Concept Mapping as a
Research Tool to Evaluate
Teacher Candidates
Conceptual Understanding of
Special Education
Gliset Colon, Buffalo Public Schools
Sarah Howorth, Mercyhurst University
Riza Ozdemir, Doctoral Scholar UB
Sharon Raimondi, University at Buffalo
CEC Teacher Education Division
Tempe, AZ
11/5/15
While you are waiting
Create a concept map that represents your knowledge
on special education – respond to the prompt:
What do you know about special
education?
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create a concept map
Briefly discuss need
Share literature
Discuss our project
Share research findings
Provide recommendations
Need
• An alternate to traditional measurement – tests,
quizzes
• A way to measure higher level conceptual
knowledge
• Concept maps are one alternative
Research Questions
• What is the conceptual knowledge of
preservice teacher educators regarding special
education?
• What are the effects of a 3 credit mandated
course on the conceptual knowledge of special
education held by preservice teacher
educators?
Participants
Individuals seeking initial teacher certification
•Undergraduate preservice teachers N=?
•Graduate preservice teachers N=?
•Does not include individuals seeking special
education certification
•This incudes:
• Early childhood
• Childhood
• Secondary – Math, History, English, ELL content
• Librarians
6
Demographics
Gender
Total
M
F
Undergrad
1
8
9
Graduate
5
10
15
Total
6
18
24
Age Range: 22-28
Undergraduate ~ Education Minor
Graduates ~ Seeking Teacher Cert
• Librarians
• Early Childhood
• Childhood
• Music
• Secondary
• English
• Social Studies
Setting
• Research 1 Institution
• Located in Suburbs of Large Urban City
• 3 sections of Mandated Course
Format
Total N
Participants
%
1 On-line
11
5
46%
1 On-line
16
5
31%
1 Face-to-Face
17
14
82%
Total
44
24
55%
8
Instructors
• 1 Full Professor, 40 years of experience
• 3 Doctoral Scholars
• 1 section, face-to-face ~ co-taught (doctoral scholar,
advisor)
Competencies – Mandated Course
1. Categories of disabilities
2. Identification and remediation of disabilities
3. The special education process, State/Federal special
education laws/regulations, and Response to
Intervention (RTI)
4. Individualizing instruction (IEP, Instructional models)
5. Applying positive behavioral supports and
interventions to address student and classroom
management needs (PBIS)
6. Effective practice for planning and designing
co-teaching and collaboration with peers
Methodology
• Pre-Post Design
• Instrument ~ Concept Maps
• Measured
• Quantitative
• Qualitative
Quality Scoring Rubric
0
Zero or one node; represents no development of concept
1
Represents a novice/beginning level of development of concept
2
Represents an emerging level of development of concept
3
Represents a great deal of development of concept
4
Represents an expert level of development of concept
Miller et al., 2009
Quality Scoring Decision Rules
0
May have a few technical words/terms but lacks logical
organization/linking of nodes
1
Some terminology terms and some logical organization; difference between
I and 2 is the breadth of concepts on three or more of the major
components to reach level 2
2
Demonstrate some professional/technical terminology with three or more
major concept components
3
Level 3 should provide more development than Level 2, evidenced through
terminology, major concepts, and organization.
4
The concepts should be developed relative to the cases used in course;
conceptual match
Miller et al., 2009
Sample Map – Quality 1
Sample Map – Quality 2
Sample Map – Quality 3
Sample Map – Quality 4
Quantitative Scoring
• Nodes are operationally defined as the
number of unique concepts or circles with
words.
• The term level refers to the depth or number
of connected node levels emanating out
from the center node.
• Links are the number of connections or links
produced between the nodes or concepts.
Source??
Examples – Nodes
Examples – Levels
Example - Links
Methods
• Paired t-test was used to see how the mandated
course affects the conceptual knowledge of special
education
• ANCOVA was used to analyze the gender/classroom
type/school status differences on conceptual
knowledge.
Findings
• There is a strong evidence that the course, on
average increased
• quality of concept maps 1.25 points t(23)=7.12,
p< .05
• Nodes 27.4 points t(23)=5.35, p< .05
• Levels 1.125 points t(23)=2.87, p< .05
• Links 27.7 points t(23)=5.43, p< .05
• Total score 56.2 points t(23)=5.41, p<.05
• The conceptual knowledge of preservice teachers
did not differ based on gender, classroom type and
school status (p> .05)
Lessons Learned
• Pre-service general educators are unfamiliar with
concept maps
• Software does not work with Chrome books
• The training process of teachers takes more time
than thought
• Pre-service teachers are not used to open ended
assignments (e.g., need for perfection)
Recommendations
• More specific training regarding components of a
concept map
• Training regarding distinction between nodes,
levels, and linking words
• Training regarding directional arrows
• Select software carefully
• Encourage students to use color coding for levels
• Enlarge maps prior to scoring
• Hang in there!
Reference
Miller, K. J., Koury, K. A., Fitzgerald, G. E., Hollingsead, C.,
Mitchem, K. J., Hui-Hsien, T., & Park, M. K., (2009). Concept
mapping as a research tool to evaluate conceptual change
related to instructional methods. Teacher Education & Special
Education, 32(4), 365-378, DOI: 10.1177/0888406409346149
Reference
Croasdell, D. T., Freeman, L. A., & Urbaczewski, (2003). Concept maps
for teaching and assessment. Communication of the Association for
Information Systems, 12, 396-405.
Daley, B. J., Shaw, C. R., Balistrieri, T., Glasenapp, K., & Piacentine, L.
(1999). Concept maps: A strategy to teach and evaluate critical
thinking. Journal of Nursing Education, 38, 42-47.
Huer, M. B. (2005). Using concept maps for educational based
implementation of assis- tive technology: A culturally inclusive model
for supervision in special education. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 20(4), 51-61.
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.
Nesbit, J., & Adesope, O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge
maps: A meta- analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413-440.
Questions?