotape (a.k.a., microteaching). Therefore, under the auspice of this study, students were asked to develop a simple concept map for their microteaching topic. It needed to include the core understanding that they wanted their students to develop during the course of the lesson. It also needed to illustrate the relationships between the key concepts, subordinate concepts, and relevant details that are associated with the topic.

Key Learning Activity

The first step was to develop an outcome statement that defines a core understanding for a given topic. This process involved reviewing the content outline for a microteaching topic and identifying the most important ideas. Students were then instructed to summarize all the important concepts in one simple statement that represents an understanding. Both examples and non-examples were discussed (e.g., writing a sentence that is essentially a list of concepts). Emphasis was placed on making sure the statements were appropriate and meaningful for all learners to master in their preparation for life in a technologically sophisticated society. All the students were asked to place their understanding in the center of a sheet of paper.

The next step in the concept mapping process was to identify the key concepts embedded in the core understanding. The key concepts were the main ideas that are essential to understanding the topic. Students were encouraged to highlight or underline the key concepts so they standout from the other words. Using simple callouts or balloons the students identify the subordinate concepts that are associated with each key concept. Subordinate concepts were operationally defined as the ideas that are essential to understanding each key concept. In some cases there were more than one subordinate concept for a given key concept. Students were also instructed that these concepts are likely to come from the second level of their content outlines. The notion that one cannot claim to understand the key concepts without understanding their subordinate concepts provide a backdrop for this process.

Lastly, student were required to branch off of each subordinate concept with another set of balloons that identified and defined any relevant details that are needed to fully understand each subordinate concept. These balloons featured the details that give each subordinate concept meaning. A person would use these details to discuss or define each subordinate concept.

When finished, each student was supposes to have a concept map that was a simple web of ideas that branch out from a core understanding. They were told one should be able to read the concept map from the inside out and if the work was done especially well, one should also be able to read it from the outside in.

After completing their concept maps, student were asked to reflect on the nature of their work and answer the following questions. Some of their responses required a modest rationale or justification. All their answers were collected and analyzed.

1. Were you tempted to paste your concepts map to wall and look at it when you finished? Please describe your feels upon completion of this task?

2. During the development process, did you have some ideas that did not seem to connect with your other ideas? Pease describe at least one example of a piece of content that just did not seem to fit in as well as the others. How did you handle this extraneous or unrelated idea?

3. Did you uncover the need to add new content to fill in any holes in your concept map? What is an example of an idea that came to you during the course of the concept mapping process?

4. Did you refine your understanding of the topic during the course of developing your concept map? What do you now know about the topic that you did not know before you started?

5. Do you think you now have a better sense of the big ideas as well as the details associated with your lesson topic? How will you use the big ideas in the design and delivery of your microteaching lesson? What role will the details play in your lesson?

6. Do you feel the content of your lesson is more manageable now that you have it all on one sheet of paper? How did the making of a concept map change how you will present the content during your micro teaching lesson?

The studentsπ concept maps were also collected and evaluated based on the following criteria. A simple rubric was used to measure their performance in quantitative terms.

1. The concept map declares a core understanding that is central to the topic.

2. The concept map identifies the key (or major) concepts associated with the topic being addressed.

3. The concept map identifies the subordinate concepts associated with each key concept.

4. The concept map supports each subordinate concept with one or more details.

5. The concept map illustrates the relationships between the salient concepts and skill being addressed (e.g., broad to specific, sequential steps in a process, discrete categories).

6. The concept map is clear and easy to understand.

Key Findings

The analysis of both qualitative (narrative reflections) and quantitative (evaluation scores) data resulted in the following findings.

∑ Students rarely developed valid concepts maps in their first effort. They had to be encouraged to develop their concepts maps in several iterations.

∑ Students made appropriate refinements to their lessons plans as a direct result of the insights that they gained during the mapping process.

∑ Students reported developing concept maps deepened their understanding of the content, uncovered connections between ideas, and helped them enrich and improve their lessons.

∑ The students did not carry the lessons that they learned during their first microteaching lesson into their second microteaching lesson.

The following conclusions were drawn based on the data analysis as well as the findings of this initial inquiry.

∑ Student performance varied as much as the students themselves.

∑ Developing concept maps brought lesson plans to a higher level of refinement.

∑ The gains in student performance can be attributed, at least in part, to additional time on task.

∑ Developing concept maps did call attention to the need to make connections between ideas.

∑ Making concept maps is a viable way to focus student attention on the need to teach for understanding early in the lesson planning process.

∑ Developing concepts maps was perceived to be a meaningful and thought provoking assignment.

Evidence of Student Learning

This initial research effort did not render any solid evidence of genuine learning because the students did not transfer the thought processes associated with concept mapping to new topics without considerable teacher intervention. Very simply, the students did not internalize the ways of thinking that they experienced during the course of the concept mapping process. Therefore, with few exceptions, the development of concept maps did not have a profound impact on the pre-service teachersπ ability to identify core understandings, discriminate between broad understandings and subordinate details, and organize unified bodies of knowledge.

The absence of genuine learning is not surprising because concept mapping requires a tremendous investment of both time and cognitive energy in thinking deeply about the structure and nature of knowledge. This is an extremely challenging task for veteran teachers much less aspiring novices. Consequently, one could theorize that pre-service teachers need to practice these thought processes throughout the course of their teacher education to render any meaningful results. More specifically, given their lack of experience, they need frequent repetition, practice, and reinforcement to make conceptualizing lesson content an integral part of their instruction design process. Furthermore, greater engagement with these thought processes is needed for pre-service teachers to discover for themselves the intrinsic benefits of mapping knowledge in their pursuit of clear thinking. Lastly, their need to truly pursue clear thinking might only emerge when they have to face a classroom full of students.

Helpful Resources

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford Press.

International Technology Education Association (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.

Pearson, G. & Young, A. T. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy.

Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Related Links

Helpful Resources