Concept map activities often lack a subsequent revision step that facilitates knowledge integration. This study compares two collaborative critique activities using a Knowledge Integration Map (KIM), a form of concept map. Four classes of high school biology students (n?=?81) using an online inquiry-based learning unit on evolution were assigned to one of two conditions. Student dyads in one condition compared their concept maps against an expert map while dyads in the other condition conducted a peer-review. Analysis of the concept maps suggests that students in both conditions improved their understanding of evolution from pretest to posttest. However, the two conditions lead to different criteria: Students in the expert-map condition focused mostly on concept-focused criteria like concept classification while students in the peer-review condition used more link-focused criteria like link labels and missing connections. This paper suggests that both forms of KIM critique activities can be beneficial for constructing more coherent connections across different topics in evolution education. These results support the value of collaborative KIM critique activities and help clarify the forms of collaborative activities that are most likely to be effective to facilitate knowledge integration processes.