Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expert concept mapping method for defining the characteristics of adaptive E-learning: ALFANET project case

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 03 October 2016

Abstract

The article presents empirical evidence for the effectiveness and efficiency of a modified version of Trochim's (1989a, b) concept mapping approach to define the characteristics of an adaptive learning environment. The effectiveness and the efficiency of the method are attributed to the support that it provides in terms of elicitation, sharing, reflection and representation of knowledge. It produced valuable results in a very short time as compared to classical techniques such as questionnaires and interviews. The interpretation of data suggests some theoretical considerations and practical solutions for the design and development of an adaptive e-learning environment. The research also points to a number of ways to improve the technique in terms of time for discussing ideas, visualization, and explicit support for generating unconventional ideas.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Active learning for adaptive Internet (ALFANET) project. (2002).Users requirements (Project deliverable report). European Communities, Fifth Framework Information Society Technology program (IST-2001-33288).

  • Arlow, J., & Neustadt, I. (2001).UML and the unified process: Practical object-oriented analysis and design. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayersman, D., & Von Midden, A. (1995). Individual differences, computers, and instruction.Computers in Human Behavior, 11(3–4), 371–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastiaens, Th. J., Nijhof, W. J., Streumer, J. N., & Abma, H. J. (1997a). Working and learning with electronic performance support systems: An effectiveness study.Training for Quality, 5(1), 10–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastiaens, Th. J., Nijhof, W. J., Streumer, J. N., & Abma, H. J. (1997b). Electronic performance support systems for telephone operators. In H. Preskill. & R. L. Dilworth, (Eds.),Human resource development in transition. Defining the cutting edge (pp. 75–86). Washington: ISPI/AHRD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon-Hall.com. (2002).Learning management system 2002. Retrieved June 17, 2002, from: http://www. brandonhall.com./public/publications/LMS2002/

  • Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1996).The mind map book. New York: Plume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. (2000).Making use: Scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (1993). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, B., & Birch, P. (1999).Instant creativity. London, UK:Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Concept System (Demo version) [Computer software]. (2002). Ithaca, New York: Concept System Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantine, L. (2001).The peopleware papers: Notes on the human side of software. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantine, L., & Lockwood, L. (1999).Software for use: A practical guide to the models and methods of usagecentered design (ACM Press Series). Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2000).Engineering design methods. Strategy for product design (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decision Explorer® [Computer software]. (2003). Kendal, Cumbria, UK: Banxia Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., Ackermann, F., & Cropper, S. (1997).Getting started with cognitive mapping. Glasgow, UK: Banxia Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2002).Making strategy. The journey of strategic management. London, UK: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. (2000).Cognitive psychology. London, UK: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gery, G. (1995). Attributes and behaviors of performance-centered systems.Performance Improvement Quarterly 8(1), 47–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, A. M. (1999).Hexagons for system thinking. Retrieved March 16, 1999 from: http://www.idongroup.com/assoc/hexsys/hesys.htm

  • Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992).The manual of learning styles Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inspiration® [Computer software]. (2002). Beaverton Hillsdale, Portland: Inspiration Software, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, K., & Trochim, W. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of openended survey responses.Organizational Research Methods, 5 (4), 307–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., & Grabowski, B. (1993).Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environment. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.),Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89–117). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1998).Please understand me. Character and temperament types. DelMar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessels, J. (1999). A relational approach to curriculum design. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plompt (Eds.),Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 59–70). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merriënboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirton, M. (1994).Adaptors and innovators. Styles of creativity and problem solving. London, UK: International Thomson Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. (1998).Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. (1993).Methods of educational and social science research. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J., & Wish, M. (1978).Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larman, C. (2001).Applying UML and patterns: An introduction to object-oriented analysis and design and the unified process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. (1997).Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: The Center for Effective Performance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalko, M. (1998).Cracking creativity. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mind Manager® [Computer software]. (2002). Mindjet: Larkspur, CA.

  • Novak, J. (1998).Learning, creating and using knowledge. Concept mapsä as facilitative tools in schools and corporation. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (1990).Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London, UK: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raybould, B. (2000). Building performance-centered web-based systems, information systems, and knowledge management systems in the 21st century.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 39(6), 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R., & Nelson, W. (1996). Development research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communication and technology (pp. 1213–1245). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riding, R., & Rayners, S. (1998).Cognitive styles and learning strategies. Understanding style differences in learning and behavior. London, UK: David Fulton Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1979).Interaction of media, cognition and learning. Mahwah, NJ: LEA

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1996).The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London, UK: Arena.

    Google Scholar 

  • SenGupta, S. (1996, November).Concept mapping and pattern matching in integrated mental health service delivery. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Evaluation Association. Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved May 25, 2000 from http://www.conceptsystems.com/papers/paperu sr/sengupta/aea96.htm

  • Stoyanov, S. (2001).Mapping in the educational and training design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • SPSS® [Computer software]. (2002). SPSS, Inc. Chicago, Illinois.

  • Straker, D. (1997).Rapid problem solving with Post-itO notes. Tucson, Arizona: Fisher Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W. (Ed.). (1989a). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation.Evaluation and Program Planning [Special issue]. 12, 1–16.

  • Trochim, W. (Ed.). (1989b). Concept mapping: Soft science or hard art?Evaluation and Program Planning [Special issue]. 12, 87–110.

  • Trochim, W. (1993, November).Reliability of concept mapping. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Evaluation Association. Dallas, Texas.

  • Trochim, W. (1996, November).An Internet-based concept mapping of accreditation standards for evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Evaluation Association: Atlanta, Georgia.

  • Trochim, W. (1999a, November).Measuring organizational performance as a result of installing a new information system: Using concept mapping as the basis for performance measurement. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association. Orlando, Florida.

  • Trochim, W. (1999b, October).The evaluator as cartographer: Technology for mapping where we're going and where we've been. Paper presented at the conference of the Oregon Program Evaluators Network “Evaluation and Technology: Tools for the 21st Century” Portland, Oregon.

  • van der Heijden, K (1996).Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Chichetser, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden, K., & Eden, C. (1998). The theory and praxis of reflective learning in strategic making. In C. Eden & J-C. Spender (Eds.),Managerial and organisational cognition. Theory, method and research (pp. 58–75). London, UK: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanGundy, A. (1997).Techniques of structured problem solving. New York: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Merriënboer, J. (1997).Training complex cognitive skills. A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Merriënboer, J., Clark, R., & de Croock, M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID model.Educational Technology, Research & Development, 50(2), 39–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennix, J.A.M. (1997).Group model building. Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, I., Gustafson, K., & Plomp, T. (1999). Educational design and development. An overview of paradigms. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plompt (Eds.),Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 15–28). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J., Lawrence, J., & Engle, R. (1992). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R. Sternberg & P. Frensch (Eds.),Complex problem solving (pp. 119–183). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1994).Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Technology Expertise Center, Open University of the Netherlands, P. O. Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Slavi Stoyanov & Paul Kirchner

Authors
  1. Slavi Stoyanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Kirchner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Slavi Stoyanov.

Additional information

This small-scale study was conducted in the framework of ALFANET project (2002). ALFANET (Active Learning for Adaptive Internet) is a Fifth Framework Information Society Technology (IST) project funded by European Commission (European Communities, IST 2001-33288, 2002). Within the ALFANET project (2002), Working package 1 “User Requirements and Specifications” is dedicated to the study and analysis of users' needs in relation with adaptive e-learning in organizations. One of the primary outcomes of the project will be a working prototype of a learning management system (LMS) with intelligent personalization capabilities.

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9491-0.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stoyanov, S., Kirchner, P. Expert concept mapping method for defining the characteristics of adaptive E-learning: ALFANET project case. ETR&D 52, 41–54 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504838

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504838

Keywords

Search

Navigation