Concept maps and simulations in a computer system for learning Psychology

  1. Javier González Marqués 1
  2. Carlos Pelta 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
European journal of education and psychology

ISSN: 1888-8992,  1989-2209

Any de publicació: 2017

Volum: 10

Número: 1

Pàgines: 33-39

Tipus: Article

DOI: 10.1016/J.EJEPS.2016.07.002 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Altres publicacions en: European journal of education and psychology

Resum

PSICO-A is a computer system for learning Psychology. It is specially designed for secondary school children. It is the first system in Psychology designed for learning didactic units of the subjects. PSICO-A is based on many pedagogical influences, such as concept maps, free retrieval practice, effective feedback, simulations, digital games, and metacognition. A significant improvement has been shown in the conceptual performance in those children that constructed computer-generated maps using the system compared to those that have drawn them by hand. An evaluation was also made of the interactions between concept mapping and simulations, demonstrating that the first group of pupils performed better in simulations than the second group. Further studies are needed to study the influence of these two conditions of concept mapping on the performance od digital games.

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R.(2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1---18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
  • Alonso, J. (2012). Psicología. Bachillerato. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
  • Anderson-Inman, L., & Ditson, L. (1999). Computer based concept mapping: A tool for negotiating meaning. Learning and Leading with Technology, 26, 6---13.
  • Anderson-Inman, L., & Zeitz, L. (1993). Computer-based concept mapping: Active studying for active learner. The Computer Teacher, 6---8, 10---11.
  • Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
  • Ausubel, D. P. (2002). Adquisición y retención del conocimiento. Una perspectiva cognitiva. Barcelona: Paidós.
  • Azevedo, R., Witherspoon, A., Chauncey, A., Burkett, C., & Fike,A. (2009). MetaTutor: A metacognitive tool for enhancing self-regulated learning. In R. Pirrone, R. Azevedo, & G. Biswas (Eds.), Proceedings of the AAI fall symposium on cognitive and metacognitive educational systems. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, http://dx.org/995-4214-1-PB.pdf
  • Bai, X., Black, J. B., & Vitale, J. (2007). REAL: Learn with the assistance of a reflective agent. Agent-based systems for human learning conference, Hawaii.
  • Black, J. B. (1992). Types of knowledge representation. New York: CCTE Report Teachers College, Columbia University.
  • Cañas, A. (2004). CmapTools: A knowledge modelling and sharing environment. pp. 125---133. Pamplona: UPN., http://dx.doi.org/cmc.ihmc.us/papers/cmc2004-283.pdf
  • Chang, K., Sung, Y., & Chen, S. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 21---33.
  • Charsky, D., & Mims, C. (2008). Integrating commercial off-the-shelf video games into school curriculums. TechTrends, 52,38---44.
  • Charsky, D., & Ressler, W. (2011). Games are made for fun: Lessons on the effect of concept maps in the classroom use of computer games. Computers & Education, 56, 604---615.
  • Crespi, L. P. (1942). Quantitative variation of incentive and performance in the white rat. The American Journal of Psychology, 55, 467---517.
  • Davis, J. M., Leelawong, K., Belynne, K., Bodenheimer, R.,Biswas, G., Vye, N., et al. (2003). Intelligent user interface design for teachable agent systems. In ICIUI (pp. 26---33), doi:10.1.1.14.8457.pdf.
  • Del Bimbo, A., & Vicario, E. (1995). Specification by-example of virtual agents’ behavior. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 1, 350---360.
  • Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2008). Metacognition. London: SAGE.
  • Finke, R. A. (1989). Interpretation of imagery-induced McCollough effects. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 94---95.
  • Forbus, K., & Gentner, D. (1997). Qualitative mental models: Simulations or memories? In Proceedings of the 11th workshop on qualitative reasoning (pp. 1---8).
  • Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. (1983). Introduction. In D. Gentner, & A.Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 1---6). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
  • Glynn, S. M., Yeany, B. K., & Britton, R. H. (Eds.). (1991). The psychology of learning science. London: Routledge.
  • González Marqués, J., & Pelta, C. (2013). PSICO-A: A computational system for learning psychology. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 5, 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2013.10.01
  • Greenfield, P. M. (2010). Video games revisited. In R. van Eck (Ed.), Gaming and cognition: Theories and perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 1---21). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  • Hagemans, M. G., van der Meij, H., & de Jong, T. (2013). The effects of a concept map-based support tool on simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105,1---24.
  • Hull, C. L. (1952). A behavior system: An introduction to behavior theory concerning the individual organism. North Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
  • Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. London: Routledge.
  • Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772---775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327
  • Lerdorf, R., Tatroe, K., & MacIntyre, P. (2006). Programming PHP (2nd ed.). New York: O’Reilly Media.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning. American Psychologist, 59, 14---19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
  • Mayor, J., Suengas, A., & González Marqués, J. (1993). (Metacognitive strategies) Estrategias metacognitivas. Madrid: Síntesis.
  • Novak, J. (1977). A theory of education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Novak, J. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools for schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
  • Plotnick, E. (1997). Concept mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts (report No. EDO-IR-97-05). Syracuse, NY: Center for Science and Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED407938).
  • Roediger, H. L., Agarwal, P. K., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott,K. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 382---395.
  • Royer, R., & Royer, J. (2004). Comparing hand drawn and computer generated concept mapping. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(1), 67---81.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 569---600.
  • Schau, C., Mattern, N., Zeilik, M., Teague, K. W., & Weber, R. J.(2001). Select-and-fill-in concept map scores as a measure ofstudents’ connected understanding of science. Educational & Psychology Measurement, 61(1), 136---158.
  • Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4, 592---604, http//dx.doi.org/worthylab.tamu.edu/Courses files/Generation%20EffectSlamecka
  • Thomas, R., & Neilson, I. (1995). Harnessing simulations in the service of education: Interact simulation environment. Computers & Education, 25, 21---29.
  • Zeitz, L., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1992). The effects of computer-based formative concept mapping on learning high schoolscience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet