pp 1–12 | Cite as

Graduate Students Using Concept Mapping to Visualize Instructional Design Processes

  • Tian LuoEmail author
  • John Baaki
Original Paper


This study was conducted to investigate concept mapping as an instructional technique to help student designers tackle complex issues in instructional design. Specifically, this study focuses on three dimensions: perceived learning, collaborative learning, and usability. We examined how student designers perceived the use of Cacoo as a concept mapping tool in three different instructional design courses and how a concept mapping approach facilitated or constrained students’ design process. The study participants were 24 graduate students enrolled in three different courses over the span of a year. Through quantitative descriptive analysis and qualitative coding, our data revealed students’ overall positive perception toward Cacoo and demonstrated various means in which student designers successfully utilized the concept mapping approach to create external representations. We also provided implications for practitioners and recommendations for future researchers.


Concept maps Instructional design External representation 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Adesope, O. & Nesbit, J. (2009). Learning with collaborative concept maps: A meta-analysis. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2009--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2082–2091). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from
  2. Assaraf, O. B. Z., Dodick, J., & Tripto, J. (2013). High school students’ understanding of the human body system. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Baaki, J., & Luo, T. (2017). Stimulating students’ use of external representations for a distance education time machine design. TechTrends, 61, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baaki, J., Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2016). Give us something to react to and make it rich: designers reflecting-in-action with external representations. International Journal of technology and Design Education.
  6. Chiu, C. H. (2003). Exploring how primary school students function in computer supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 13(3–4), 258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cline, B. E., Brewster, C. C., & Fell, R. D. (2010). A rule-based system for automatically evaluating student concept maps. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 2282–2291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conlon, T. (2006). Formative assessment of classroom concept maps: the reasonable fallible analyser. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(1), 15–36.Google Scholar
  10. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. London: Berg Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edmondson, K. M. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee, & J. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding (pp. 15–40). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Faste, H., & Lin, H. (2012). The untapped promise of digital mind maps. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1017–1026). ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Gkotzos, D., & Potamias, G. (2012). Collaborative concept mapping via Multimodal ICT tools. In INTED2012 proceedings (pp. 4594–4600).Google Scholar
  14. Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 42–45.Google Scholar
  15. Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human Computer Interaction, 5, 305–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris, C., & Zha, S. (2013). Concept mapping: a critical thinking technique. Education, 134(2), 207–211.Google Scholar
  17. Hay, D. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies. Education and Training, 48(2/3), 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hay, D., Kinchin, I., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008). Making learning visible: the role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayes, J. (1980). The complete problem solver. Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute Press.Google Scholar
  20. Huybrechts, L., Schoffelen, J., Schepers, S., & Braspenning, L. (2012). Design representations: Connecting, making, and reflecting in design research education. In D. Boutsen (Ed.), Good practices best practices: Highlighting the compound idea of education, creativity, research, and practice (pp. 35–42). Brussels: Sint-Lucas School of Architecture.Google Scholar
  21. Hwang, G. J., Yang, L. H., & Wang, S. Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students’ learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education, 69, 121–130. Scholar
  22. Hwang, G. J., Kuo, F. R., Chen, N. S., & Ho, H. J. (2014). Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students’ learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads. Computers & Education, 71, 77–86. Scholar
  23. Jang, S. J. (2010). The impact on incorporating collaborative concept mapping with coteaching techniques in elementary science classes. School Science and Mathematics, 110(2), 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin, H., & Faste, H. (2011). Digital mind mapping: innovations for real-time collaborative thinking. In CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2137–2142). ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, S. H., & Lee, G. G. (2013). Using a concept map knowledge management system to enhance the learning of biology. Computers & Education, 68, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Yacef, K., & Kay, J. (2015). TSCL: a conceptual model to inform understanding of collaborative learning processes at interactive tabletops. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 83, 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2013). Concept maps for learning. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 303–328). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O'Donnell, A., Reeve, J., & Smith, J. (2011). Educational psychology: Reflection for action. Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: how novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: part II: a history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.). (2017). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  39. Rosen, Y., & Tager, M. (2014). Making student thinking visible through a concept map in computer-based assessment of critical thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(2), 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition (Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Boston: Basics Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: rules, types, and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stoyanov, S. (1997). Cognitive mapping as a learning method in hypermedia design. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3), 309–323.Google Scholar
  45. Stoyanova, N., & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(1), 111–133.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. A. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (pp. 89–134). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (1990). A layers-of-necessity instructional development model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tracey, M. W., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. Q. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: developing professional identity through reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J. L., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. VanGundy, A. B. (1981). Techniques of structured problem solving. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  52. Wang, H. Y., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). Effects of a question prompt-based concept mapping approach on students’ learning achievements, attitudes and 5C competences in project-based computer course activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 351.Google Scholar
  53. Weinerth, K., Koenig, V., Brunner, M., & Martin, R. (2014). Concept maps: a useful and usable tool for computer-based knowledge assessment? A literature review with a focus on usability. Computers & Education, 78, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 102(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Milrad, M., Ke, H. R., & Huang, Y. M. (2012). An innovative concept map approach for improving students’ learning performance with an instant feedback mechanism. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang, C. C., Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Tseng, S. S. (2013). An evaluation of the learning effectiveness of concept map-based science book reading via mobile devices. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 167–178.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of STEM Education & Professional Studies, Darden College of EducationOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.Department of STEM Education & Professional Studies, Darden College of EducationOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations