Application of mind mapping integrated cooperative learning and argumentation to the elemetary schools in mainland China

Abstract

The concepts of cooperation and argumentation are emphasized in Mainland China’s recent curriculum reform. However, in the context of Mainland China, the practice of cooperative learning is full of the problems such as “poor design” and “free riding”; furthermore, few attempts have been made to improve students’ argumentative abilities. To fill these gaps, and given that graphical tools can promote the cooperation and argumentation process, the present research addressed the problem of designing, implementing, and evaluating a mind mapping integrated cooperative learning (MMCL) pedagogy for 5th grade students’ argumentation-based learning in science education. The precise goals were to 1) evaluate its effectiveness on argumentative ability and investigate further the functions of mind mapping in cooperation and argumentation; 2) examine its effectiveness on learning motivation; 3) illustrate students’ perceptions of mind mapping and MMCL. A quasi-experimental and mixed methods approach was used to address the research goals. The participants were 309 5th grade students in six classes. Two classes experienced MMCL, two used mind mapping integrated individual learning (MMIL), and two followed conventional cooperative learning (CL) without mind mapping. Multi-source data obtained included written arguments on an argument sheet, discourses in cooperation, mind maps, Students’ Motivation Towards Science Learning (SMTSL) surveys, Student Attitude towards Mind Mapping (SA_MM) and MMCL (SA_MMCL) surveys, and the MMCL group’s interviews. Pre- and post-tests of the SMTSL and argument sheet were administered to measure the effects of the MMCL pedagogy on students’ motivation and argumentative skill. Discourses and mind maps collected were used to investigate the functions of mind mapping in cooperation and argumentation. In line with the research questions, three major findings were obtained. First, the results of the argument sheet revealed that the MMIL and MMCL groups both outperformed the CL group significantly, while the MMIL and MMCL groups did not have obvious differences. Further analyses of classroom discourses showed that MMCL, compared with CL, was more conducive to: a) exploratory talk; b) concept elaboration and stratification; c) question generation; d) idea sharing; and e) critical generation. Comparison between the MMCL and MMIL maps showed that the two groups organized the keywords in mind maps differently, although they had no significant differences on written arguments: individual maps were effective for recording a large number of thoughts and inspirations, whereas cooperative maps further emphasized the logical organization of arguments. Second, the SMTSL survey failed to show any significant differences among the MMIL, CL, and MMCL groups in motivation improvement. Third, the attitude surveys of SA_MM and SA_MMCL showed that the MMCL students had highly positive attitudes towards mind mapping and MMCL. All of them agreed that the MMCL pedagogy was helpful. However, the interviews reported that there were students who constructed maps separately during cooperation and thereby encountered the problems of incomplete argumentation, topic deviation, and partner interruption. The findings of the present research may contribute to the current literature on the effectiveness of the mind mapping integrated cooperation and argumentation in the context of Mainland China. Practical implications are provided for elementary school teachers.