4 th Int`l Conference on Concept Mapping October 6, 2010

by user








4 th Int`l Conference on Concept Mapping October 6, 2010
A Taxonomic Scheme for Propositional Analysis
Jerson Geraldo Romano Jr
Universidade de São Paulo, Programa de Pós-Graduação Interunidades em
Ensino de Ciências
Paulo R. M. Correia*
Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Artes Ciências e Humanidades
*[email protected]
4th Int’l Conference on Concept Mapping
October 6, 2010
 4th CMC Program Committee
 Brazilian Funding Agencies
 Universidade de São Paulo
 Co-author
Main topics
 Motivation
 Research procedures
 Results and discussion
 Conclusions
Literature review
• Dynamic thinking & CMs
Literature review
Literature review
Literature review
• Dynamic thinking & MCs
Literature review
• Causative & non-causative propositions
Our taxonomic scheme
Research objective
 Develop a taxonomic scheme for propositional analysis
 Compare Cmaps made by different students
• Science-Technology-Society approach
Our hypothesis
 More dynamic propositions, more understanding about STS
Data collection
 Setting
• 1st year students at Universidade de São Paulo
• ACH0011 Natural Science course (15 weeks-2h/week)
• Total set of Cmaps: n=55
• Total set of propositions: n=825
Data collection
 Experimental conditions
• Half-structured concept map (HSCmap)
• How-type focal question
How does bioethics regulate the relationship between science and
• Quantified concepts were required
More technology (root concept) & more controversy
How to use our taxonomic scheme?
Data analysis
 Descriptive statistics: univariate approach
• Evaluation of the proposed variables (S/D11/D12/D21/D22/D23)
 Exploratory analysis: multivariate approach
• Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA)
• Pattern identification through Cmaps natural clustering
Results and discussion
 Descriptive statistics: univariate approach
• Box-plots
Results and discussion
 Dynamic thinking stimuli
• A: props w/ “more technology” were not considered
Knock out the quantified root concept effect (mainly on ↓D22/↓D23)
• B: How-type focal question effect
Props w/ “more technology” & “more controversy” were not
considered (↑S/↑D11/↑D21 & ↓D12/↓D22/↓D23)
HCA: X(55,6)
• City-block (Cmaps distance) & Ward’s (clusters distance)
Clusters’ description
Illustrative Cmaps (Cluster IV: ↑S)
Illustrative Cmaps (Cluster I: ↑D11/↑D12)
Illustrative Cmaps (Cluster II: ↑D22/↑D23)
 Propositions are critical to understand Cmaps
 There is latent information to be unveil
 Our taxonomic scheme
• Deep evaluation of props (S/D11/D12/D21/D22/D23)
• More objetive (4-question procedure for classification)
 Students under the same experimental conditions
• Cmaps w/ different kinds of props
• Descriptive props (Cluster IV, ↑S)
• Non-causative props (Cluster I, ↑D11/↑D12)
• Causative props (Cluster II, ↑D22/↑D23)
 Soon…
• This work will be submitted to J. Res. Sci. Teach.
CMC 2014 in Brazil
• Increase the interaction between our community
and Brazilian researchers/practitioners
• Celebrate the 80th Anniversary of USP
• Celebrate the 10th Anniversary of CMC
CMC 2014 in Brazil
 BID Committee
• Paulo R. M. CORREIA (USP)
• Ítalo M. DUTRA (UFRGS)
• Rita MARRIOTT (University of Birmingham)
• Oswaldo MASSAMBANI (USP Agency of Innovation)
• Marco Antônio MOREIRA (UFRGS)
• Patrícia Lupion TORRES (PUC-PR)
Obrigado pela sua atenção
Thanks for your attention
Gracias por su atención
Dank voor uw aandacht
Спасибо за Ваше внимание
Merci pour votre attention
Kiitos huomiota
귀하의 관심을 가져 주셔서 감사합니다
Grazie per la vostra attenzione
Děkujeme za vaši pozornost
Tack för er uppmärksamhet
Ευχαριστώ για την προσοχή σας
आपका ध्यान के लिए धन्यवाद
Takk for oppmerksomheten
[email protected]
Fly UP