Concept maps come in more than one flavour, and the differences are not cosmetic. Some ask students to build freely from a blank canvas. Others hand them a fixed set of pieces and ask them to reassemble what the teacher had in mind. A study from Indonesia put two of these designs side by side, then waited two weeks to see what stuck.
Both designs work in two phases. Phase one produces a map of the core material. Phase two extends that map with a second round of content. Where they differ is what students get during phase one.
Extended Scratch-Build is open ended. Students choose their own concepts and links. Extended Kit-Build starts closed: students recompose a map from pieces taken out of the teacher's map, then extend it freely in phase two.
Fifty-five second-year students in a Database course took part, split into a control group of 27 and an experimental group of 28. Both sat an immediate test after the activity and a delayed test 14 days later, using the same questions in a different order.
The kit-build group scored higher on the immediate test, 87.50 against 81.02, and stayed ahead after two weeks, 78.57 against 69.91. Both groups lost ground over the fortnight. The gap between them held.
The clearest difference appeared on questions tied to the kit itself. Questions covering material outside the kit showed no significant gap. In other words, the advantage tracks the parts of the map students had to piece together rather than simply read.
Prasetya et al. (2022). Investigating the memory retention in extension concept mapping. Improving Assessment and Evaluation Strategies on Online Learning.
