Interaction during semiempty concept mapping shows higher transactivity: less elicitation and more externalization and integration than summary writing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Summary-writing dyads used more elicitation whereas concept-mapping dyads used more externalization and integration utterances, indicating a higher level of co-construction in the concept mapping condition. → Lucero 2024

Evidence¶

Lucero 2024¶

Lucero, M., Montanero, M., & van Boxtel, C. (2024). Semiempty collaborative concept mapping in history education: students' engagement in historical reasoning and coconstruction. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09659-7

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Chi-square analysis of coded co-construction modes in the 10-dyad corpus; integration was 45.3% of concept-mapping utterances versus 18.1% in summary writing. Percentages are printed descriptively; no effect size is reported.

"Focusing on the types of transactivity, Chi-square analyses revealed significant differences between the conditions (χ 2 = 393.68, p < .001). Students in the summary writing condition used more elicitation (36.8% summary; 12.4% concept map) and less externalization (22.2% summary; 41.9% concept map) and integration (18.1% summary; 45.3% concept map) than students in the concept mapping condition."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Summary-writing dyads produce more utterances overall, but most reflect mechanical dictation and copying rather than historical reasoning — related
• Semiempty concept mapping dyads use substantive historical and metahistorical concepts more often than summary-writing dyads — related
• Students collaborating on a semiempty concept map engage more in causal explanation and argumentation, while summary-writing dyads engage more in contextualization — related
• Concept-mapping dyads produce significantly more re-elaborations (corrections and precisions) of partners' ideas, an indicator of collaborative historical reasoning — related
• Age groups differ in ICAP engagement distribution: younger adults engage more in active mode, older adults more in constructive and interactive modes, during collaborative concept-map learning — related
• Evaluative questions elicit more historical reasoning than explanatory questions — related
• Teacher-guided whole-class discussions show more contextualization, explanatory questions, and abstract concepts than student dyad discussions — related