Abstract
Novakian concept mapping has been shown to offer great potential in the undergraduate science classroom as a tool to support student learning. However, a number of papers in the research literature have been less than rigorous in their application of concept mapping. This chapter highlights a number of key questions that researchers should ask themselves when embarking upon a concept mapping intervention in order to optimize the application of the tool. Firstly there needs to be clarity about the purpose of an intervention: Is it designed as a research protocol to obtain generalizable results, or is the intervention only of local interest in a unique context? This raises the question of whether the maps are research artifacts (data) or tools to support development. Secondly, we need to be clear about the type of knowledge being mapped. Is the map of agreed upon curricular knowledge for which there may be a correct response (where scoring of maps may have some utility), or is the map of “yet-to-be-known” knowledge (of personal reflections and values) where scoring would be inappropriate? Thirdly, will the initial maps provided by participants provide the data that is being sought, or will students need feedback and supportive dialogue to help increase the map quality? Finally, appreciating the ways in which the mapping relates to the philosophy of the curriculum is crucial. If the curriculum requires deep, cumulative learning as part of a collaborative learning community, then mapping is likely to be helpful. If the intention is only for individuals to memorize content, then mapping has no real part to play. By considering each of these issues before embarking upon a mapping intervention, the value of the research outputs is likely to be enhanced.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Behnejad, S. A. (2018). Engineering. In I. M. Kinchin & N. E. Winstone (Eds.), Exploring pedagogic frailty and resilience: Case studies of academic narrative (pp. 33–45). Leiden: Brill/Sense.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
Brown, S. (2005). Assessment for learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 81–89.
Cañas, A. J., Reiska, P., & Möllits, A. (2017). Developing higher order thinking skills with concept mapping: A case of pedagogic frailty. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), 9(3), 348–365.
Daley, B. J., Morgan, S., & Black, S. B. (2016). Concept maps in nursing education: A historical literature review and research directions. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(11), 631–639.
Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Dowd, J. E., Duncan, T., & Reynolds, J. A. (2015). Concept maps for improved science reasoning and writing: Complexity Isn’t everything. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-06-0138.
Ellis, R. (2011). Jizz and the joy of pattern recognition: Virtuosity, discipline and the agency of insight in UK naturalists’ arts of seeing. Social Studies of Science, 41(6), 769–790.
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120.
Freeman, S., Haak, D., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2011). Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 175–186.
Gao, H., Shen, E., Losh, S., & Turner, J. (2007). A review of studies on collaborative concept mapping: What have we learned about the technique and what is next? Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(4), 479–492.
Gardner, G.E., Lohr, M.E., Bartos, S. & Reid, J.W. (2018) Comparing individual and group- negotiated knowledge structures in an introductory biology course for majors. Journal of Biological Education,https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1469537
Greenway, K., Butt, G., & Walthall, H. (2019). What is a theory-practice gap? An exploration of the concept. Nurse Education in Practice, 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2018.10.005.
Hay, D., Kinchin, I. M., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008). Making learning visible: The role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295–311.
Heron, M. (2018). Dialogic stance in higher education seminars. Language and Education, 32(2), 112–126.
Joseph, C., Conradson, D., Wikmar, L. N., & Rowe, M. (2017). Structured feedback on students’ concept maps: The proverbial path to learning? BMC Medical Education, 17, 90.
Keiny, S. (2002). Ecological thinking: A new approach to educational change. Lanham: University of America Press.
Kinchin, I. M. (2001a). Can a novice be viewed as an expert upside-down? School Science Review, 303(83), 91–95.
Kinchin, I. M. (2001b). If concept mapping is so helpful to learning biology, why aren’t we all doing it? International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1257–1269.
Kinchin, I. M. (2014). Concept mapping as a learning tool in higher education: A critical analysis of recent reviews. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 62(1), 39–49.
Kinchin, I. M. (2016). Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student: A knowledge structures perspective on teaching and learning at university. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kinchin, I. M. (2018). A ‘species identification’ approach to concept mapping in the classroom. Journal of Biological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1546763.
Kinchin, I. M. (2019). Accessing expert understanding: The value of visualising knowledge structures in professional education. In K. Trimmer et al. (Eds.), Ensuring quality in professional education volume 2 (pp. 71–89). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kinchin, I. M., & Hay, D. B. (2005). Using concept maps to optimize the composition of collaborative student groups: A pilot study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(2), 182–187.
Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (Eds.). (2018). Exploring pedagogic frailty and resilience: Case studies of academic narrative. Leiden: Brill/Sense.
Kinchin, I. M., DeLeij, F. A. A. M., & Hay, D. B. (2005). The evolution of a collaborative concept mapping activity for undergraduate microbiology students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(1), 1–14.
Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 8–22.
Maton, K. (2014). Building powerful knowledge: The significance of semantic waves. In E. Rata & B. Barrett (Eds.), Knowledge and the future of the curriculum (pp. 181–197). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta- analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self- regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). Oxford: Routledge.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The origins of concept maps and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization Journal, 5(3), 175–184.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2007). Theoretical origins of concept maps, how to construct them, and uses in education. Reflecting Education, 3(1), 29–42.
Plamondon, K. M., Bottorff, J. L., & Cole, D. C. (2015). Analyzing data generated through deliberative dialogue: Bringing knowledge translation into qualitative analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 25(11), 1529–1539.
Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 503–534.
Salmon, D. & Kelly, M. (2015) Using concept mapping to foster adaptive expertise: Enhancing teacher metacognitive learning to improve student academic performance. New York, Peter Lang.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whelligan, D. (2018). Chemistry. In I. M. Kinchin & N. E. Winstone (Eds.), Exploring pedagogic frailty and resilience: Case studies of academic narrative (pp. 15–28). Leiden: Brill/Sense.
Winstone, N. E., & Kinchin, I. M. (2018). Pedagogic frailty and resilience in context. In I. M. Kinchin & N. E. Winstone (Eds.), Exploring pedagogic frailty and resilience: Case studies of academic narrative (pp. 205–220). Leiden: Brill/Sense.
Winstone, N., Nash, R., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017a). “It’d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it”. Barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2026–2041.
Winstone, N., Nash, R., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017b). Supporting learners’ Agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of Recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kinchin, I.M. (2020). Enhancing the Quality of Concept Mapping Interventions in Undergraduate Science. In: Mintzes, J.J., Walter, E.M. (eds) Active Learning in College Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33599-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33600-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)