Concept Mapping
Strategy Summary
Overview
A concept map is a 2-dimensional graphical illustration of a concept. Concepts are defined as perceived patterns of events that happen regularly (Novak & Cañas, 2008). The map functions to categorize and organize knowledge that is connected to the main concept by propositional links. It serves as a visual, nonlinear representation of concepts, which in turn creates a hierarchical structure to link general topics to specific subtopics with verbs or phrases that characterize the relationship. Cross-links also may be used to connect subtopics found in the different hierarchies of the central theme.
Value of Tool
Concept mapping is a beneficial instructional tool because it facilitates meaningful learning (Hilbert & Renkl, 2007). The construction of concept maps encourages deeper thinking through the process of making connections. Meaningful learning integrates relevant knowledge structures and builds upon a student’s internal desire to gain understanding. Concept maps allow a teacher to assess and monitor a student’s cognitive progress and expose their novel ideas, while providing students with the autonomy to creatively share their cognitive structures. Teachers may also use concept maps as an instructional tool for note-taking, for the introduction of new material, and for the summarization of a lesson.
Research
Research shows that the creation of a concept map has the capacity to scaffold a learner’s knowledge in a way that parallels how we learn. Concept maps also allow the addition of new concepts. Concept maps came to fruition as a result of Joseph Novak’s research at Cornell, where he sought to follow and understand changes in children’s knowledge of science (Novak & Musonda, 1991). From a young age, humans begin to recognize patterns in the world and seek to identify those regularities (Macnamara, 1982). The acquisition of a new concept is affirmed through concrete experiences, that involve discovery and inquiry learning (Novak & Cañas, 2008). Therefore, concept maps create a concrete way to explore new concepts. Knowledge is solidified through actively drawing connections. As the learner physically draws the connection between two subtopics, the student reinforces that same connection cognitively (Llewellyn, 2007).
Concept maps fit on a continuum between rote learning and meaningful learning. Rote learning focuses more on memorization and does not include an integration of concepts whereas meaningful learning integrates previous knowledge with new information (Novak & Cañas, 2008). Cognitive psychological research has confirmed that a learning process that facilitates multiple iterations between the working memory and the long-term memory is beneficial (Novak, 2002). Research has also recognized that a concept map utilizes new knowledge, promotes long-term retention, and demands students to go beyond recall of specific definitions and descriptions (Novak & Cañas, 2008). These foundational understandings in cognitive psychology also lend support to the fact that metacognitive processes are engaged through concept mapping (Hilbert & Renkl, 2007).
Challenges
For the construction of a concept map to be effective, students must at least have rudimentary knowledge of the topic and familiarity with the process of creating a concept map. As learners gain more hands-on experience in concept mapping, they seem to conduct these processes more easily and with better results (Hilbert & Renkl, 2007). However, there can be two types of unsuccessful mappers: non-labeling mappers and non-planning mappers (Hilbert & Renkl, 2007), therefore clear and specific instruction, and practice is required to permit meaningful learning through concept mapping.
A concept map is a 2-dimensional graphical illustration of a concept. Concepts are defined as perceived patterns of events that happen regularly (Novak & Cañas, 2008). The map functions to categorize and organize knowledge that is connected to the main concept by propositional links. It serves as a visual, nonlinear representation of concepts, which in turn creates a hierarchical structure to link general topics to specific subtopics with verbs or phrases that characterize the relationship. Cross-links also may be used to connect subtopics found in the different hierarchies of the central theme.
Value of Tool
Concept mapping is a beneficial instructional tool because it facilitates meaningful learning (Hilbert & Renkl, 2007). The construction of concept maps encourages deeper thinking through the process of making connections. Meaningful learning integrates relevant knowledge structures and builds upon a student’s internal desire to gain understanding. Concept maps allow a teacher to assess and monitor a student’s cognitive progress and expose their novel ideas, while providing students with the autonomy to creatively share their cognitive structures. Teachers may also use concept maps as an instructional tool for note-taking, for the introduction of new material, and for the summarization of a lesson.
Research
Research shows that the creation of a concept map has the capacity to scaffold a learner’s knowledge in a way that parallels how we learn. Concept maps also allow the addition of new concepts. Concept maps came to fruition as a result of Joseph Novak’s research at Cornell, where he sought to follow and understand changes in children’s knowledge of science (Novak & Musonda, 1991). From a young age, humans begin to recognize patterns in the world and seek to identify those regularities (Macnamara, 1982). The acquisition of a new concept is affirmed through concrete experiences, that involve discovery and inquiry learning (Novak & Cañas, 2008). Therefore, concept maps create a concrete way to explore new concepts. Knowledge is solidified through actively drawing connections. As the learner physically draws the connection between two subtopics, the student reinforces that same connection cognitively (Llewellyn, 2007).
Concept maps fit on a continuum between rote learning and meaningful learning. Rote learning focuses more on memorization and does not include an integration of concepts whereas meaningful learning integrates previous knowledge with new information (Novak & Cañas, 2008). Cognitive psychological research has confirmed that a learning process that facilitates multiple iterations between the working memory and the long-term memory is beneficial (Novak, 2002). Research has also recognized that a concept map utilizes new knowledge, promotes long-term retention, and demands students to go beyond recall of specific definitions and descriptions (Novak & Cañas, 2008). These foundational understandings in cognitive psychology also lend support to the fact that metacognitive processes are engaged through concept mapping (Hilbert & Renkl, 2007).
Challenges
For the construction of a concept map to be effective, students must at least have rudimentary knowledge of the topic and familiarity with the process of creating a concept map. As learners gain more hands-on experience in concept mapping, they seem to conduct these processes more easily and with better results (Hilbert & Renkl, 2007). However, there can be two types of unsuccessful mappers: non-labeling mappers and non-planning mappers (Hilbert & Renkl, 2007), therefore clear and specific instruction, and practice is required to permit meaningful learning through concept mapping.
Novel Synthesis
Concept maps provide space for individual creativity. Below are two examples of a concept map. Both focus around the central theme of concept maps but diverge and celebrate how the authors synthesize their deeper understanding of the information.
Concept Map #1: This map depecits the author's conceptual understanding of the benefits, applications, creation, and learning goals of a concept map. This version of the concept map is focused on organizing and visually depecting a summary of concept mapping.
Concept Map#2: This map depicts one individual's understanding of concept maps. Included concepts within the map are: how a concept map may be used as an insturctional tool; how to create a concept map; how old and new factual knowledge and conceptual frameworks are integrated; and how cognitive psychology provides an understanding of how we learn through creating a concept map. This concept map was inspired by Joseph D. Novak & Alerto J. Canas' interpretation of a concept map that illustrates the key features of concept maps.
Site Map
These diagrams depict different ways of seeing the interconnections between the teaching strageties and learning goals that are outlined on the website.
Figure 1: This diagram highlights the teaching goals and
what learning goals they are with associated them.
what learning goals they are with associated them.
Figure 2: This diagram illistrates the interconnected web
between teaching strategies and learning goals.
between teaching strategies and learning goals.
Related Learning Goals
References
Alvin Sherman Library, Research, and Information Technology Center. (2016). Creating a concept map. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from http://sherman.library.nova.edu/sites/learn/watch/creating-concept-map/
Anderson-Inman, L., Ditson, L., Ditson, M. (1998). Computer-based concept mapping: promoting meaningful learning in science for students with disabilities. Information Technology and Disabilities. 5(1-2).
Greene, B. A., Lubin, I. A., Slater, J. L., & Walden, S. E. (2013). Mapping changes in science teachers’ content knowledge: Concept maps and authentic professional development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 287-299.
Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: what characterizes good and poor mappers?. Instructional Science, 36(1), 53-73.
Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational research, 42(1), 43-57.
Llewellyn, D. (2007). Making the most of concept maps. Science Scope. 30(5), 74-77.
Macnamara, J. (1982). Names for things: A study of human learning. M.I.T.
Novak, J. D. & Canas, A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/theory-of-concept-maps.php
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (liphs) leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548-571.
Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.
Anderson-Inman, L., Ditson, L., Ditson, M. (1998). Computer-based concept mapping: promoting meaningful learning in science for students with disabilities. Information Technology and Disabilities. 5(1-2).
Greene, B. A., Lubin, I. A., Slater, J. L., & Walden, S. E. (2013). Mapping changes in science teachers’ content knowledge: Concept maps and authentic professional development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 287-299.
Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: what characterizes good and poor mappers?. Instructional Science, 36(1), 53-73.
Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational research, 42(1), 43-57.
Llewellyn, D. (2007). Making the most of concept maps. Science Scope. 30(5), 74-77.
Macnamara, J. (1982). Names for things: A study of human learning. M.I.T.
Novak, J. D. & Canas, A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/theory-of-concept-maps.php
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (liphs) leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548-571.
Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.