Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education Vol. 2 Iss. 1, March 2013 www.jitae.org 1 Knowledge Construction in Collaborative Concept Mapping: A Case Study Hong Gao 1 , Margareta Maria Thomson 2 *, E Shen 3 1, 3 Florida State University 2* North Carolina State University 1 Hong.Gao@fldoe.org; 2* pmm2121@gmail.com; 3 ess0086@fsu.edu Abstract This qualitative study examined the process of knowledge construction of a bounded case study (a group of graduate students). Participants were from the United States and were enrolled in an Educational Psychology course; they were collaboratively involved in the process of knowledge construction using concept maps as the primary data. To examine the processes and tensions during the knowledge construction activity we used the lens of the Activity Systems Theory. Study findings showed that the process of knowledge construction differed from individual to individual based on their domain expertise and concept map procedures. Also, one of the primary tools used in this activity, language, was focused upon by all participants and was identified as a source of tension as well in the group. Attempts were made by the group to establish the language used in the corresponding portion of the concept map constructed. Instructional implications for task construction and approach facilitating knowledge construction are discussed in connection with study findings. Keywords Cognitive Modeling; Concept Map; Activity Systems Theory; Qualitative Methodology Introduction and Purpose As the research findings on collaborative learning and cooperative learning are disseminated (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 1974; R. T. Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 1988), the interests of both researchers and practitioners shifted from being mostly concerned about learning at individual level to knowledge construction at group level (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1996, 2003; Lamon, Reeve, & Scardamalia, 2001; Scardamalia, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Many instructional strategies that were found to be effective have been implemented or are being implemented in group setting. Concept mapping is one of such instructional strategies. Individual concept mapping has been found to be powerful in improving learning and learner attitudes (Horton, McConney,Gallo, Woods, Senn, & Hamelin, 1993; Jegede, Alaiyemola, & Okebukola, 1990; Littrell, 1999; Mason, 1992; Mukama, 2010). In addition, cognitive scientists have found that external representations assist problem solving (Zhang, 1997, 1998) and research on shared representations also point to the potential benefits of using and/or creating external artifacts to support discourse and learning in both face‐to‐face and online environments (Mukama, 2010; Suthers, 1999, 2001a, 2001b; Suthers, Girardeau, & Hundhausen, 2002; Suthers & Hundhausen, 2001, 2002; Woods, Senn, & Hamelin, 1993). Concept mapping in group setting, or collaborative concept mapping, is a process where two or more individuals are engaged in coordinated and sustained efforts in the creation of one or more concept maps in order to learn and construct knowledge. However, the need for studies on collaborative concept mapping, especially focusing on particularities of language and communication styles still exists. First and foremost, most of the studies on concept mapping were conducted at individual level and our understanding of collaborative concept mapping is not adequate for effective implementation in practice. In addition, limited research studies on collaborative concept mapping have generated mixed findings across and within studies: some found that groups using concept mapping produced more interaction related to concepts and relationships between concepts (Boxtel, Linden, Roelofs, & Erkens, 2002) and groups generated verbal behaviors similar to those of scientists (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1992, 1993, 1994). In contrast, Chiu (2003) found that students devoted significant amount of time to task collaboration, procedure coordination, and team coordination rather than conducting discussions on the concepts, propositions, or relationships. Along the same line, Carter (1998) found that the concept mapping activity did not