CONCLUSION

Two things become clear after viewing all of the data. Cognitive maps arent the only
tool to use that addresses critical thinking. The Cornell Critical Thinking Test X isnt the only
tool to assess critical thinking. Critical thinking, as Ive mentioned before encompasses so many
varied skills , one cannot possibly think one strategy, like mapping, will be the solution for all.
Yet, I so desperately wanted to prove this to be true and have my class of learners far exceed JBs
class. Instead the data showed that our class results were quite similar.
Second, cognitive maps appear to be a good strategy for organizing thoughts, much like a
pre-write tool for student success; however two subgroups SWD, students with disabilities and
TLH and students living in two language households did not show consistent growth. I believe
cognitive mapping is the answer to so many questions, and coupled with culturally responsive
pedagogy or ELL strategies and/or science inquiry, over time teachers and learners would see
marked advantages. This conclusion section begins the dialogue of how, when and where
cognitive maps can be used in others classrooms.

Exploring Talking and Writing with Mapping

As interesting and enticing as cognitive maps are there needs to be much more research
done to fully understand their value, or when to utilize a map for its maximum benefit. Was it
the map that was successful or that we visually put the pieces together to see the whole? One has
to wonder what I would have done with the time that I spent on the maps, would it have been to
scaffold the information a different way? I dont know. Scaffolding information so that one can
think and create personal understanding of content is critical. Obviously the group of students

who need the most support are those students with disabilities and those that speak more than
one language. Were the cognitive maps also useful tools as students sought to communicate their
ideas? Rivard and Straw (1999) posit that with writing, and they used cognitive maps in their
study, and talking students demonstrate better understanding and better recall, and show more
complex thinking. Their study indicates that expository writing such as explaining, summarizing
and writing with clear descriptions, purpose, and audience in mind enabled students to organize
relationships among elements of text and knowledge effectively promote learning experiences in
science. In fact students began to see a connection between our linking science concepts in class
with creating a web as a pre-write tool in their English class. Both graphic organizers were used
to organize thoughts, construct greater understanding and to be referenced during writing.
Speaking flawless English seems to be too much of a focus in a science classroom, when
the focus should be on the academic discourse centered around the phenomena. When
supported appropriately, all students can comprehend and communicate their science ideas using
less than perfect English (NGSS Appendix D, 2013 as quoted by Januszyk et al. 2016 p.29).
Lowering expectations for ELLs is reprehensible, a classroom should provide naturally occurring
opportunities to use and develop language through purposeful use(Harper & de Jong, 2004), like
connecting concepts around changing matter. Effective science instruction driven by the use of
inquiry-based practice facilitates the development of English language proficiency (Siegel et al,
2014). Students in my class engaged in inquiry actively and through their own personal
experiences and cultures could describe objects and events, ask questions, construct
explanations, test those explanations, and communicate their ideas to others. And they did this

successfully by means of constructing, utilizing and referring to cognitive maps. I believe that
with continued use of cognitive mapping students and teachers would notice a difference.

Students with Disabilities and Mapping

When phenomena and problems are placed in home and community contexts, diverse
student build on their everyday experience and language to make connections among school
science and home and community (Januszyk et al. 2016). Students with disabilities who
participate in science learning activities frequently: (a) have limited prior knowledge, (b) are
reluctant to pose questions, (c) are less likely to have a plan for solving problems, (d) struggle to
implement teacher recommendations, (e) have difficulty with inductive and deductive reasoning,
and (f) seldom transfer knowledge to other contexts. In addition, these students often have
fundamental misconceptions about scientific phenomenon, which leads to further struggles
during the inquiry process (Jacobson & Archididou, 2000 from Basham & Marino, 2013). They
recommended that K-12 education focus on the adoption of engineering "habits of mind. which
entails: systems thinking, creativity, optimism, collaboration, communication, and attention to
ethical considerations. Similar to the Partnership for 21st Century Learning, it appears educators
are all saying the same thing, in minutely different ways. Research shows that visual tools aided
in the organizing of ideas, and monitoring solutions and structural modifications aided in
comprehension and elicitation (Basham & Marino, 2013). What I had hoped was that this type of
graphic organizer would be the magic cure for my students with disabilities, and truthfully I do
not know how much of an impact the mapping had. Cognitive maps imbed all of these habits of

mind, so why didnt I see a marked improvement? Would I see a difference on assessment scores
if cognitive mapping were to continue? One could argue that the benefits outweigh the risk.

Modifying Assessments with Mapping

I think the most intriguing aspect of utilizing cognitive maps would be for future use as a
means to modify assessment. Equity framework for modifying written assessments was
developed to support, challenge and enhance learning of all students, based on five principles
(Siegel, 2007). The principles for adapting assessments for ELLs included: (1) matching the
learning goals and language of instruction, (2) ensuring cultural and linguistic comprehensibility,
(3) challenging students to think about difficult ideas on assessments, (4) eliciting students
understanding, and (5) scaffolding the use of language in assessments to support student learning
(Johnson & Fargo, 2014). With the advent of the NGSS teachers are finding themselves creating
their own curriculum and assessments. Its an exciting time to put diverse pedagogy into action
and strive to differentiate not just the learning situation and climate but the assessment
environment too. Having students create a cognitive map as the answer to a differentiated
question then justifying their map with an explanation hits on almost all of the above principles.
Gone are the days of a science vocabulary matching game for an assessment, or a fill in the
missing word from a sentence. Science tests should be just as challenging, rigorous and exciting
as the inquiry that took place. What cognitive mapping supports is individual construction of
knowledge that can support student strengths.

Student and Parent Perceptions of Mapping

At the end this study I gave my students another survey (Appendix D) about cognitive
maps. This was taken the week after their Cornell Critical Thinking Test. And even though they
liked the CCTT and for the most part like cognitive maps there were many students who made
sure I understood that the two forms of critical thinking do not overlap. Before the survey we
were having a class discussion, and again the topic of what is critical thinking came up. Reading
off the list of defined terms is incomprehensible to them and I had to wonder why I never turned
these into kid friendly learning targets? This type of scaffolding could have clarified and focused
our attention.

The following are student responses to the question, Do you REALLY think cognitive
maps helped you become more of a critical thinker? Like how?
It did not help me that much because when we were doing the Nicoma test it was really confusing
because the(y) did not connect.

I [sic] not really sure because I cant tell if Im critical thinking. Am I critical thinking now? I just dont
know!

No, because a cognitive map is mostly a bunch words, circles and lines to me.
I think the cognitive maps did help me a little bit by like the cognitive maps help me understand the
subject that we are working on.

Yes, I do think it helped me by making more connections/clicks in my mind.

Most students responded in a positive fashion to the series of questions asked and felt that
cognitive mapping had beneficial aspects, the words that were used the most were, organized my

thoughts. This metacognitive aspect is a necessary part of learning, and one that may not read as
very momentous, but the fact that ten year olds can reflect on their learning and realize their
thoughts can be disorganized and mapping is a strategy to organize their ideas/concepts is
literally huge.
Parent feedback is noteworthy for this document as it was more than affirming. During
our spring session of student led conferences, students presented their families with their graded
work, one of which was the Why do we have seasons cognitive map. Parents looked on with
pride, confusion, amazement and some with recognition. On separate occasions I had parents
say something like, My child is doing this in school? This is what I do at work all day! Their
occupations included architect, nurse and software engineer. Just imagine, we would marvel,
what these children will be able to do when they are professional adults.

Reflection
Teaching is a lonely profession. Sure there is collaboration before and after school but it
is usually rushed and harried and with four of us trying to push our own agenda sometimes little
is accomplished. Besides, we all retire to our own classroom and our own style and pedagogy.
My closest allies in the teaching and learning business are my students, and this year, especially,
they have been my confidants. They in turn have been more than honest about my work on this
project. Unfortunately for them and myself my growth process has been long and slow. There
are not many people who want to bounce ideas around, as no one else is using cognitive maps in
their class. Something as small as, why had I never put the critical thinking points in kid friendly
terms as learning goals, could have easily been suggested if I was partnering with someone.

They would have noticed that very important missing piece. I think my future endeavors will be
to coax teachers to not just collaborate, if that mainly means getting together to complain about
students, but really dig in and create assessments. Correct class papers together, discuss and plan
how to effectively use scaffolding, and sit in each others classroom so that they have a shared
common knowledge of each others practice. How can a real discussion about the effectiveness
of cognitive maps come about if we dont have as our base a sold foundation in collaboration?

Citations:

Basham, J. D. & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students
through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8-15.
Harper, C. & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 152-162.
Januszyk, R., Miller, E. & Lee, O. (2016). Addressing student diversity and equity:The next
generation science standards are leading a new wave of reform. Science & Children, 53
(8), 28-31
Johnson, C. & Fargo, J. (2014). A Study of the impact of transformative professional
development on hispanic student performance on state mandated assessments of science
in elementary school. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 845-859.
Rivard, L.P. & Straw, S. (1999). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An
exploratory study. Retrieved from http://kenanaonline.com/files/0020/20490/
Rivardstraw.pdf
Siegel, M., Menon, D., Sinha, S., Promyod, N., Wissehr, C. & Halverson, K. (2014). Equitable
Written Assessments for English Language Learners: How Scaffolding Helps, Science
Teacher Education, 25, 681-708.