Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Background
- Part II Theoretical Foundations
- Part III Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning
- Part IV Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part V Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part VI Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
- Part VII Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning
- 28 The Generative Activity Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 29 The Mapping Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 30 The Drawing Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 31 The Imagination Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 32 The Self-Explanation Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 33 The Guided Inquiry Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 34 The Feedback Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 35 The Learner Control Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 36 The Cognitive Load Self-Management Principle in Multimedia Learning
- Part VIII Multimedia Learning with Media
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
29 - The Mapping Principle in Multimedia Learning
from Part VII - Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Background
- Part II Theoretical Foundations
- Part III Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning
- Part IV Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part V Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part VI Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
- Part VII Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning
- 28 The Generative Activity Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 29 The Mapping Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 30 The Drawing Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 31 The Imagination Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 32 The Self-Explanation Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 33 The Guided Inquiry Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 34 The Feedback Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 35 The Learner Control Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 36 The Cognitive Load Self-Management Principle in Multimedia Learning
- Part VIII Multimedia Learning with Media
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses the mapping and collaborative mapping principles in multimedia learning. The mapping principle states that people learn more deeply from verbal information when they translate and integrate the information into a combined verbal and visuospatial format. The collaborative mapping principle is an extension of the mapping principle and states that people learn more deeply from cognitively demanding verbal information when they interact with others to jointly translate and integrate the information into a combined verbal and visuospatial format. In addition to describing the process of concept mapping, when it can be used, and the theoretical rationale for the two principles, the chapter systematically reviews the landscape of research findings for individual and collaborative concept mapping. Individual and collaborative concept mapping are both effective compared with other learning methods, yielding moderate and large statistically detectable weighted mean effect sizes, respectively.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 351 - 359Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2010). A systematic review of research on collaborative learning with concept maps. In Torres, P. L., & Marriott, R. V. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Collaborative Learning Using Concept Mapping (pp. 238–255). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250–263.Google Scholar
Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87, 659–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basque, J., & Lavoie, M. C. (2006). Collaborative concept mapping in education: Major research trends. In Canas, A. J., & Novak, J. D. (eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology, In Proceedings of 2006 Second International Conference on Concept Mapping (pp. 79–86). Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica, Sección de Impresión del SIEDIN.Google Scholar
Blunt, J. R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Learning with retrieval-based concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 849–858.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.Google Scholar
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, 1777–1832.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219–243.Google Scholar
Dansereau, D. F., & Dees, S. M. (2002). Mapping training: The transfer of a cognitive technology for improving counseling. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Spontaneous spatial strategy use in learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 66–79.Google Scholar
Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213–232.Google Scholar
Gao, H., Shen, E., Losh, S., & Turner, J. (2007). A review of studies on collaborative concept mapping – What have we learned about the technique and what is next. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18, 479–492.Google Scholar
Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77, 95–111.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiewra, K. A. (2005). Learn How to Study and SOAR to Success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano, R. J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13, 213–233.Google Scholar
Maker, C. J., & Zimmerman, R. H. (2020). Concept maps as assessments of expertise: Understanding of the complexity and interrelationships of concepts in science. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31, 254–297.Google Scholar
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.Google Scholar
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.Google Scholar
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2013). Concept maps for learning: Theory, research, and design. In Schraw, G., McCrudden, M., & Robinson, D. (eds.), Learning through Visual Displays (pp. 303–328). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937–949.Google Scholar
Novak, J. D. (2013). Concept mapping. In Hattie, J., & Anderman, E. M. (eds.), International Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 362–365). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 117–153.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86.Google Scholar
Okebukola, P. A. (1990). Attaining meaningful learning of concepts in genetics and ecology: An examination of the potency of the concept-mapping technique. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riahi, Z., & Pourdana, N. (2017). Effective reading comprehension in EFL contexts: Individual and collaborative concept mapping strategies. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8, 51.Google Scholar
Ritchhart, R., Turner, T., & Hadar, L. (2009). Uncovering students’ thinking about thinking using concept maps. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 145–159.Google Scholar
Roessger, K. M., Daley, B. J., & Hafez, D. A. (2018). Effects of teaching concept mapping using practice, feedback, and relational framing. Learning and Instruction, 54, 11–21.Google Scholar
Schroeder, N. L., Nesbit, J. C., Anguiano, C. J., & Adesope, O. O. (2018). Studying and constructing concept maps: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 431–455.Google Scholar
Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoyanova, N., & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13, 111–133.Google Scholar
Sundararajan, N., Adesope, O., & Cavagnetto, A. (2018). The process of collaborative concept mapping in kindergarten and the effect on critical thinking skills. Journal of STEM Education, 19(1), 5–13.Google Scholar
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M. C. (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Winne, P. H., Nesbit, J. C., Ram, I., Marzouk, Z., Vytasek, J., Samadi, D., & Stewart, J. (2017). Tracing metacognition by highlighting and tagging to predict recall and transfer. AERA Online Paper Repository. Available from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED597072 (accessed October 1, 2020).Google Scholar
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.Google Scholar
Won, M., Krabbe, H., Ley, S. L., Treagust, D. F., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). Science teachers’ use of a concept map marking guide as a formative assessment tool for the concept of energy. Educational Assessment, 22, 95–110.Google Scholar