Abstract
This chapter investigates the response of four teaching academics in higher education to the use of electronic concept mapping. As such, it would be considered primarily a phenomenological study rooted in qualitative analysis. In particular, the chapter will analyze four independent projects where the instructor used electronic concept mapping for the first time. The academics first undertook these projects beginning in 2010. Three academics teach in North American universities while the last works in a Jamaican university. These projects include (1) use of electronic concept mapping to design anesthesiology curriculum in a medical school, (2) research on the use of virtual worlds in teaching undergraduate English literature, (3) the use of two-dimensional concept mapping in teaching undergraduate Greek mythology, and (4) using concept maps in a Jamaican graduate course in architecture education The analysis and synthesis of these findings will provide an introspective that sensitizes potential users to the nuances of the technology and how important it is to consider first the inherent pedagogical framework.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Åhlberg, M. (2004) Varieties of concept maps. In A. Cañas, J. Novak, & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.
Al-Kunifed, A., & Wandersee, J. (1990). One hundred references related to concept mapping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1069–1075.
Ausubel, D. (1960). The use of advance organizers in learning and retention of meaningful information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 26.
Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Basque, J. & Lavoie, M. (2006).Collaborative concept mapping in education: Major research trends. In A. Cañas & J. Novak (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica.
Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using technology in instruction? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved February 6, 2013 from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/FINDINGS/special3/How_Are_Teachers_Using.pdf.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Chularut, P., & DeBacker, T. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248–263.
Dede, C. (2007). Introduction: A sea of change in thinking, knowing, learning & teaching In G. Salaway & J. Borreson Caruso (Eds.), The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved September 1, 2012 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1006/RS/ERS1006W.pdf
Dobbins, K. (2005). Getting ready for the net generation. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 8–9.
Dye, G. A. (2000). Graphic organizers to the rescue! Helping students link and remember information. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3), 72–76.
Forsythe, T., & MacKinnon, G. (2005). Technology & cooperative learning: The IIT model for teaching authentic chemistry curriculum. In R. Yager (Ed.), Exemplary science in grades 9–12: Standards-based success stories (pp. 11–23). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.
Hartman, J., Moskal, P., & Dziuban, C. (2005). Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Helfgott, M., Brewer, A. & Novak, J. (2010). The use of cmaps in the description of clinical information structure and logic. In: J. Sánchez, A. J. Cañas, J. D., & Novak (Eds.), Concept maps: Making learning meaningful. Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Concept Mapping. Viñadel Mar, Chile, 2010. Retrieved September 1, 2012 from http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2010papers/cmc2010-b7.pdf.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion. London: Sage.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC horizon report: 2012 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kinchin, I., Hay, D., & 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.
Knowledge Forum. Retrieved September 1, 2012 from http://www.knowledgeforum.com/.
Lopez, M. (2008). Propositional analysis model to the comparison of expert teachers’ concept maps. In A. Cañas, P. Preiska, M. Ahlberg, & J. Novak (Eds.), Concept mapping: Connecting educators. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Talin, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved September 1, 2012 from http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2008papers/cmc2008-p182.pdf.
MacKinnon, G., & Keppell, M. (2005). Concept mapping: A unique means for negotiating meaning in professional studies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(3), 291–315.
MacKinnon, G., & Provencal, V. (2009). Concept mapping as a means to stimulate thematic analysis in higher education: A study of Greek gods. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 5(3), 61–74.
MacKinnon, G., & Saklofske, J. (2011). Evaluating the pedagogical impact of a virtual world using concept mapping. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(3), 267–281.
MacKinnon, G., & Williams, P. (2006). Models for integrating technology in higher education: The physics of sound. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(7), 22–25.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Miller, N. & Cañas, A. (2008). A semantic scoring rubric for concept maps: Design and reliability. In A. Cañas, P. Reiska, M. Ahlberg, & J. Novak (Eds.), Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Talin, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved September 1, 2012 from http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2008papers/cmc2008-p253.pdf.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive structures. New York, NY: Viking.
Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183–192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51–68.
Silva, S., Romano, J. & Rogerio, P. (2010). Structural analysis of concept maps to evaluate the students’ proficiency as mappers. In J. Sánchez, A. J. Cañas, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps: Making learning meaningful. Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Concept Mapping. Viñadel Mar, Chile, 2010. Retrieved September 1, 2012 from http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2010papers/cmc2010-b14.pdf.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Educational psychology (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Squires, D. (1999). Educational software for constructivist learning environments: Subversive use and volatile design. Educational Technology, 39(3), 48–54.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Backward design. In Understanding by design (pp. 13–34). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiles, J. (2009). Leading curriculum development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Wills, S. (2005). The theoretical and empirical basis for graphic organizer instruction. Retrieved September 1, 2012 from http://www.hoover.k12.al.us/hcsnet/rfbms/makessense%207.4/donotopenfolder/implmnt/dontopen/msstrats/stuf/TheoreticBasis.pdf.
Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 115–122). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
MacKinnon, G., Bailey, R., Livingston, P., Provencal, V.L., Saklofske, J. (2014). Predispositions to Concept Mapping: Case Studies of Four Disciplines in Higher Education. In: Ifenthaler, D., Hanewald, R. (eds) Digital Knowledge Maps in Education. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3178-7_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3178-7_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-3177-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3178-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)