Modalities to Collaborate in the Social Construction of Conceptual Maps: A Comparison between Individual and Collective Productions

Néstor Daniel Roselli^1,

¹Centro de Investigaciones en Psicología y Psicopedagogía, Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina “Santa María de los Buenos Aires”, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Cite this paper:
Néstor Daniel Roselli. Modalities to Collaborate in the Social Construction of Conceptual Maps: A Comparison between Individual and Collective Productions. American Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 5(10):1058-1064. doi: 10.12691/education-5-10-7

Abstract

The main aim of this research is to recognize and differentiate several kinds or modalities of elaboration of a cognitive product in pairs, in this case, the elaboration of conceptual maps. These modalities come from a comparative analysis between individual and collective productions. This comparison is not concerned only with the quality of the productions, but also with qualitative differences that could show processes of social influence. In this case, it is interesting to analyze the different modalities of social interaction and of reaching consensus. After a master lecture of a professor, 24 university students were requested to individually produce a conceptual map of the topic. The students were able to consult their notes. Finally, in pairs, they were asked to collaboratively develop a single conceptual map, consulting their respective individual conceptual maps, but not their notes, which were taken away. The analysis is based on a comparison, inside each pair, between the individual and the collective conceptual maps. This analysis includes both cognitive (content) and formal (graph) aspects. Two dimensions were considered: homogeneity-heterogeneity and symmetry-asymmetry of individual contributions. The crossing between these dimensions allowed to differentiate the modalities of the collective construction. Finally, the article analyses the relation between cognitive and formal aspects, which are not always in accordance. The most general conclusion is that, concerning the social construction of conceptual maps, the cognitive contribution of each subject/student to the collective production must be differentiated from the instrumental operation of drawing the map.

Keywords:
collaborative learning shared cognition sociocognitive construction Peer interaction group learning

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Doise, W. ,& Mugny, G. (1981). Le Développement Social de l'Intelligence. París: InterÉditions
[2]	Coll, C. (1991). Aprendizaje Escolar y Construcción del Conocimiento. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
[3]	Forman, E. & Cazden, C. (1984). Perspectivas vygotskianas en la educación: El valor cognitivo de la interacción entre iguales. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 27-28, 139-157.
[4]	Roselli, N. (1999). La construcción sociocognitiva entre iguales. Fundamentos Psicológicos del Aprendizaje Cooperativo. Argentina. Rosario: IRICE-CONICET.
[5]	Damon, W. ,& Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9-19.
[6]	Leyens, J-P. ( 1979 ). Psychologie Sociale. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
[7]	Roselli, N. (1988). Interacción social y desarrollo del pensamiento formal. In G. Mugny & J. Pérez (eds.), Psicología Social del Desarrollo Cognitivo (pp. 211-224). Barcelona: Anthropos. Chapter. 9.
[8]	Granot, N. (1993). Patterns of interaction in the co-construction of knowledge: separate minds, joint effort, and weird creatures. In R.H. Wozniak & K.W. Fisher (eds.) Development in Context, Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
[9]	Baker, M. (2008). Formes et processus de la résolution coopérative de problèmes: des savoirs aux pratiques éducatives. In Y. Rouiller & K. Lehraus (eds.), Vers des Apprentissages en Coopération: Rencontres et Perspectives (pp. 107-130). Berne: Peter Lang.
[10]	Quiamzade, A., Mugny, G. & Butera, F. (2014). Psychologie Sociale de la Connaissance. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.
[11]	Muller Mirza, N. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In N. Muller Mirza & A-N. Perret-Clermont (eds.), Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices.(pp. 67-90). Berne: Springer.
[12]	Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. Muller Mirza & A-N. Perret-Clermont (eds.), Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices (pp 91-126). Berne: Springer.
[13]	Perret-Clermont, A-N., Arcidiacono, F., Breux, S., Greco, S, & Miserez-Caperos, C. (2015). Knowledge-oriented argumentation in children. In F. Van Eemeren & B. Garssen (eds.), Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice. Amsterdam: ISSA Conference on Argumentation, 135-150.
[14]	Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. Muller Mirza & A-N. Perret-Clermont (eds.), Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices (pp. 127-144). Berne: Springer.
[15]	Baker, M. (2016) The negotiation of meaning in epistemic situations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 133-149.
[16]	Akkermann S., Van den Bossche, P., Admiraal, W., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Simons, R. J., Kirschner, P. (2007) Reconsidering group cognition: From conceptual confusion to a boundary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives? Educational Research Review 2, 39-63.
[17]	Costamagna, A. (2001). Mapas conceptuales como expresión de procesos de interrelación para evaluar la evolución del conocimiento de alumnos universitarios. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 19(2), 309-318.
[18]	Moreira, M. (2005). Mapas conceptuales y aprendizaje significativo. Revista Chilena de Educación Científica, 4(2), 38-44.
[19]	Ontario, A., Ballesteros Pastor, A., & Cuevas Moyas, C. (1994). Mapas Conceptuales: una Técnica para Aprender. Madrid: Narcea, 125.
[20]	Roselli (2016). Los beneficios de la regulación externa de la regulación externa de la colaboración sociocognitiva entre pares: ilustraciones experimentales. Revista Puertorriqueña de Psicología, 27, (2), 350-363.
[21]	Roselli, N. D., Gimelli, L. E. ,& Hechen, M. E. (1995). Modalidades de interacción sociocognitiva en el aprendizaje de conocimientos en parejas. In Fernández Berrocal, P. & Melero Zabal, M. A. (eds.) La Interacción Social en Contextos Educativos (pp. 137-165). Madrid, Siglo XXI.