1. DSpace KNU
  2. Наукові публікації
  3. 5. Факультет інформаційних технологій
  4. Кафедра професійної та соціально-гуманітарної освіти
Будь ласка, використовуйте цей ідентифікатор, щоб цитувати або посилатися на цей матеріал: http://ds.knu.edu.ua/jspui/handle/123456789/9313
Назва: Integrating radiant thinking with chemical concept formation: a theoretical framework for mind mapping in specialized chemistry education
Автори: Polunina, Anna O.
Stoliarenko, Viktoriia H.
Nechypurenko, Pavlo P.
Semerikov, Serhiy O.
Ключові слова: Mind mapping
Radiant thinking
Chemistry education
Theoretical framework
Cognitive load theory
Johnstone’s triplet
Oxygen-containing compounds
Specialized education
Дата публікації: 28-тра-2026
Видавництво: Elsevier
Бібліографічний опис: Integrating radiant thinking with chemical concept formation: a theoretical framework for mind mapping in specialized chemistry education / Anna O. Polunina, Viktoriia H. Stoliarenko, Pavlo P. Nechypurenko, Serhiy O. Semerikov // Social Sciences & Humanities Open. – 2026. – Volume 13. – Article 102927. – DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102927
Короткий огляд (реферат): This paper presents a theoretical framework integrating radiant thinking principles with chemical concept formation through mind mapping in specialized chemistry education. As a theoretical synthesis, this work does not involve empirical data collection but rather integrates existing literature to address critical pedagogical challenges. The framework emerged from practical teaching experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ukrainian specialized chemistry schools, where hybrid learning conditions, laboratory access limitations, and learning disruptions necessitated innovative visualization strategies for complex chemical concepts. Drawing upon Buzan’s radiant thinking theory, Johnstone’s triplet (triangle) of chemical representations, and contemporary cognitive load theory, we propose a four-dimensional model encompassing: (1) conceptual radiance – hierarchical knowledge organization from central concepts to peripheral details; (2) representational integration – coordination of macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic domains; (3) creative synthesis – divergent thinking within disciplinary constraints; and (4) metacognitive orchestration – self-regulatory learning processes. The framework’s application to oxygen-containing organic compounds demonstrates practical utility in addressing persistent conceptual difficulties, particularly the transition from hydrocarbon to functional group chemistry. Recent meta-analyses (2020-2025) provide empirical support for the framework’s components, with guided mind mapping interventions showing strong positive effects on chemistry achievement and conceptual understanding. The synergistic interactions among dimensions create emergent properties that transcend traditional instructional approaches, offering unique affordances for managing cognitive complexity while fostering creative scientific thinking. This theoretical contribution provides pedagogical guidance for chemistry educators facing similar challenges in specialized STEM education contexts globally.
Опис: Akkuzu, N., & Uyulgan, M. A. (2016). An epistemological inquiry into organic chemistry education: Exploration of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of func­ tional groups. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 36–57. https://doi.org/ 10.1039/C5RP00128E Anastasiou, D., Wirngo, C. N., & Bagos, P. (2024). The effectiveness of concept maps on students’ achievement in science: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09877-y Aris, N. M., Ibrahim, N. H., & Halim, N. D. A. (2024). Design and development re­ search (DDR) approach in designing design thinking chemistry module to empower students’ innovation competencies. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 44, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.37934/araset.44.1.5568 Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20, R136–R140. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.014 Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. https:// www.asecib.ase.ro/mps/Bandura_SocialLearningTheory.pdf. Beaty, R. E., Seli, P., & Schacter, D. L. (2019). Network neuroscience of creative cogni­ tion: Mapping cognitive mechanisms and individual differences in the creative brain. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha. 2018.08.013 Beier, J. P., Swart, M. I., Pazicni, S., & Nathan, M. J. (2024). Connecting chemistry under­ standing: An integrated framework for concretizing abstract visual representations. In R. Lindgren, T. I. Asino, E. A. Kyza, C. K. Looi, D. T. Keifert, & E. Suárez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international conference of the learning sciences - ICLS 2024 (pp. 242–249). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/ icls2024.905723 Benny, N., & Blonder, R. (2018). Interactions of chemistry teachers with gifted students in a regular high-school chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00127D Bola, M., & Sabel, B. A. (2015). Dynamic reorganization of brain functional networks during cognition. Neuroimage, 114, 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.057 Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1994). The mind map book: How to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain’s untapped potential. New York: Dutton. Chang, H. Y., Lin, T. J., Lee, M. H., Lee, S. W. Y., Lin, T. C., Tan, A. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2020). A systematic review of trends and findings in research employing drawing assessment in science education. Studies in Science Education, 56, 77–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1735822 Cheng, M. M. W., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). Students’ visualization of metallic bonding and the malleability of metals. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 1373–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.867089 Cooper, M. M., Grove, N., Underwood, S. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2010). Lost in lewis structures: An investigation of student difficulties in developing representational competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 87, 869–874. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed900004y Dewi, C. A., Martini, M., & Mujakir, M. (2026). Trends and effectiveness of metacogni­tive strategies in chemistry learning: A systematic review. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 9, 2026141. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2026141 Dhindsa, H. S., Makarimi-Kasim, M., & Roger Anderson, O. (2011). Constructivist-visual mind map teaching approach and the quality of students’ cognitive structures. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9245-4 diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman, & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ. chapter 4, pp. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://worrydream.com/refs/diSessa_1988_-_Knowledge_in_Pieces.pdf. Fung, D. (2024). The synergy of peer collaboration and mind mapping in cultivating primary students’ science understanding: An integrative pedagogy to enhance sci­ence concept acquisition. International Journal of Science Education, 46, 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2222549 Gabora, L. (2018). The neural Basis and evolution of divergent and convergent thought. In R. E. Jung, & O. Vartanian (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the neuroscience of cre­ativity (pp. 58–70). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. chapter 4, pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316556238.005 Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2011). Multiple representations in chemical education (Vol. 4). Dordrecht: Models and Modeling in Science Education, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8 Graulich, N., & Lieber, L. (2024). Why comparing matters – on case comparisons in organic chemistry. Frontiers in Education, 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1374793 He, X., Li, Y., Xiao, X., Li, Y., Fang, J., & Zhou, R. (2025). Multi-level cognitive state classi­fication of learners using complex brain networks and interpretable machine learning. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 19, 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-024-10203-z Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and proce­dure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406 Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x Kamoun-Chouk, S. (2025). Mixing flipped classroom with mental mind mapping for deeper learning: A case study within the Tunisian higher education sector. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 24, 2450107. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649224501077 Kefalis, C., Skordoulis, C., & Drigas, A. (2025). A systematic review of mind maps, STEM education, algorithmic and procedural learning. Computers, 14, 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers14060204. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-431X/14/6/204. Kenneally, C. D., & Bentley, B. (2024). A cognitive load approach to molecular geome­tries: Augmented reality technology and visuospatial abilities in chemistry. Education Sciences, 14, 1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091036 Knysh, S. M. (2020). Creating mental maps in chemistry lessons as a means of forming key and subject competencies in students. In All-Ukrainian scientific-practical conference: Traditional and innovative approaches in the field of modern pedagogical research. Kyiv, Ukraine: Center for Progressive Education Genezum. https://tinyurl.com/yk69p4p7. Liu, Z., Kong, X., Liu, S., & Yang, Z. (2023). Effects of computer-based mind mapping on students’ reflection, cognitive presence, and learning outcomes in an online course. Distance Education, 44, 544–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2023.2226615 Magnone, K. Q., & Yezierski, E. J. (2024). Applying the VisChem approach in high school classrooms: Chemical learning outcomes and limitations. Journal of Chemical Education, 101, 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00827 Mayer, R. E. ed). (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355 Mundy, C. E., Potgieter, M., & Seery, M. K. (2024). A design-based research approach to improving pedagogy in the teaching laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25, 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00134B Mutlu, A., & Acar Şeşen, B. (2020). Comparison of inquiry-based instruction in real and virtual laboratory environments: Prospective science teachers’ attitudes. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12, 600–617. https://ijci.net/index.php/IJCI/article/view/459. Nelson, D. J., Kumar, R., & Ramasamy, S. (2015). Comparing carbonyl chemistry in com­prehensive introductory organic chemistry textbooks. Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 1171–1177. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500421j Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to con­struct and use them. technical report ihmc cmaptools 2006-01 rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. https://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/theory-of-concept-maps. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach get access arrow. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001 Philipp, S. B., Johnson, D. K., & Yezierski, E. J. (2014). Development of a protocol to eval­uate the use of representations in secondary chemistry instruction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 777–786. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00098F Polunina, A. O. (2022). Forming concepts of oxygen-containing organic compounds using mind map technology in grade 10 students at specialized schools (Master’s thesis). Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University. https://elibrary.kdpu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/6872. Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–51). Information Age Publishing. chapter 1, pp. https://aaalab.stanford.edu/assets/papers/2005/Efficiency_and_Innovation_in_Transfer.pdf. Shi, Y., Yang, H., Dou, Y., & Zeng, Y. (2023). Effects of mind mapping-based instruction on student cognitive learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Education Review, 24, 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-022-09746-9 Smith, K. J., & Stonequist, S. (2010). Challenging units for gifted learners: Teaching the way gifted students think (science, grades 6-8). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003233558 Stefkova, G., Michalkova, J., Dimunova, L., & Halasz, B. G. (2024). Visualization of students’ cognitive knowledge in digital concept mapping. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13, 240–246. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i1.26349 Stieff, M., & Ryan, S. (2013). Explanatory models for the research & development of chem­istry visualizations. In J. P. Suits, & M. J. Sange (Eds.), Pedagogic roles of animations and simulations in chemistry courses (Vol. 1142, pp. 15–41). ACS Symposium Series. chapter 2, pp. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2013-1142.ch002 Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Explorations in the learning sciences, instruc­tional systems and performance technologies. In Cognitive load theory (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4 Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435 Tang, M., & Neber, H. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated science learning in high-achieving students: Differences related to nation, gender, and grade-level. High Ability Studies, 19, 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130802503959 Vo, K., Sarkar, M., White, P. J., & Yuriev, E. (2025). Exploring problem-solving scaffolds in general chemistry: A systematic review of scaffolding goals and instructional ap­proaches. Journal of Chemical Education, 102, 1004–1018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01327 Vo, K., Sarkar, M., White, P. J., & Yuriev, E. (2025). Metacognitive problem solving: Exploration of students’ perspectives through the lens of multi-dimensional engage­ ment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 26, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00096J Wang, X. M., Wang, J. L., Xu, S. Y., & Xu, S. J. (2025). Concept mapping in STEM education: A meta-analysis of its impact on students’ achievement (2004–2023). International Journal of STEM Education, 12, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00554-2 Xu, L. (2022). Towards a social semiotic interpretation of the chemistry triangle: Student exploration of changes of state in an Australian secondary science class­ room. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 705–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10190-1 Yoon, H., & Kang, S. (2015). The effect of integrated mind map activities on the creative thinking skills of 2nd year students in junior high school. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 59, 164–178. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2015.59.2.164 Yue, M., Zhang, M., Zhang, C., & Jin, C. (2017). The effectiveness of concept mapping on development of critical thinking in nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today, 52, 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.02.018
URI (Уніфікований ідентифікатор ресурсу): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102927
http://ds.knu.edu.ua/jspui/handle/123456789/9313
ISSN: 2590-2911
Розташовується у зібраннях:Кафедра професійної та соціально-гуманітарної освіти

Файли цього матеріалу:
Файл Опис РозмірФормат 
1-s2.0-S2590291126004924-main.pdf2.1 MBAdobe PDFПереглянути/Відкрити
Показати повний опис матеріалу Перегляд статистики


Усі матеріали в архіві електронних ресурсів захищені авторським правом, всі права збережені.