21st Century Skills Development with Concept Maps : A Case Study of Criminal Law
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to 1) investigate about the concept mapping design and implementation for learning How to summarize content in Criminal Law among Public Administration students, while aims at 2) measuring their learning achievement through that concept mapping towards developing their 21st-century skills in Crimin al Law. This study was a participatory action research methodology with 35 second-year students majoring in Public Administration, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Phranakhon Rajabhat University. The research instruments were a concept map quality assessment rubric, criminal law achievement test, and 21st century skills assessment form. Data were analyzed through content analysis, percentage, mean and standard deviation.
The results shown that: 1) on concept map design of Criminal Law summary content the students having ability to link facts and legal principles were very good, with as many as 80% of the student get category satisfactory performance. The improvement in legal reasoning skills was substantial, increasing from 48.2 to 89.6 points. 2) Mean Learning Achievement in 21st century skills development through concept mapping, critical thinking skills were improved by 51.6%, problem-solving skill improved at 45.1% and creative thinking improved by 45.7%. 38.4% improvement in lifelong learning skills; and very impressively, 85.7% of students could revise their work based on feedback using a growth mindset. Efficient learning is evident from the 37.8% reduction in case study reading time along with a 35.5% increase in comprehension. These results show that learners are not passive recipients of knowledge, instead they have become active constructors of such knowledge.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Each publish articles were copyright by Phranakorn Rajabhat University
Any contents which appeared in each articles in the journal were authors personal opinion. It did not relate to Phranakorn Rajabhat University and other instructors in the university. Each authors would take responsibility on their articles. If there are any mistake, the authors will take responsibility themselves
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Aslami, M., Dehghani, M., Shakurnia, A., Ramezani, G., & Kojuri, J. (2021). Effect of concept mapping education on critical thinking skills of medical students: A quasi-experimental study. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences, 31(2), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v31i2.24
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bellanca, J., & Brandt, R. (Eds.). (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deplano, R. (2018). Using concept maps in law schools to foster meaningful learning: Evidence from a pilot study. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(2).
Djiwandono, P. I. (2013). Critical thinking skills for language students. TEFLIN Journal, 24(1), 32–47.
Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hay, D. B., & Proctor, M. (2015). Concept maps which visualise the artifice of teaching sequence: Cognition, linguistic and problem-based views on a common teaching problem. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 7(1), 36–55.
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2018). Cooperative learning: The foundation for active learning. In S. M. Brito (Ed.), Active learning: Beyond the future (pp. 59–71). London, England: IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81086
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Kraivichien, T., & Chantharasen, A. (2007). Advice for law students [in Thai]. Bangkok, Thailand: Thammasat University Press.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them (Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008). Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
Office of the Education Council. (2017). National education plan B.E. 2560–2579 (2017–2036) [in Thai]. Bangkok, Thailand: Office of the Education Council.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2015). P21 framework definitions. Columbus, OH: Battelle for Kids.
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Rezaei, S., Derakhshan, A., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2011). Critical thinking in language education. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 769–777.
Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 630–634.
Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Teaching for creativity. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 394–414). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Thilao, P. (2018). Introduction to public administration [in Thai]. Bangkok, Thailand: Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University Press.
