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).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
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.
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.
Bates, W. T., & Sangrà, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for transforming teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
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.
Kwon, S. Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2007). Using computers to individually-generate vs. collaboratively-generate concept maps. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 269–280.
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.
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.
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.
Medhat, W., Hassan, A., & Korashy, H. (2014). Sentiment analysis algorithms and applications: A survey. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 5(4), 1093–1113.
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.
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
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, 29–52.
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New York: Taylor and Francis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Vodovozov, V., & Raud, Z. (2015). Concept maps for teaching, learning, and assessment in electronics. Education Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/849678
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
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)