Concept-mapping dyads produce significantly more re-elaborations (corrections and precisions) of partners' ideas, an indicator of collaborative historical reasoning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q1–q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Re-elaboration of the partner's contributions across historical reasoning components was significantly more frequent in the semiempty concept mapping condition; the discussion estimates up to five times more re-elaborations of causal relationships than in summary writing. → Lucero 2024 q1 i? Re-elaboration is treated by the authors as an indicator of collaborative historical reasoning because it combines historical reasoning and co-construction. → Lucero 2024 (2)

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 · r1

Chi-square test on re-elaboration utterances across reasoning components in the coded corpus; elaboration differences were not significant while re-elaborations were. No effect size printed.

"However, students in the semiempty concept mapping condition expressed more utterances of the reelaboration type (corrections and precisions) in the different components of historical reasoning. The differences were statistically significant (χ2 = 503.73, p < .001)."

Lucero 2024 (2)¶

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

q1 · i? · causal · r1

Authors' discussion statement (interpretation) quantifying the re-elaboration contrast as up to five times more in concept mapping; many re-elaborations involved justifications of causal and motivational relations.

"Students who completed a semiempty concept map produced up to five times more re-elaborations of causal relationships than the students who wrote a summary."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Summary-writing dyads produce more utterances overall, but most reflect mechanical dictation and copying rather than historical reasoning — related
• Interaction during semiempty concept mapping shows higher transactivity: less elicitation and more externalization and integration than summary writing — related
• Students collaborating on a semiempty concept map engage more in causal explanation and argumentation, while summary-writing dyads engage more in contextualization — related
• Semiempty concept mapping dyads use substantive historical and metahistorical concepts more often than summary-writing dyads — related
• Middle episodes of wiki text generation show a cumulative orientation, later with co-construction, in which students expand and re-elaborate each other's ideas — related
• Teacher-guided whole-class discussions show more contextualization, explanatory questions, and abstract concepts than student dyad discussions — related