Learning With Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis

By John C. Nesbit, Olusola O. Adesope. 2006

983 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d37b24024a4b038b0c93ae4bb133d4587fa3e8aa

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Prior knowledge activation: how different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy (2010, background): “Similarly, pointing out high-priority areas for further research, Nesbit and Adesope (2006) concluded that research should investigate the processes by which students learn with concept maps.”
Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders (2012, background): “…concept mapping can help readers form an external representation of a situation model for a text, which can be particularly helpful for less-able readers (Stensvold &Wilson,1990; for a review andmetaanalysis on effectiveness of concept maps with low-ability learners, see Nesbit & Adesope, 2006).”
Keep it Coherent: A Meta-Analysis of the Seductive Details Effect (2020, methodology): “Our approach to conducting a meta-analysis is consistent with well-established review protocols, applying the following procedures to the collection and synthesis of research (Nesbit and Adesope 2006; Adesope et al. 2017; Cooper et al. 2009; Lipsey and Wilson 2001).”
The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes (2014, positive): “Two meta-analyses (Horton, McConney, Gallo, Woods, Senn, & Hamelin, 1993; Nesbit & Adesope, 2006) have found a positive effect of concept mapping on knowledge acquisition when compared to other learning activities.”
Graphic Organizers and Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis (2011, methodology): “…Social Science Citation Index databases for studies from 1975 (e.g., year LD was officially recognized by passage of P.L. 94-142) to October 2009, using a list of search terms generated from previous reviews of GO studies (e.g., Horton et al., 1993; Moore & Readence, 1984; Nesbit & Adesope, 2006).”
Using Concept Mapping to Enhance the Research Interview (2010, methodology): “The characteristics of concept maps that have made them a popular tool for the promotion and assessment of learning (e.g. Nesbit & Adesope, 2006) also make them a helpful tool in the armory of the qualitative researcher.”
Is it Merely a Question of “What” to Prompt or Also “When” to Prompt? (2009, background): “Although concept-mapping has a positive effect on learning outcome (see Nesbit & Adesope, 2006 ), there is empirical evidence that learners do not map spontaneously, but need instructional support (e.g., Leopold & Leutner, 2002; Novak & Gowin, 1984).”
Poor Metacomprehension Accuracy as a Result of Inappropriate Cue Use (2010, methodology): “Consistent with previous research (e.g., Nesbit & Adesope, 2006; Stensvold & Wilson, 1990), we found that concept maps were effective learning tools for less-able readers.”
Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing (2017, methodology): “…is consistent with well-established review protocols, applying the following procedures to the collection and synthesis of research (Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, & Ungerleider, 2010; Adesope & Nesbit, 2012; Cooper, Hedges, & Valentine, 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Nesbit & Adesope, 2006).”