Skip to main content
Log in

A comparative critique of several methods of collecting data for cognitive mapping

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Cognitive mapping by learners for various research purposes is assisted if the appropriate technique is used with learners at different stages of schooling and with varying degrees of understanding of a content field and of related content fields. There are however, techniques now available which appear to be usable by learners in primary, secondary and tertiary education.

The use of the elucidatory interview is an exciting new tool for science educators. It is not, however, an easy one to use and our own experience suggests that a challenging combination of experince and naivety is needed for it to have optimal benefit as a means of rich data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • CRONIN, P.J., DEKKERS, J. and DUNN, J.G. A procedure for using and evaluating concept maps.Research in Science Education, 1982, 12, 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • FENSHAM, P.J., GARRARD, J.E. and WEST, L.H.T. The Use of Cognitive Mapping in Teaching and Learning Strategies.Research in Science Education, 1981, 11, 121–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • HEFFERNAN, M. The Measurement of Understanding. Unpublished M.Ed. thesis, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • PINES, A.L. Scientific concept learning in children: the effect of prior knowledge on resulting cognitive structure subsequent to A-T instruction. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • PINES, A.L., NOVAK, I.D., POSNER, G.J. and VAN KIRK, J.The Clinical Interview: A Method for Evaluating Cognitive Structure, No. 6, Curriculum Series Research report, Department of Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • SYMINGTON, D. and NOVAK, J.D. Teaching children how to learn — Part I and Part II. To be published inEducation Magazine, September, 1982.

  • WEST, L.H.T. Towards descriptions of the cognitive structures of science students. pp. 342–348, In W.F. Archenbold, R.H. Driver, A. Orton and C. Wood-Robinson. (eds.)Cognitive structure Research in Science and Mathematics, Leeds: University of Leeds, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • WEST, L.H.T. and FENSHAM, P.J. What is Learning in Chemistry? In C.L. FOGLIANA and J.R. McKELLAR (eds.)Chemical Education — a view across the Secondary-Tertiary Interface, 162–169, Mitchell College of Advanced Education, Bathurst, N.S.W.: Mitchell, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • WEST, L.H.T., FENSHAM, P.J. and GERRARD, J.E.Describing the Cognitive Structure of Undergraduate Chemistry Students, Final Report to E.R.D.C., H.E.A.R.U., Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fensham, P.J., Garrard, J. & West, L. A comparative critique of several methods of collecting data for cognitive mapping. Research in Science Education 12, 9–16 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357008

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357008

Keywords

Navigation