Search for: All records

Abstract Most STEM classrooms overlook the intrinsic conceptual structure of domain content, strategies for improving students’ conceptual structure have promise for improving STEM learning outcomes. This experimental investigation continues the development of the web-based toolGraphical Interface of Knowledge Structure (GIKS)that provides immediate formative feedback as a network of concepts in the student’s essays alongside an expert referent network for comparison and reflection. What should this feedback network look like, especially, should it be more inclusive or small and focused? And is preexisting domain knowledge important for type of network feedback effectiveness? Undergraduate students in a second year Architecture Engineering course, after completing a 2-weeks long lesson on Building with Wood, were randomly assigned to a summary writing task with either Full feedback (a network with 14 central and 12 peripheral terms) or Focused feedback (a network with only the 14 central terms), and then immediately completed a knowledge structure survey. Two weeks later, they completed an End-of-Unit posttest that consisted of a Central-items and a Peripheral-items subtests. A significant interaction of feedback and domain knowledge was observed for post knowledge structure, the low domain knowledge students in the Focus feedback group had the most central link-agreement with the expert and the least peripheral links agreement. On the End-of-Unit declarative knowledge posttest, there was no difference for the Full or Focused feedback interventions, but the high domain knowledge students in both interventions performed significantly better than the low domain knowledge students on the central-items subtest butnoton the peripheral-items subtest. This investigation shows the need for further research on the role of domain-normative central concepts and pragmatically contributes to the design of essay prompts for STEM classroom use. 

This quasi-experimental investigation considers the influence of an instructor-led discussion of structural knowledge on the conceptual structure of summary essays from lesson to posttest. Undergraduate architectural engineering students, after completing the lecture portions on the topic Sustainability and Green Design, during lab time composed a 300-word summary essay using the online tool Graphical Interface of Knowledge Structure (GIKS, Authors, 2024, see Figure 1), then immediately one lab section participated in an instructor-led discussion of their group-average essay structure to note correct conceptions as well as common misconceptions, while the other two sections also wrote but did not have this discussion. Posttest essays were collected the following week. The instructor-led discussion of the networks relative to no discussion did improve posttest essay writing quality (human rater) but NOT content quality. The data indicates that the discussion altered students’ conceptual structures of the central terms in the expert network, but at the expense of peripheral, unmentioned terms. Therefore instructor-led discussion of content conceptual structure likely does influence students’ conceptual knowledge structures, and teachers and instructors must be vigilant in preparing and presenting such a discussion to make sure they appropriately and adequately cover the content. 

This investigation is the first of four investigations funded by the NSF (DUE award 2215807) to develop and then field test on open educational browser-based writing-to-learn tool called GIKS. The underlying theory is that writing-to-learn with immediate formative feedback presented as concept networks is engaging and effective for learning concepts covered in lectures. This work was studied in a second year architectural engineering course focusing on building materials, processes and modeling. Participants (n=84) completed a lesson (readings, lecture, and labs) then followed by writing prompts centered on the following topics: Building with Concrete and Wood Construction (3 weeks later). Participants were assigned to one of two counterbalanced groups, group A used GIKS software to write a 300-word summary of the first lesson but did not write in the second lesson, while group B did not write in the first lesson but used GIKS in the second lesson, so that each group served as a control treatment for the other group. All students completed a concept structure survey at the end of each lesson that contained 20 key concepts from that lesson, the two concept structure surveys’ data were transformed into concept networks and then these networks were compared to an expert network benchmark referent, as well as to networks of the textbook chapter and the PowerPoint slides of the related lesson. Then a week after the second lesson students completed the standing end-of-module multiple-choice posttest that included items from these lesson as well as from other lessons in the module. Results to date highlight that for both lessons, the group using GIKS scored higher on the concept structure survey (more like the expert network) BUT lower on the multiple-choice test, the difference was significant for the Building with Concrete lesson (p < .05) but not for the Wood Construction lesson. This interaction has been reported before by Ntshalintshali & Clariana (2020), that improving conceptual knowledge sometimes decreases memory of lesson details. Descriptive analysis of the group-average networks derived from the concept structure surveys for Building with Concrete show that the group-averaged network of those using GIKS compared to the control was more like the expert network (54% vs. 36%), the network of the textbook Chapter (32% vs. 29%), the network of the PowerPoint (PP) (46% vs. 41%), and especially like peers in the other group (67%). For Wood Construction the difference between the groups was less, the group-averaged network of those using GIKS compared to the control was more like the expert (40% vs. 39%), like the light-framed construction PP (28% vs. 24%), and especially like peers in the other group (72%). These findings show that writing-to-learn with GIKS with immediate network feedback improves conceptual knowledge as expected but at the cost of details. Peers conceptual structure of the lesson materials were very similar (peer-peer mental model convergence) and were more like others than like the expert, or the book chapters, or the PowerPoint slides; in addition, the PowerPoint slides appear to influence conceptual structure more than the textbook chapters. Investigation 2 will consider writing-to-learn with or without immediate network feedback in order to isolate the effects of immediate network feedback. 

This quasi-experimental study seeks to improve the conceptual quality of lesson summary essays by comparing two conditions, essay prompts with or without a list of concepts from the lesson. It is assumed that these terms can be used as “anchors” while writing. Participants (n = 90) in an Architectural Engineering undergraduate course over a two week period read the assigned textbook chapter and attended lectures and labs, then in the final lab session were asked to write a 300-word summary of the lesson content. Data for analysis consists of these essays and the end-of-unit multiple choice test. Compared to the expert essay benchmark, the essay networks of those receiving the list of terms in the writing prompt were not significantly different from those who did not receive the terms, but however were significantly more like peers essay networks, the network of the Chapter 11 PowerPoint lecture, and the network of the Chapter 9 PowerPoint lecture. In addition those receiving the list of terms in the writing prompt performed significantly better on the end-of-unit test than those not receiving the terms. Term frequency analysis indicates that only the most network central terms in the terms list showed a greater frequency in essays, the other terms frequencies were remarkably the same for both the Term and No Terms groups, suggesting a similar underlying conceptual mental model of this lesson content. More research is needed to understand how including concept terms in a writing prompt influences essay conceptual structure and test performance. 

As an important step in the development of browser-based writing-to-learn software that provides immediate structural feedback, we seek ways to improve the quality of students essays and to optimize the software analysis algorithm. This quasi-experimental investigation compares the quality of students’ summary writing under three writing prompt conditions, otherwise identical prompts add either 0, 14, or 26 key terms. Results show that key terms matters substantially – the summary essays of those given the prompt without key terms had longer essays and the resulting networks of those essays were more like the expert referent and like their peers’ essays. Although tentative, these results indicate that writing prompts should NOT include key terms.