Concept map

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For concept maps in generic programming, see Concept (generic programming).

Concept mapping is a technique for visualizing the relationships among different concepts. A concept map is a diagram showing the relationships among concepts. Concepts are connected with labelled arrows, in a downward-branching hierarchical structure. The relationship between concepts is articulated in linking phrases, e.g., "gives rise to", "results in", "is required by," or "contributes to".

Contents

[edit] Development

Example concept map, created using IHMC CmapTools.
Example concept map, created using IHMC CmapTools.

The technique of concept mapping was developed by Joseph D. Novak[1] and his research team at Cornell University in the 1970s as a means of representing the emerging science knowledge of students. It has subsequently been used as a tool to increase meaningful learning in the sciences and other subjects as well as to represent the expert knowledge of individuals and teams in education, government and business.

Concept maps have their origin in the learning movement called constructivism. In particular, constructivists hold that learners actively construct knowledge.

Novak's work is based on the cognitive theories of David Ausubel (assimilation theory), who stressed the importance of prior knowledge in being able to learn new concepts.

"The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach accordingly."[2]

Novak taught students as young as six years old to make concept maps to represent their response to focus questions such as "What is water?" "What causes the seasons?"

In his book Learning How to Learn, Novak states that "meaningful learning involves the assimilation of new concepts and propositions into existing cognitive structures."

[edit] Usage

Concept maps are used to stimulate the generation of ideas, and are believed to aid creativity. For example, concept mapping is sometimes used for brain-storming. Although they are often personalized and idiosyncratic, concept maps can be used to communicate complex ideas.

Formalized concept maps are used in software design, where a common usage is Unified Modeling Language diagramming amongst similar conventions and development methodologies.

Concept mapping can also be seen as a first step in ontology-building, and can also be used flexibly to represent formal argument.

Concept maps are widely used in education and business for:

  • Note taking and summarizing gleaning key concepts, their relationships and hierarchy from documents and source materials
  • New knowledge creation: e.g., transforming tacit knowledge into an organizational resource, mapping team knowledge
  • Institutional knowledge preservation (retention), e.g, eliciting and mapping expert knowledge of employees prior to retirement
  • Collaborative knowledge modeling and the transfer of expert knowledge
  • Facilitating the creation of shared vision and shared understanding within a team or organization
  • Instructional design: concept maps used as Ausubelian "advance organizers" which provide an initial conceptual frame for subsequent information and learning.
  • Training: concept maps used as Ausubelian "advanced organizers" to represent the training context and its relationship to their jobs, to the organization's strategic objectives, to training goals.
  • Increasing meaningful learning:
  • Communicating complex ideas and arguments:
  • Examining the symmetry of complex ideas and arguments and associated terminology:
  • Detailing the entire structure of an idea, train of thought, or line of argument (with the specific goal of exposing faults, errors, or gaps in one's own reasoning) for the scrutiny of others.
  • Enhancing metacognition (learning to learn, and thinking about knowledge)
  • Improving language ability
  • Assessing learner understanding of learning objectives, concepts, and the relationship among those concepts

[edit] Contrast with mind mapping

Concept mapping can be contrasted with the similar idea of mind mapping.

The latter is often restricted to radial hierarchies and tree structures. Among the various schema and techniques for visualizing ideas, processes, organisations, concept mapping, as developed by Novak is unique in philosophical basis, which "makes concepts, and propositions composed of concepts, the central elements in the structure of knowledge and construction of meaning."[3]

There is research evidence that knowledge is stored in the brain in the form of productions that act on declarative memory content which is also referred to as chunks or propositions [4][5]. Because concept maps are constructed to reflect the organization of the declarative memory system, they facilitate sense-making and meaningful learning on the part of individuals who make concept maps and those who use them.

Concept maps were developed to enhance meaningful learning in the sciences. A well made concept map grows within a context frame defined by an explicit "focus question," while a mind map often has only branches radiating out from a central picture.

Another contrast between Concept mapping and Mind mapping is the speed and spontaneity when a Mind map is created. A Mind map reflects what you think about a single topic, which can focus group brainstorming. A Concept map can be a map, a system view, of a real (abstract) system or set of concepts. Concept maps are more free form, as multiple hubs and clusters can be created, unlike mindmaps which fix on a single conceptual center.

[edit] See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Wikiversity
At Wikiversity, you can learn about:

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Joseph D. Novak. Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC). Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
  2. ^ (Ausubel, D. (1968) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York).
  3. ^ Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1996). Learning How To Learn, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 7.
  4. ^ Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  5. ^ Anderson, J. R., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An Integrated Theory of the Mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1050.

[edit] References

  • Ausubel, D., Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, (New York), 1968.
  • Brinthaupt, T.M. & Shin, C.M., "The Relationship of Academic Cramming to Flow Experience", College Student Journal, Vol.35, No.3, (September 2001), pp.457-471.
  • Brown, D.A., "Creative Concept Mapping", The Science Teacher, Vol.69, No.3, (March 2002), pp.58-61.
  • Daley, B.J., Shaw, C.R., Balistrieri, T. Glasenap, K. & Piacentine, L., "Concept Maps: A Strategy to Teach and Evaluate Critical Thinking", Journal of Nursing Education, Vol.38, No.1, (January 1999), pp.42-47.
  • Edens, K.M. & Potter, E., "Using Descriptive Drawings as a Conceptual Change Strategy in Elementary Science", School Science and Mathematics, Vol.103, No.3, (March 2003), pp.135-144.
  • Eppler, M.J., "Making Knowledge Visible Through Intranet Knowledge Maps: Concepts, Elements, Cases", Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2001, (2001), pp.1530 –1539.
  • Gómez, A., Moreno, A., Pazos, J. & Sierra-Alonso, A., "Knowledge Maps: An Essential Technique for Conceptualisation", Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol.33, No.2, (May 2000), pp.169-190.
  • Goodyear, R,K., Tracey, T.J.G., Claiborn, C.D., Lichtenberg, J.W. & Wampold, B.E., "Ideographic Concept Mapping in Counseling Psychology Research: Conceptual Overview, Methodology, and an Illustration", Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol.52, No.2, (April 2005), pp.236-242.
  • Gordon, J.L., "Creating Knowledge Maps by Exploiting Dependent Relationships", Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol.13, Nos.2-3, (May 2000), pp.71-79.
  • Hall, R.H., Hall, M.A. & Saling, C.B., "The Effects of Graphical Postorganization Strategies on Learning From Knowledge Maps", The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol.67, No.2, (Winter 1999), pp.101-112.
  • Holmes, B., "Beyond words", New Scientist, Vol.163, No.2194, (10 July 1999), pp.22-.
  • Kolb, D.G. & Shepherd, D.M., "Concept Mapping Organizational Cultures", Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol.6, No.4, (December 1997), pp.282-295.
  • Kramer, S., "Application of Concept Mapping to Systems Engineering", Conference Proceedings, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1990, (1990), pp.652-654.
  • McDougall, S. & Gruneberg, M., "What Memory Strategy is Best for Examinations in Psychology?", Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol.16, No.4, (May 2002), pp.451-458.
  • Mintzes, J.J. & Novak, J.D., "Assessing Science Understanding: The Epistemological Vee Diagram", pp.41-69 in Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H. & Novak, J.D. (eds.), Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructionist View, Academic Press, (San Diego), 1999.
  • Nerlich, B. & Clarke, D.D., "Semantic fields and frames: Historical explorations of the interface between language, action, and cognition", Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.32, No.2, (January 2000), pp.125-150.
  • Nijland, G.O., "The Tetrahedron of Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-model of the Relations among Observation, Conceptualization, Evaluation and Action in the Research on Socio-ecological Systems", Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol.19, No.3, (May-June 2002), pp.211-221.
  • Novak, J.D., "Concept Mapping: A Strategy for Organizing Knowledge", pp.229-245 in Glynn, S.M. & Duit, R. (eds.), Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (Mahwah), 1995.
  • Novak, J.D., "Concept Mapping: A Useful Tool for Science Education", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol.27, No.10, (20 December 1990), pp.937-949.
  • Novak, J.D., "Concept Maps and Vee Diagrams: Two Metacognitive Tools to Facilitate Meaningful Learning", Instructional Science, Vol.19, No.1, (1990), pp.29-52.
  • Novak, J.D., "The Nature of Knowledge and How Humans Create Knowledge", pp.79-111 [Chapter 6] in Novak, J.D., Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (Mahwah), 1998.
  • Novak, J.D., Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (Mahwah), 1998.
[As Preece’s review shows, the Concept Maps part of the title is very significant (i.e., it is now a trademark). There is really nothing in this book that is not in the earlier, far better, book (Novak, & Gowin).]
  • Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B., Learning How to Learn, Cambridge University Press, (Cambridge), 1984.
  • Plotnick, E., "A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts”, Teacher Librarian, Vol.28, No.4, (April 2001), pp.42-44.
  • Preece, P.F.W., "Review of Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations", British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.69, No.1, (March 1999), pp.128-129.
  • Robinson, W.R., "A View from the Science Education Research Literature: Concept map Assessment of Classroom Learning", Journal of Chemical Education, Vol.76, No.9, (September 1999), pp.1179–1180.
  • Romance, N.R. & Vitale, M.R., "Concept Mapping as a Tool for Learning", College Teaching, Vol.47, No.2, (Spring 1999), pp.74-79.
  • Sandoval, J., "Teaching in Subject Matter Areas: Science", Annual Review of Psychology, Vol.46, (1995), pp.355-374.
  • Slotte, W. & Lonka, K., "Spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific concepts", International Journal of Science Education, Vol.21, No.5, (May 1999), pp.515-531.
  • Stoyanova, N. & Kommers, P., "Concept Mapping as a Medium of Shared Cognition in Computer-Supported Collaborative Problem Solving", Journal of Interactive Learning Research, (Spring 2002), pp.111-133.
  • Townsend, M.A.R., Hicks, L., Thompson, J.D.M., Wilton, K.M., Tuck, B.F. & Moore, D.W., "Effects of Introductions and Conclusions in Assessment of Student Essays", Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.85, No.4, (December 1993), pp.670-678.
  • Tracey, T.J.G., Lichtenberg, J.W., Goodyear, R.K., Claiborn, C.D. & Wampold, B.E., "Concept Mapping of Therapeutic Common Factors", Psychotherapy Research, Vol.13, No.4, (December 2003), pp.401-413.
  • Trochim, W.M.K., "An Introduction to Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation". [Taken from [1] on 9 June 2002.]
  • Trochim, W.M.K., "Concept Mapping: Soft Science or Hard Art?". [Taken from [2] on 9 June 2002.]
  • Turns, J., Altman, C.J. & Adams, R., "Concept Maps for Engineering Education: A Cognitively Motivated Tool Supporting Varied Assessment Functions", IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol.43, No.2, (May 2000), pp.164-173.
  • van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E. & Erkens, G., "Collaborative Concept Mapping: Provoking and Supporting Meaningful Discourse", Theory Into Practice, Vol.41, No.1, (Winter 2002), pp.40-46.
  • Verosub, K.L., "A Mind-Map of Geology", Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol.48, No.5, (November 2000), p.599.
  • Wallace, D.S., West, S.W.C., Ware, A. & Dansereau, D.E., "The Effect of Knowledge Maps That Incorporate Gestalt Principles on Learning", The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol.67, No.1, (Fall 1998), pp.5-16.
  • Ward, T.B., Dodds, R.A., Saunders, K.N. & Sifonis, C.M., "Attribute centrality and imaginative thought", Memory and Cognition, Vol.28, No.8, (December 2000), pp.1387–1397.
  • West, D.C., Pomeroy, J.R., Park, J.K., Gerstenberger, E.A. & Sandoval, J., "Critical Thinking in Graduate Medical Education: A Role for Concept Mapping Assessment?", Journal of American Medical Association, Vol.284, No.9, (6 September 2000), pp.1105–1110.
  • Williams, C.G., "Using Concept Maps to Assess Conceptual Knowledge of Function", Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol.29, No.4, (July 1998), pp.414-421.

[edit] External links