Skip to main content

Exploring the Potential of Computer-Based Concept Mapping Under Self-and Collaborative Mode Within Emerging Learning Environments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education

Abstract

According to Novak (2010), a concept map (CM) is a (hierarchical) network comprised of concept terms (nodes) and directed lines linking pair of nodes; at the same time, CMs provide a window into students’ mind, reflecting students’ knowledge structures. Seen as an educational tool, the CM encourages students to organize and make explicit their knowledge. CMs are considered effective as teaching and learning tools that assist the development of conceptual knowledge, allowing visual observation of relationships and connections between multiple areas and pieces of information (Novak & Gowin, 1984). Moreover, the ability to recognize connections between different pieces of information or aspects of a problem facilitates problem-based learning (PBL) (Schaal, 2010). The latter assists the development of higher-order thinking skills, helping students to become independent, self-directed learners who appropriately respond to situations in a logical and reasonable manner (Savery & Duffy, 1995). Taking into account the previous approaches, a CM can be studied from different perspectives, for instance:

  • The creator/s perspective. The construction of a CM can be performed either in individual or in collaborative mode. Several studies have investigated the use/potential of CMs as supporting processes of self-knowledge management (Conceição, Desnoyers, & Baldor, 2008; Tergan, 2005; Tergan, Keller, Gräber, & Neumann, 2006; Vodovozov & Raud, 2015). Other authors, on the other hand, have explored the potential of collaborative CMs to facilitate knowledge construction as a study/collaborative tool (Gao, Thomson, & Shen, 2013; Koc, 2012; Lee, 2013; Lin, Wong, & Shao, 2012; Molinari, 2015; Rafaeli & Kent, 2015). Although originally developed to assist individual learners, collaborative use of CMs emphasizes brainstorming among group members, leading to visualization of new ideas and synthesis of unique concepts (Novak, 2010), requiring communication/negotiation processes, which guide learners to grow in their conceptual understanding (Kwon & Cifuentes, 2009).

  • The quality perspective. The quality of a CM (QoCM) can be defined through quantitative/qualitative metrics in different spaces, e.g., on the basis of the correct propositions that it includes, and/or on the characteristics that concern its construct as a network or even its construction procedure. Upon the evaluation of such qualities, appropriate feedback could be provided. In general, the CM quality refers to the amount, depth, and breadth of information and the number of connections made among different items included in it (Gurupur, Jain, & Rudraraju, 2015).

  • The technology perspective. Concept mapping has been described as a technique that can increase student’s learning in the traditional classroom (Álvarez-Montero, Sáenz-Pérez, & Vaquero-Sánchez, 2015; Novak & Cañas, 2008). However, several studies have clearly demonstrated the efficacy of computer and/or online concept mapping tools/techniques in supporting the learning process (Kwon & Cifuentes, 2007; Omar, 2015).

  • The teaching-learning environment perspective. The technological possibilities added flexibility that allows the integration of the CM in blended (b-) learning experiences (Adams Becker et al., 2017). These include face-to-face (F2F) and online modalities that are formed through the mediation of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs), rather than being completely online or F2F (Michinov & Michinov, 2008). So far, limited efforts have been made to understand the development and use of theory in the particular domain of b-learning research (Drysdale, Graham, Spring, & Halverson, 2013; Graham, 2013). The concept of b-learning is embedded in the idea that learning is not just a onetime episode but also a continuous/dynamic learning process. Blending different delivery modes/tools can be seen as an imaginative solution in educational contexts, since it has the potential to balance out and optimize the learning development (Dias, Diniz, & Hadjileontiadis, 2014). The computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) that can be integrated in b-learning assist individuals in learning, using multiple representations of information for a specific educational purpose (Ifenthaler, 2012). CBLEs frequently confront learners with a number of support devices (also referred as tools) in order to enhance learning, to help learners in their learning, and to provide a learning opportunity (Collazo, Elen, & Clarebout, 2015; Garcia-Álvarez, Suárez Álvarez, & Quiroga García, 2014). However, according to Bates and Sangrà (2011): “Teachers must decide which tools are most likely to suit the particular teaching approach” (pp. 44–46).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://abcteach.fmh.ulisboa.pt/.

  2. 2.

    http://cmap.ihmc.us/.

  3. 3.

    https://apiant.com/connect/Twinword-Sentiment-Analysis-to-IHMC-Cmap.

  4. 4.

    https://www.twinword.com/blog/interpreting-the-score-and-ratio-of-sentiment/.

References

  • Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez-Montero, F. J., Sáenz-Pérez, F., & Vaquero-Sánchez, A. (2015). Using datalog to provide just-in-time feedback during the construction of concept maps. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(3), 1362–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, W. T., & Sangrà, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for transforming teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cañas, A. J., Bunch, L., Novak, J. D., & Reiska, P. (2013). Cmapanalysis: An extensible concept map analysis tool. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 4(1), 36–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collazo, N. A. J., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2015). The multiple effects of combined tools in computer-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 82–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conceição, S. C., Desnoyers, C. A., & Baldor, M. J. (2008). Individual construction of knowledge in an online community through concept maps. Concept mapping: Connecting educators. In A. J. Cañas, P. Reiska, M. Åhlberg, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Concept Mapping (pp. 24–32). Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coutinho, C. P. (2009). Individual versus collaborative computer-supported concept mapping: A study with adult learners. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-learning in Corporate (pp. 1173–1180). Vancouver: Government, Healthcare and Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias, S. B., & Diniz, J. A. (2013). FuzzyQoI model: A fuzzy logic-based modelling of users’ quality of interaction with a learning management system under blended learning. Computers & Education, 69, 38–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, S. B., Diniz, J. A., & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2014). Towards an intelligent learning management system under blended learning: Trends, profiles and modelling perspectives. In J. Kacprzyk & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Intelligent systems reference library (Vol. 59). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag ISBN: 978-3-319-02077-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias, S. B., Dolianiti, F. S., Hadjileontiadou, S. J., Diniz, J. A., & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2016). FISCMAP: A fuzzy logic-based quality of concept mapping modelling approach fostering reflective feedback. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion (DSAI2016) (pp. 293–300). Vila Real: ACM ISBN: 978-1-4503-4748-8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, S. B., Dolianiti, F. S., Hadjileontiadou, S. J., Diniz, J. A., & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2017). On modeling the quality of concept mapping towards more intelligent online learning feedback: A fuzzy logic-based approach. Universal Access in the Information Society (to appear).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias, S. B., Hadjileontiadou, S. J., Hadjileontiadis, L. J., & Diniz, J. A. (2017). Computer-based concept mapping combined with learning management system use: An explorative study under the self- and collaborative-mode. Computers & Education, 107, 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, H., Thomson, M. M., & Shen, E. (2013). Knowledge construction in collaborative concept mapping: A case study. Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education, 2(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Álvarez, M. T., Suárez Álvarez, E., & Quiroga García, R. (2014). ICTs and learning: A challenge in the engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(3), 636–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaulão, M. F. (2016). The use of concept maps as a work methodology in online learning environment-An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the International Conference: The Future of Education (6th ed., pp. 91–96). Florence: Pixel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 333–350). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurupur, V. P., Jain, G. P., & Rudraraju, R. (2015). Evaluating student learning using concept maps and Markov chains. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(7), 3306–3314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadjileontiadou, S., Dias, S. B., Diniz, J. A., & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2016). Shifting from self- to collaborative-mode of computer-based concept mapping within a hybrid learning environment: Effects and implications. In T. A. Mikropoulos, N. Papachristos, A. Tsiara, & P. Chalki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Pan-Hellenic and International Conference ICT in Education (pp. 181–199). Ioannina. ISSN: 2529-0916, ISBN: 978-960-88359-8-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanewald, R., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Digital knowledge mapping in educational contexts. In D. Ifenthaler & R. Hanewald (Eds.), Digital knowledge maps in education: Technology-enhanced support for teachers and learners (pp. 3–16). New York: Springer ISBN: 978-1-4614-3177-0.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G. J., Shi, Y. R., & Chu, H. C. (2011). A concept map approach to developing collaborative mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 778–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Computer-based learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (Vol. 3, pp. 713–716). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koc, M. (2012). Pedagogical knowledge representation through concept mapping as a study and collaboration tool in teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 656–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, S. Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2007). Using computers to individually-generate vs. collaboratively-generate concept maps. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 269–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, S. Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2009). The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaboratively constructed computer-based concept maps. Computers & Education, 52(2), 365–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. (2013). Collaborative concept mapping as a pre-writing strategy for L2 learning: A Korean application. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 254–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. P., Wong, L. H., & Shao, Y. J. (2012). Comparison of 1: 1 and 1: m CSCL environment for collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medhat, W., Hassan, A., & Korashy, H. (2014). Sentiment analysis algorithms and applications: A survey. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 5(4), 1093–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2008). Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior over time. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1540–1557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinari, G. (2015). From learners’ concept maps of their similar or complementary prior knowledge to collaborative concept map: Dual eye-tracking and concept map analyses. Psychologie Française. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2015.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization, 5, 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC Cmap Tools. Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/theory-of-concept-maps.php

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Omar, M. A. (2015). Improving reading comprehension by using computer-based concept maps: A case study of ESP students at Umm-Alqura University. British Journal of Education, 3(4), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrantonakis, P. C., & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2013). EEG-based emotion recognition using advanced signal processing techniques. In A. Konar & A. Chakraborty (Eds.), Advances in emotion recognition. New York: Wiley-Blackwell Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinton, S., & Smallbone, T. (2010). Feeding forward: Using feedback to promote student reflection and learning a teaching model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafaeli, S., & Kent, C. (2015). Network-structured discussions for collaborative concept mapping and peer learning. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 59(6), 7, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaal, S. (2010). Enriching traditional biology lectures digital concept maps and their influence on cognition and motivation. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2(1), 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tergan, S. O. (2005). Digital concept maps for managing knowledge and information. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3426, pp. 185–204). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tergan, S. O., Keller, T., Gräber, W., & Neumann, A. (2006). Concept map-based visualization of knowledge and information in resource-based learning. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2425–2429). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G. (2016). The defining characteristics of emerging technologies and emerging practices in digital education. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications (Chapter 1, pp. 3–16). Athabasca: Athabasca University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vodovozov, V., & Raud, Z. (2015). Concept maps for teaching, learning, and assessment in electronics. Education Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/849678

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sofia Hadjileontiadou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hadjileontiadou, S., Dias, S.B., Diniz, J., Hadjileontiadis, L.J. (2018). Exploring the Potential of Computer-Based Concept Mapping Under Self-and Collaborative Mode Within Emerging Learning Environments. In: Mikropoulos, T. (eds) Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95059-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95059-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95058-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95059-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics