Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing causal understanding with causal maps: the impact of total links, temporal flow, and lateral position of outcome nodes

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined some of the methodological approaches used by students to construct causal maps in order to determine which approaches help students understand the underlying causes and causal mechanisms in a complex system. This study tested the relationship between causal understanding (ratio of root causes correctly/incorrectly identified, number of correctly identified root-cause links explaining how root causes directly/indirectly impact final outcomes) and three attributes observed in students’ causal maps (total links, temporal flow, lateral position of final outcome) that students produced before and after online discussions on noted similarities and differences between students’ causal maps. The findings suggest that: (a) causal understanding can be adversely affected if students are instructed before group discussion to temporally sequence nodes to flow from left to right and to position the outcome node farther away from the left edge of the map relative to other nodes in the map; (b) causal understanding following group discussion can be increased by instructing students to minimize the number of causal links and create a map with temporally flow; (c) promoting temporal flow following discussion may be the most effective means of helping students to identify root causes; and (d) instructing students to minimize the number of links following discussion may be the most effective means to helping students explain root causes directly/indirectly impact outcomes. These findings provide insights on what processes and constraints can be formalized and integrated into causal mapping software when used as an instructional and assessment tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barenholz, H., & Tamir, P. (1992). A comprehensive use of concept mapping in design instruction and assessment. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10, 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barman, C. R., Griffiths, A. K., & Okebukola, P. A. O. (1995). High school students’ concepts regarding food chains and food webs: A multinational study. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 775–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, W. F., Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2000). Explanation in scientists and children. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 279–298). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, M., Gelman, R., & Baillargeon, R. (1982). The development of causal reasoning. In W. Friedman (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time (pp. 209–254). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1995). On the origin of causal understanding. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 268–302). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems y experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Confrey, J., & Doerr, H. M. (1994). Student modelers. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corrigan, R., & Denton, P. (1996). Causal understanding as a developmental primitive. Developmental Review, 16, 162–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farooq, M. U., & Dominick, W. D. (1988). A survey of formal tools and models for developing user interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 29, 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, K. (1990). Semantic networking: The new kid on the block. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1001–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1998). Teaching and learning generic modeling and reasoning skills. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 55, 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, A. K., & Grant, B. A. (1985). High school students’ understanding of food webs: Identification of a learning hierarchy and related misconceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 421–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guenther, R. K. (1998). Human cognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60, 732–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, W., & Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Conceptual understanding of causal reasoning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1601–1621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2011). HIMATT [computer software]. Available from http://www.ifenthaler.info/.

  • Ifenthaler, D., Masduki, I., & Seel, N. M. (2011). The mystery of cognitive structure and how we can detect it: tracking the development of cognitive structures over time. Instructional Science, 39(1), 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A. (2009). Superimposing individual and group causal maps to trigger critical discourse and change in learners’ causal models. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference, San Diego, CA.

  • Jeong, A. (2010a). Assessing change in learner’s causal understanding: using sequential analysis and causal maps. In V. Shute & B. Becker (Eds.), Innovative Assessment for the 21st Century: Supporting Educational Needs (pp. 187–206). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A. (2010b). jMAP [computer software]. Available from http://cscl.wikispaces.com/jmap/.

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Toward a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. : Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leelawong, K., & Biswas, G. (2008). Designing learning by teaching agents: The Betty’s Brain system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(3), 181–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, vol. 5. Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 101–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Origins and evolution of model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, teaching, and learning (pp. 59–70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClure, J., & Bell, P. (1990). Effects of an environmental education-related STS approach instruction on cognitive structures of pre-service science teachers. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 582).

  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Models are used to represent reality (pp. 5–22). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicoll, G. (2001). A three-tier system for assessing concept map links: a methodological study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 863–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, A. (2002). Mapping student minds. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plate, R. (2010). Assessing individuals’ understanding of nonlinear causal structures in complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 26(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ploetzner, R., & Spada, H. (1998). Constructing quantitative problem representations on the basis of qualitative reasoning. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapus, T. L. (2004). Integrating information about mechanism and covariation in causal reasoning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(2-B), 1047.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehder, B. (2003). Categorization as causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 27(5), 709–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, G. (1999). Reflections for the future of system dynamics. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(4), 440–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R., & Schulz, S. (1997). On the validity of concept map-base assessment interpretations: An experiment testing the assumption of hierarchical concept maps in science (CSE Technical Report 455). Los Angeles: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scavarda, A. J., T. Bouzdine-Chameeva, Goldstein, S., Hays, J., & Hill, A. (2004). A review of the causal mapping practice and research literature. Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, Cancun, Mexico.

  • Schlottmann, A. (2001). Perception versus knowledge of cause and effect in children: When seeing is believing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(4), 111–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (2000). Explaining disease: Correlations, causes, and mechanisms. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and Cognition (pp. 254–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandierendonck, A., & de Vooght, G. (1996). Evidence for mental-model-based reasoning: A comparison of reasoning with time and space concepts. Thinking and Reasoning, 2(4), 249–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naïve physics. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 61–76). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1998). Knowledge acquisition in foundational domains. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, perception and language (pp. 523–573). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (1994). Network representations of knowledge about chemical equilibrium: Variations with achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1133–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Systems Program, Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

    Allan Jeong & Woon Jee Lee

Authors
  1. Allan Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Woon Jee Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allan Jeong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jeong, A., Lee, W.J. Developing causal understanding with causal maps: the impact of total links, temporal flow, and lateral position of outcome nodes. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 325–340 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9227-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9227-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation