Collaborative concept mapping: provoking and supporting meaningful discourse

The concept-mapping task also provoked conflicts, because in talking about relationships between certain physical quantities, students often had to choose between two opposite alternatives. For example, current strength is either directly or inversely proportional to resistance; voltage is related to electrons, or it is not. A concept map requires an explicit answer. This might explain why, in our studies, students elaborated almost all conflicts that arose. One student explained or justified his or her statement, or both students contributed to the resolution of the conflict through argumentation about the solution.

Co-construction of meanings

When peers work on a common task, mutual understanding must be created and sustained continuously (Roschelle, 1992). To coordinate activities and achieve a joint concept map, the collaborating students needed to create a shared meaning of the task, the concepts, the procedures, and the strategies to use. The transcripts of the student discourse showed many episodes in which both students contributed to answering a question, resolving a conflict, or constructing a reason.

The following example illustrates the process of co-constructing a reason. After Haiko states that an electric circuit has a voltage source, he (finishing the proposition that Andy started) states that a voltage source gives voltage. Then, Andy continues to relate the voltage source to energy and to current strength. Finally, Haiko relates the concept of current to the concept of energy.

Haiko: An electric circuit has a voltage source too, hasn't it?

Andy: Yes, actually it has.

Andy: (draws)

Andy: And it consists of (writes) ... And the voltage source has ... gives, gives ...

Haiko: The voltage source gives voltage ...

Andy: and energy.

Haiko: Yes also ...

Andy: and current, isn't it? The voltage source also gives current.

Haiko: And due to this current, there is energy.

We suggest that such collaborative episodes contribute to the learning of concepts, because both students are actively engaged in elaborative activities at the same time. They are not only reflecting on and elaborating their own understanding but are also integrating and elaborating the input of their partners.

Next to the use of language, shared objects and tools can also play an important role in the negotiation and co-construction of meanings during communication. Crook (1998) argues that collaborating students will benefit from referential anchors because they can support the construction of a shared understanding: "The more abstract the terms of the problem, the more helpful it may prove to have external representations that resource the construction of a shared understanding" (pp. 241). During collaborative concept mapping, the product serves as a visible representation that can facilitate communication about abstract concepts and relationships. Students can refer to the concept labels and the propositions of the emerging concept map while verbalizing their ideas and negotiating meaning. In addition, the use of a large sheet of paper makes it difficult for students to divide the task into parts, and strengthens interdependency and negotiation between the collaborating students.