Cited by 54Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Technology and Assessment

Are high-coherent concept maps better for prior knowledge activation? Differential effects of concept mapping tasks on high school vs. university students

Gurlitt, J., Renkl, A.·2008·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

We investigated whether and how prior knowledge activation improves learning outcomes for high school (less experienced learners) and university students (experienced learners) in a hypertext environment. Map coherence was defined as the extent to which relationships between the concepts in the map were made explicit. Therefore, we classified the mapping task of creating and labelling lines as low‐coherent, and the mapping task of labelling provided lines as high‐coherent. Learners were randomly assigned to the conditions of (1) high‐coherent knowledge activation; (2) low‐coherent knowledge activation; and (3) a baseline condition without prior knowledge activation. We found an overall effect for prior knowledge activation, learning experience, and an interaction between learning experience and the coherence of the prior knowledge activation task on learning outcomes. High school students benefited most from labelling provided lines, while university physics majors benefited most from creating and labelling lines. This interaction effect and effects of the specific mapping tasks on process measures support the claim that different prior knowledge activation tasks are suited for different groups of learners.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00277.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pre-constructed concept maps are more effective as pre-training for learners with lower prior knowledge than having learners create their own.

    “research suggests that pre-constructed concept maps are more effective as pre-training for learners with lower prior knowledge than having them create their own (Gurlitt and Renkl, 2008; Gurlitt and Renkl, 2010).”
  • A 2008 study found that university physics majors could connect and describe nodes in a way that generated learning, while high school students learned more by labeling existing connectors to the nodes.

    “A 2008 study found that, while university physics majors could connect and describe nodes in a way that generated learning, high school students learned more by labeling existing connectors to the nodes (Gurlitt and Renkl, 2008).”
  • Not all students can generate a concept map from scratch.

    “There is also evidence that not all students can generate a concept map from scratch.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A.
Affiliations
University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Gurlitt, J.
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-09-05
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
407-419
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W1576621250
Cited by
54
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords
prior knowledge activation, concept maps, hypertext learning, learning experience, high school students, university students, physics learning, learning outcomes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review