Self-constructing a complete concept map produces better delayed recall than completing, sorting a map, or writing a summary, with the largest effect in the I+C structure¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 CM self-construction significantly outperformed the other tasks in delayed recall (F(3, 223) = 7.1, p <.001, η² = 0.20), with an especially high effect in the I+C structure (F(3, 24) = 14.7, η² = 0.65). → Amante 2026

Evidence¶

Amante 2026¶

Amante, C., Lucero, M., & Montanero, M. (2026). Learning with concept maps: the effect of activity structure and the type of task. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09764-1

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Task-type main effect from the two-way ANOVA of the 12-condition study: self-constructed CM beat the other three tasks in recall ("F (3, 223) = 7.1, p <.001, η2 = 0.20"); comprehension differences were not significant.

"the students who created a complete concept map based on an academic text obtained better results in the comprehension post-test and in the delayed recall of ideas than in the rest of the tasks. However, this advantage was only statistically significant, once again, in the recall scores: F (3, 223) = 7.1, p <.001, η2 = 0.20."

Amante 2026 (2)¶

Amante, C., Lucero, M., & Montanero, M. (2026). Learning with concept maps: the effect of activity structure and the type of task. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09764-1

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Within the I+C structure the task effect on recall was especially large ("F (3, 24) = 14.7, p <.001, η2 = 0.65"), reported in the Results section of the same ANOVA study.

"The effect size of CM creation was especially high in the I + C structure: F (3, 24) = 14.7, p <.001, η2 = 0.65."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• An individual-then-collaborative activity structure (I+C) yields better delayed recall than collaborative-then-individual (C+I) and fully individual (I) structures — related
• Self-constructed collaborative concept maps trigger more deep exploratory talk and less non-dialogic talk than completing or sorting maps, which yield mostly superficial exploratory talk — related
• Summary writing produced no significant comprehension improvement and the most disputational talk, and did not significantly differ from completing a map in learning outcomes — related
• Task type and activity structure interact on recall: self-constructed maps help mainly when individually prepared and then discussed in pairs — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Learner-constructed graphic organizers are not shown to outperform provided ones: the one direct test, with college readers, favoured provided organizers on transfer — a broader claim this one bears on
• Concept mapping improves learning over most comparison conditions by a moderate average amount, but not over time-matched retrieval practice — a broader claim this one bears on
• Technology type, collaboration level, and intervention duration show no significant differences in concept-mapping effects — reports the opposite