ASM events
This conference is managed by the American Society for Microbiology
Table of contents
No headers


1. BouJaoude, S., & Attieh, M. (2008). The effect of using concept maps as study tools on achievement in chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 233–246. 

This paper provides evidence of the utility of concepts maps as both quantitative and qualitative analysis, and that using concept maps as assessment tools is supported by constructivist learning theory. The authors studied the use of concept maps both as instructional tools and as assessment tools. They compared student test results to student concept map constructions and found that correct answers on higher-order test questions and concept map scores. This study provides support for the methods of my paper--that concept maps are valid and reliable in terms of demonstrating student understanding. 


2. Cohen, D. (1987). The Use of Concept Maps to Represent Unique Thought Processes: Toward More Meaningful Learning. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2(3), 285–89. 

This paper is a commentary/report rather than a full research article, but it provides good background on the rationale of my manuscript: that concept maps let students externalize relationships between concepts and can provide a lot of insights into their thought processes--that even though different students may have the same "right answer", they get to it in different cognitive ways. This connects to the rationale of my paper that concept maps can reveal how students are thinking about the central dogma. 


3. Hay, D., Kinchin, I., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008). Making learning visible: the role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295–311. 

This is an extensive literature review with synthesis of common practices when using and scoring concept maps. The main point of this paper that connects to my manuscript is that concept maps reveal changes in learning structures, and that a number of methods for scoring having been developed to assess the quality of changes in student knowledge construction. 


4. Herl, H. E., O’Neil Jr, H. F., Chung, G., & Schacter, J. (1999). Reliability and validity of a computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure content understanding. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(3), 315–333. 

The authors of this study examined the feasibility and validity of scoring concept maps. One of their main conclusions supports my chosen method: propositional scoring (considering each proposition of a concept map separately) provided the most reliable results. 


5. Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2010). What’s in a cell?—Young people’s understanding of the genetic relationship between cells, within an individual. Journal of Biological Education, 34(3), 129–132. 

This study provides evidence for the rationale of my experiment--that students have misconceptions about fundamental biological processes. The authors examined students' understanding of what cells are (and what chromosomes and genes are in other papers published the same year) and found that students retain a lot of misconceptions about concepts that are considered to be foundational to the discipline. 


6. McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475–492. 

This was an extremely thorough study examining the validity and reliability of a number of concept map scoring methods, and so this paper provides evidence for my chosen scoring methods. They concluded that considering propositions separately (rather than considering the entire concept map as a whole), also known as relational scoring, led to less scoring variability. 


7. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge. Concept MapsTM as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Mahwaw: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved from 

The syntheses in this literature review present two conclusions that are relevant to my manuscript: that concept maps are better than tests at detecting misconceptions (and so provide rationale for my study), and that the number of concepts used in a concept mapping task should be 20-30 (providing support for my study design). 


8. Rebich, S., & Gautier, C. (2005). Concept mapping to reveal prior knowledge and conceptual change in a mock summit course on global climate change. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 355. 

This study used concept maps to analyze conceptual changes that students undergo when engaging in a Mock Environmental Summit classroom activity. The use of this paper to my own study is that it demonstrates that concept maps let students externalize relationships without presupposing that students have mastered the same material in the same ways. It also provides further rationale for the propositional scoring method, as the quality of propositions increased from pre- to post-test. 


9. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques*. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260–278. 

This study analyzed the effectiveness of different forms of concept mapping. Their conclusion that more open ended concept maps (that is, the linking verbs are not provided) provide more insights into student understanding compared to mapping tasks that provide students with linking verbs. In my experiment, I didn't provide linking verbs, so this article provides experimental support for this method. 


10. Wright, L. K., Fisk, J. N., & Newman, D. L. (2014). DNA → RNA: What Do Students Think the Arrow Means? CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 338–348.

This study will provide literature context for my discussion section. The authors examined whether or not students understand the canonical central dogma arrow diagram. They determined that students had many misunderstandings about what the arrows mean. This supports and provides context for one my main findings: that students showed the greatest gains on their concept maps in the connections between transcription, RNA polymerase, RNA, and promoters. All of these results add to our understanding of the difficulties (and opportunities for learning) that students have with central dogma, and transcription in particular.


Tag page
You must login to post a comment.