Army Auliah, Islawati Islawati

Comparison of Students' Chemistry Learning Outcomes through Verification of Concept Maps and Mind Maps in Discovery Model Learning

Introduction

Comparison of students' chemistry learning outcomes through verification of concept maps and mind maps in discovery model learning. Discover how concept maps and mind maps in Discovery Learning impact chemistry outcomes. Compare their effectiveness in systematic understanding vs. flexible thinking, addressing student misconceptions.

Abstract

Chemistry learning requires an understanding of complex abstract concepts. The Discovery Learning model has been applied to improve student understanding, but the verification stage in this model is often an obstacle in connecting the concepts found. This study compares the verification of concept maps and mind maps in improving student learning outcomes. The research method used is comparative descriptive, with two experimental groups each using concept maps and mind maps. The research instruments include learning outcome tests, assessment rubrics, and observations. The results showed that concept maps support systematic understanding more, while mind maps are more effective in developing flexibility of thinking. The verification process plays a role in correcting student misconceptions. These findings provide insight for educators to adjust learning methods to improve understanding of chemical concepts.

Review

This paper addresses a critical challenge in chemistry education: effectively teaching complex, abstract concepts, particularly within the Discovery Learning model. The authors tackle the often-problematic "verification stage" by comparing the utility of concept maps and mind maps in facilitating student understanding and connecting discovered concepts. The premise of optimizing this specific stage of Discovery Learning is highly relevant, offering a practical pedagogical intervention to enhance student learning outcomes in a demanding subject. The study's focus on bridging the gap between discovered and understood concepts through structured verification methods presents a valuable contribution to educational practice. Methodologically, the study employs a comparative descriptive approach involving two distinct experimental groups, each utilizing one of the mapping techniques. The abstract notes the use of learning outcome tests, assessment rubrics, and observations as instruments, suggesting a multi-faceted evaluation of student progress. The findings highlight a nuanced distinction: concept maps appear to foster a more systematic understanding, while mind maps are posited to enhance flexibility of thinking. Furthermore, the crucial role of the verification process in addressing student misconceptions is emphasized. While the abstract effectively summarizes these outcomes, a full review would seek further detail on the specific criteria used to differentiate and measure "systematic understanding" versus "flexibility of thinking," as well as the statistical rigor supporting these distinctions within the comparative descriptive framework. The implications of this research are significant for chemistry educators seeking to refine their pedagogical approaches, particularly within the Discovery Learning framework. The findings suggest that the strategic choice of mapping tool during the verification stage can be aligned with desired learning outcomes—whether promoting structured conceptual understanding or fostering creative, flexible thinking. These insights provide concrete guidance for educators to adjust learning methods to better suit the specific cognitive demands of chemical concepts. Future research could build upon these findings by exploring the long-term impact of these strategies on knowledge retention, examining their efficacy across diverse student demographics and chemistry topics, and investigating potential synergistic effects of combining these mapping approaches.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.