Concept mapping shows a large effect for low-achieving students (g = 2.019) and moderate effect for high-achieving students (g = 0.610), not significantly different¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? In a secondary meta-analysis restricted to exceptional learners, the mean effect was large for low-achieving students (g = 2.019; k = 5) and moderate for high-achieving students (g = 0.610; k = 4), with no significant between-group difference. → Dimitris Anastasiou · Clare Nangsin Wirngo · Pantelis Bagos 2024
Evidence¶
Dimitris Anastasiou · Clare Nangsin Wirngo · Pantelis Bagos 2024¶
Dimitris Anastasiou · Clare Nangsin Wirngo · Pantelis Bagos. (2024). The Effectiveness of Concept Maps on Students' Achievement in Science: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09877-y
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Secondary meta-analysis including only studies with clearly defined low-achieving or high-achieving experimental and control groups; "the between-groups differences did not reach statistical significance" due to few studies.
"The mean effect size was large for low-achieving students (g = 2.019; k = 5) and moderate for high-achieving students (g = 0.610; k = 4), even though the between-groups differences did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.261)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Concept mapping has a moderate overall positive effect on science achievement for elementary and secondary students (g = 0.776) — a broader claim this one bears on
- High teaching guidance in concept mapping yields larger effects than low guidance, though marginal after excluding influential studies — related
- Concept-mapping effect sizes vary by science subject (physics/earth science g = 1.040, biology g = 0.671, chemistry g = 0.590) but not significantly — related
- Five of seven situation-model interventions significantly improved relative metacomprehension accuracy, concept mapping only marginally (p = .097), and self-explaining not significantly — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
concept-maps-large-effect-low-achieving-students |
title |
Concept mapping shows a large effect for low-achieving students (g = 2.019) and moderate effect for high-achieving students (g = 0.610), not significantly different |
description |
Concept mapping shows a large effect for low-achieving students (g = 2.019) and moderate effect for high-achieving students (g = 0.610), not significantly different |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — dimitris-anastasiou-clare-nangsin-wirngo-pantelis-bagos-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.