• Like
33 using dual mapping learning approach
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

33 using dual mapping learning approach

  • 783 views
Published

 

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
783
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • 09

Transcript

  • 1. Using dual-mapping learning approach to visualize the connection between problem solving and knowledge construction Bian WU CITE Research Symposium 2011  HKU
  • 2. Contents
    • 1 Introduction
    • 2 Literature review
    • 3 Learning approach design
    • 4 Future work
  • 3.
    • 1 Introduction
      • 1.1 Problem statement
      • 1.2 Research goal
  • 4.
      • Cause of problem
      • The connection between problem solving solution and problem solver’s knowledge base is like a “ black box ”, for both tutors and learners.
      • Obstacle for instruction
      • Mystery of this connection does little help to support learners in the development of professional expertise (Kinchin, 2008).
      • Possible solution
      • Designing appropriate tools (techniques) to externalize problem solver’s mental activities (i.e. open the “black box”). ( Hoffman & Lintern, 2006)
    1.1 Problem statement Kinchin, I. M., Cabot, L. B., & Hay, D. B. (2008). Using concept mapping to locate the tacit dimension of clinical expertise: towards a theoretical framework to support critical reflection on teaching. Learning in Health & Social Care, 7(2), 93-104. Hoffman, K., Hosokawa, M., Blake, R., Jr., Headrick, L., & Johnson, G. (2006). Problem-based learning outcomes: ten years of experience at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine. Acad Med, 81(7), 617-625.
  • 5.
      • General focus
        • Study the development of professional expertise (e.g. clinical problem solving competence) in terms of problem solving skill and personal knowledge construction from epistemological perspective.
      • Aim of the study
        • Propose a tentative learning approach in support of problem solving and knowledge construction based on proper theories;
        • Implement this learning approach by designing an online learning environment
        • Assess learners behavior on the environment to prove the effectiveness of the approach
    1.2 Research goal
  • 6.
    • 2 Literature Review
      • 2.1 Problem solving & knowledge construction
      • Term clarification
      • Mutual relation
      • 2.2 Previous studies on problem solving expertise development
      • Instructional strategies to develop problem solving expertise
      • Possible solutions to externalize mental models
      • Dual mapping to visualize connections
  • 7.
      • Term clarification of problem solving
        • Investigate or analyze the cause or nature of a condition or problem (Webster Dictionary, 1977)
        • Use of incoming information to guide subsequent data acquisition and tends to foster more speculation in judgment (Morgan and Engel, 1969)
        • Heavily knowledge-dependent that expertise in problem solving develops in line with the evolution of the domain knowledge base (Groves, 2008)
    2.1 Problem solving & knowledge construction(1) Morgan and G.L. Engel (1969). The Clinical Approach to the Patient, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia Groves, M. (2008). The diagnostic process in medical practice. New York: Nova Biomedical Books.
  • 8.
      • Term clarification of knowledge construction
        • Through processes of accommodation and assimilation, individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences (Piaget, 1950)
        • Knowledge construction includes assembling of knowledge, knowledge being sorted out, refined, or reorganized (Seel, 2003)
        • Knowledge construction during problem solving (not during instruction) (Phye, 2001)
        • Reconstruction of old knowledge base plus the dynamic construction of new knowledge based on old reconstructed knowledge base
    2.1 Problem solving & knowledge construction(2) Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Phye, G. D. (2001). Problem-solving instruction and problem-solving transfer: The correspondence issue. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 571-578. Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-Centered Learning and Instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1 , 59-85.
  • 9.
      • Mutual relation
        • From problem solving to knowledge construction
        • A model of successful learning: Adaptive experts are continually learning and updating their knowledge based on their experiences with novel problems and situational demands (Bransford et al., 1999; Schwatz et al., 2005).
        • From knowledge construction to problem solving
        • Knowledge base reconstruction is a primary antecedent for the construction of a solution in a problem-solving context (Phye, 2001; Norman, 2005; Schmidt, 2006).
        • Externalize the connection between problem solving and knowledge construction is utmost important in learning (Grave et al., 1996; Kinchin et al., 2008)
    2.1 Problem solving & knowledge construction(3)
  • 10.
      • Instructional strategies to develop problem solving expertise
        • Previous studies
      • Experience (Dewey, 1938); Practice with feedback (Gagné, 1985); Failure (Schank, 1989); Deliberate practice (Ericcson, 2008)
        • Limitations
        • Knowledge construction is often neglected (Norman, 2005)
        • Knowledge transfer is difficult(Patel, Yoskowitz, & Arocha, 2007)
        • Assessment focuses more on problem solving performance, but not on conceptual change (Spector, 2003)
        • Causes
        • F ails to consider problem solvers’ mental model (i.e. working memory, long-term memory, or the intricate relations between them) (Kirschner et al., 2006; Neville, 2009)
    2.2 Problem solving expertise development(1)
  • 11.
      • Possible solutions to externalize mental models
        • Think aloud protocol (Ericsson, 1998)
        • Knowledge visualization (Spector, 2006)
        • Argument map to present problem solving solution (Fox, et al., 2007; Rittel & Webber, 1984; Kirschner et al., 2003)
        • Concept map to present domain knowledge base (Novak & Canas, 2006; Pinto & Zeitz, 1997)
    2.2 Problem solving expertise development(2)
  • 12.
      • Dual mapping to visualize connections
    Working memory Long-term memory Incoming information Retrieve Store Knowledge construction Problem solving Argument mapping Concept mapping ? Knowledge base Solution Mental activity Physical activity 2.2 Problem solving expertise development(3)
  • 13.
    • 3 Learning approach design
      • 3.1 Conceptual framework
      • 3.2 Dual mapping learning process modelling
      • 3.3 Prototype design
      • 3.4 “ELICIT” principles to guide the design
  • 14.
      • Interactions between three types of systems, i.e. internal conceptual systems; representational systems and external systems (Seel, 2003)
    3.1 Conceptual framework Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-centered learning and instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 59-85.
  • 15. EA 3.2 Dual mapping learning process modelling
  • 16. 3.3 Prototype design (1) Argument map Problem solving context
  • 17. 3.3 Prototype design (2) Argument map Concept map Previous argument map
  • 18.
        • (E)xplict goals
        • Using dual-mapping(argument mapping & concept mapping) to improve problem solving performance and domain knowledge understanding
        • (L)earning activities
        • Information obtaining(action selection, action justification, information identification, ...); argument mapping; concept mapping
        • (I)nteresting information
        • Integrating relevant information in the map will be useful
        • (C)lear connections
        • Describing connections through links, text, and icons
        • Structuring connections to make thinking process clear
        • (I)ntegrated overview
        • Simple map interface via pre-defined filtering, or highlighting technique
        • Big picture to visualize the connections among the most relevant points
        • (T)rail as marked route
        • Tracing learning pathway
    3.4 “ELICIT”principles to guide the design Okada, A. (2010). Eliciting Thinking Skills with Inquiry Maps inn CLE. In P. L. Torres & R. d. C. V. Marriott (Eds.), Handbook of research on collaborative learning using concept mapping. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
  • 19.
    • 4 Future work
      • 4.1 Evaluation method
      • 4.2 Further study
  • 20.
        • RQ: What is the effect of the dual mapping learning tool on problem solving performance and problem solver’s domain knowledge?
          • 30 medical students of year 2 or above
          • Randomly assigned into two groups
          • 4 kidney cases, 1hr/case
          • case1 (pre-test), case2 & case3 (learning), case4 (post-test)
          • control group: text-based
          • experimental group: dual mapping tool
          • Assessment:
          • 5 problem solving questions of the test case
          • 5 questions of domain knowledge
          • 2 domain experts as independent raters
    4.1 Evaluation method
  • 21.
      • How do students develop problem solving expertise as they adopt dual-mapping learning approach to learn problem solving?
      • How can students be effectively scaffolded when they adopt the dual-mapping learning approach to learn problem solving?
    4.2 Further study
  • 22.
      • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
      • Ericsson, K. A. (2008). Deliberate Practice and Acquisition of Expert Performance: A General Overview. Academic Emergency
      • Kirschner, P. A. (2003). Visualizing argumentation : software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
      • Norman, G. R. (2005). Editorial - Beyond PBL. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9, 257-260.
      • Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. J. (2006). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them. Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
      • Patel, V. L., Yoskowitz, N. A., & Arocha, J. F. (2007). Towards effective evaluation and reform in medical education: a cognitive and learning sciences perspective. Adv Health Sci Educ.
      • Schmidt, H. J. (2006). Alternative approaches to concept mapping and implications for medical education: Commentary on reliability, validity and future research directions. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(1), 69-76.
      • Spector, J. M. (2006). A methodology for assessing learning in complex and ill-structured task domains. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(2), 109-120.
    References
  • 23. Thank You ! Comments and suggestions are welcome
  • 24. BACK Node observation Node generation
  • 25. BACK Structuring reasoning link Simplifying concept node link Connection across maps
  • 26. BACK Hide justification Hide evidence Highlight nodes Adjust weights of Hx Support CBR
  • 27.
      • Logfile data of user records
    BACK