Abi-El-Mona, I., & Adb-El-Khalick, F. (2008)

Abi-El-Mona, I., & Adb-El-Khalick, F. (2008). The Influence of Mind Mapping on Eighth Graders' Science Achievement. [Feature]. School Science and Mathematics, 108(7), 298-312.

Purpose, Problem and Research Questions
The problem was not directly stated in the article, however, it can be inferred. The integration of science concepts including reasoning and clear concept understanding can be improved in science instruction. To this end, the purpose of this study was to ascertain the effectiveness of students generating their own mind maps after a lecture and seeing if it increased their concept knowledge. Students with different initial achievement levels were used to see if the effectiveness was differentiated by different levels of prior knowledge or achievement.

Mind maps were defined as different from concept maps in that although they both share many attributes , ie both are graphic organizers with a web-like structure and conceptual links in a non-linear fashion, mind maps inspire more personal connections, are not necessarily hierarchical, use color and drawings or icons, and sometimes add a legend.

Methods
The study design was a 2x3 factorial study with post test only. The independent variable was the use of mind mapping in a classroom setting. There were two levels: use and non-use. The second factor was a moderator variable. It was prior academic achievement in science with three levels (high, medium, and low). The dependent variable was post instruction achievement.

The population for the study was a private middle school in a Middle Eastern country. All classes were taught in English. The study participants were 62 eighth grade students placed in four intact classrooms. The teacher/instructor for the both the control group and the intervention group was the same (one of the researchers). The instructional method during the lecture portion remained constant as well. Two class sections were randomly assigned to each experimental condition.

For the intervention group, mind mapping instruction took place over the period of one month. The control group was instructed in a note summarization procedure so that time of intervention for both conditions would be kept constant. During the intervention phase the classrooms either spent the last 10 minutes forming mind maps or doing note summarization .

Post instruction achievement was performed using a test instrument developed by both researchers. The test items were 30 multiple choice questions, which targeted NAEP science standards. These same standards were used in the curriculum development for the lecture part of the course. Domains fell across two categories- conceptual understanding and practical reasoning. The test item pool was examined by four secondary science teachers to ensure validity of the instrument. Some items were changed, added, or deleted based on the feedback that was collected.

Results
Two multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were performed on the test results, with the factors under consideration, use/non use of the mind maps, and the three levels or prior science achievement. Another MANOVA was conducted with two categories of achievement –conceptual understanding and practical reasoning. When results were significant , a univariate analysis followed the MANOVA.

In addition a rubric was developed by the two researchers to analyze the mind maps that the students had created. Items such as number of links, the map geography, the use of colors, the use of drawings, the use of icons, presence of a central theme, and links to major concepts.

Mind maps were also analyzed in a historical fashion. Mind maps created at the beginning of the semester were compared to mind maps created later,

The test using the 3 levels of prior achievement, - (PSA) was statiscally significant for T (p>.05). In addition. Students scored higher on both conceptual understanding test items and practical reasoning items(M-exp = 72.9, M – comp=57.53, p <001) .

Discussion
The researchers listed one limitation of the study. That this is only one study and needs to be replicated in other settings. The researcher spent time going into the differences in design of mind maps, comparing maps high scoring, medium scoring and lower scoring students. High scoring students individualized their maps, used color, seldom used icons (contradicting another mind map researcher) and had few but correct links to other major topics.

Implications
The main implication is that creating mind maps to consolidate and organize knowledge may be a useful tool for students to enhance their learning. More research should be done in this promising endeavor, especially because it helps to personalize information for the learner in meaningful ways,and in turn, raising student achievement.

Critique
This article, despite the statistical complexities, was very well organized and presented. Ideas were clear, even though few diagrams were used. The only exception is the Vee maps.

Effect strength was not computed for the significant statistics. This would have been helpful for interpretation of the results importance to other researchers

In terms of ethical issues, the researchers don't indicate how securely they kept the testing materials nor the mind maps that they collected at the end of each session. Also, since the authors ascertained that mind maps were beneficial to student learning, they should have offered some way to offer that treatment/method of instruction to the students who missed out - the control group. Since each mind mapping exercise occurred directly after instruction, either the instruction would need to be repeated which is unlikely, or from that point on, all students would be given assignments with mind mapping after instruction.