An ICAP theory article reports, second-hand and without describing the design, a study in which concept mapping with a peer enhanced learning more than concept mapping alone¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Concept mapping with a peer (Interactive) enhances learning more than concept mapping alone (Constructive), as reported in the literature the article cites. → Chi 2018

Evidence¶

Chi 2018¶

Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice. Cognitive Science, 42. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626

q2 · i? · design · r2

The article reports, citing prior ICAP papers, a study comparing concept-mapping alone versus concept-mapping with a peer, showing that "doing so collaboratively enhances learning more than doing it individually", supporting the I > C pairwise comparison. The study's design is not described beyond this summary.

"using the same task of concept mapping, a study that compared concept-mapping alone (that can be interpreted as typically a generatively/ Constructively engaging activity) and concept-mapping with a peer (a collaboratively/ Interactively engaging activity), shows that doing so collaboratively enhances learning more than doing it individually"

Discussion¶

The only entry is Chi et al.'s (2018) one-sentence summary of a prior study they cite; its design, sample, outcome and effect size are not given, so the Interactive-over-Constructive comparison rests here on a second-hand report. The cited primary study has not been identified or read for this page.

Related Claims¶

• Learner-constructed graphic organizers are not shown to outperform provided ones: the one direct test, with college readers, favoured provided organizers on transfer — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Discussion promotes more active thinking than lecture, though lecture is no worse for transmitting information — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Collaborative Learning Improves Outcomes — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Concept mapping improves learning over most comparison conditions by a moderate average amount, but not over time-matched retrieval practice — related
• Constructive learning beats active and passive learning — related
• A descriptive report defines peer assisted learning and asserts, without a tested result, that it promotes knowledge construction, collaboration ability and interpersonal interaction — related
• Cooperative Learning Improves Achievement — related
• The ICAP hypothesis predicts that learning increases as engagement moves from passive to active to constructive to interactive (I>C>A>P) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Increased information sharing appears to be the reason collaboration support enhances the added value of collaborative diagnosis — related
• A review chapter (Karpicke 2017) reports, second-hand, experiments in which retrieval practice produced more learning than concept mapping (Karpicke & Blunt 2011) and than imagery strategies such as the keyword mnemonic (Karpicke & Smith 2012) — reports the opposite
• Pre-service teachers' collaborative diagnostic accuracy does not per se exceed individual diagnostic accuracy, but collaboration support can significantly enhance the added value of collaborative diagnosis — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• No evidence for a mapping between representational format and enhancement of a specific kind of understanding — related
• Triads with access to each other's concept maps were more efficient in collaborative problem solving — related
• Technology type, collaboration level, and intervention duration show no significant differences in concept-mapping effects — reports the opposite