Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 625–629 | Cite as

Knowledge Maps: an Online Tool for Knowledge Mapping with Automated Feedback

  • Veronica W. Ho
  • Meng Meng
  • Gwo-Jen Hwang
  • Nalini Pather
  • Rakesh K. Kumar
  • Richard M. Vickery
  • Gary M. VelanEmail author
Short Communication

Abstract

Concept and knowledge maps have been shown to improve students’ learning by emphasising meaningful relationships between phenomena. A user-friendly online tool that enables assessment of students’ maps with automated feedback might therefore have significant benefits for learning. For that purpose, we developed an online software platform known as Knowledge Maps. Two pilot studies were performed to evaluate the usability and efficacy of Knowledge Maps. Study A demonstrated significantly improved perceptions of learning after using Knowledge Maps to learn pathology. Study B showed significant improvement between pre-test and post-test scores in an anatomy course. These preliminary studies indicate that this software is readily accepted and may have potential benefits for learning.

Keywords

Concept maps Knowledge maps Medical education eLearning Assessment Feedback Teaching and learning strategies 

Abbreviations

CI

confidence interval

DVT/PE

deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

IHD

ischaemic heart disease

IQR

interquartile range

Notes

Funding

The development of Knowledge Maps was supported by a University of New South Wales Learning and Teaching Development Grant.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

These studies were approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (no. HC15114).

Informed Consent

Information about the trials was supplied to all participants and they were informed that non-participation would have no effect on academic standing. Consent was implied based on complete participation by students.

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobs HH. The growing need for interdisciplinary curriculum content. In: Jacobs HH, editor. Interdisciplinary curriculum: design and implementation. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 1989. p. 1–11.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Novak JD, Canas AJ. The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them 2008. 2013 [cited 2013. Available from: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.
  3. 3.
    Gonzalez HL, Palencia AP, Umana LA, Galindo L, Villafrade LA. Mediated learning experience and concept maps: a pedagogical tool for achieving meaningful learning in medical physiology students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2008;32:312–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O'Donnell AM, Dansereau DF, Hall RH. Knowledge maps as scaffold for cognitive processing. Educ Psychol Rev. 2002;14(1):71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daley BJ, Shaw CA, Balistrieri T, Glasenapp K, Piacentine L. Concept maps: a strategy to teach and evaluate critical thinking. J Nurs Educ. 1999;38(1):42–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Besterfield-Sacre M, Gerchak J, Lyons M, Shuman LJ, Wolfe H. Scoring concept maps: an integrated rubric for assessing engineering education. J Eng Educ. 2004;93(2):105–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watson MK, Pelkey J, Noyes CR, Rodgers MO. Assessing conceptual knowledge using three concept map scoring methods. J Eng Educ. 2016;105(1):118–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yin Y, Vanides J, Ruiz-Primo MA, Ayala CC, Shavelson RJ. Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: implications for scoring, interpretation and use. J Res Sci Teach. 2005;42(2):166–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hwang G-J, Wu PH, Ke HR. An interactive concept map approach to supporting mobile learning activities for natural science courses. Comput Educ. 2011;57(4):2272–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Te'eni D, Carey JM, Zhang P. Human-computer interaction: Developing Effective Organizational Information Systems. Wiley; 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weinerth K, Koenig V, Brunner M, Martin R. Concept maps: a useful and usable tool for computer-based knowledge assessment? A literature review with a focus on usability. Computers and Education. 2014;78:201–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Jong T. Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instr Sci. 2010;38:105–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cañas AJ, Hill G, Carff R, Suri N, Lott J, Eskridge T, et al., editors. CmapTools: a knowledge modeling and sharing environment. Concept maps: theory, methodology, Technology proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping; 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ho V, Velan G. Online concept maps in medical education: are we there yet? FoHPE. 2016;17(1):18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gouli E, Gogoulou A, Papanikolaou K, Grigoriadou M, editors. COMPASS: an adaptive web-based concept map assessment tool. Pamplona: International Conference on Concept Mapping; 2004.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anohina-Naumeca A, Grundspenkis J, Strautmane M. The concept map-based assessment system: functional capabilities, evolution, and experimental results. Int J Contin Eng Educ Life Long Learn. 2011;21(4):308–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luckie D, Harrison SH, Ebert-May D. Model-based reasoning: using visual tools to reveal student learning. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011;35(1):59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cline BE, Brewster CC, Fell RD. A rule-based system for automatically evaluating student concept maps. Expert Syst Appl. 2010;37:2282–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu PH, Hwang G-J, Milrad M, Ke HR, Huang YM. An innovative concept map approach for improving students' learning performance with an instant feedback mechanism. Br J Educ Technol. 2012;43(2):217–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pirrie A. Evidence-based practice in education: the best medicine? Br J Educ Stud. 2001;49(2):124–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Regehr G. It’s NOT rocket science: rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):31–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kirschner PA, Martens RL, Strijbos J-W. CSCL in higher education?: a framework for designing multiple collaborative environments. In: Jan-Willem S, Paul AK, Rob LM, Pierre D, editors. What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004. p. 3–30.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nielsen J. Usability engineering. Elsevier; 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of MedicineUNSW AustraliaSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.College of Liberal Arts and Social SciencesNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations