Making Sense of Knowledge Integration Maps

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Digital knowledge maps are rich sources of information to track students’ learning. However, making sense of concept maps has been found challenging. Using multiple quantitative and qualitative methods in combination allows triangulating of changes in students’ understanding. This chapter introduces a novel form of concept map, called knowledge integration map (KIM), and uses KIMs as examples for an overview of concept map analysis methods. KIMs are a form of digital knowledge maps. KIMs have been implemented in high school science classrooms to facilitate and assess complex science topics, such as evolution. KIM analysis aims to triangulate changes in learners’ conceptual understanding through a multi-level analysis strategy, combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Quantitative analysis included overall, selected, and weighted propositional analysis using a knowledge integration rubric and network analysis describing changes in network density and prominence of selected concepts. Research suggests that scoring only selected propositions can be more sensitive to measuring conceptual change because it focuses on key concepts of the map. Qualitative analysis of KIMs included topographical analysis methods to describe the overall geometric structure of the map and qualitative analysis of link types. This chapter suggests that a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis methods can capture different aspects of KIMs and can provide a rich description of changes in students’ understanding of complex topics.

Keywords

Concept mapping Evaluation Knowledge integration maps Science education Network analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank my Ph.D. advisor, Dr. Marcia C. Linn, for all her guidance and exceptional mentorship. I also thank my doctoral committee members, Dr. Randi A. Engle and Dr. Leslea J. Hlusko, for sharing their expertise, guidance, and support.

References

  1. Acton, W. H., Johnson, P. J., & Goldsmith, T. E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment—comparison of referent structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). A functional taxonomy of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13(9), 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ariew, A. (2003). Ernst Mayr’s ‘ultimate/proximate’ distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biology and Philosophy, 18(4), 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Using concept mapping for assessment in physics. Physics Education, 30, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: An introduction to school learning. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  8. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology—a cognitive view. London: Holt, Rienhart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Bjork, R. A., & Linn, M. C. (2006). The science of learning and the learning of science—introducing desirable difficulties. The APS Observer, 19(3), 29, 39.Google Scholar
  10. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Crocking, R. R. (2000a). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed., pp. x, 374 p). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Crocking, R. R. (2000b). How experts differ from novices. In How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed., Chap. 2). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York, NY: Vantage.Google Scholar
  13. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1986). A study of thinking. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Canas, A. J. (2003). A summary of literature pertaining to the use of concept mapping techniques and technologies for education and performance support. Http://www.ihmc.us/users/acanas/Publications/ConceptMapLitReview/
  15. Canas, A. J. (2004). Cmap tools—knowledge modeling kit [Computer Software]. Pensacola, FL : Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC).Google Scholar
  16. Cathcart, L., Stieff, M., Marbach-Ad, G., Smith, A., & Frauwirth, K. (2010). Using knowledge structure maps as a foundation for knowledge management. ICLS.Google Scholar
  17. Chang, K. E., Chiao, B. C., Chen, S. W., & Hsiao, R. S. (2000). A programming learning system for beginners—a completion strategy approach. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, S. F. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chartrand, G., & Zhang, P. (2004). Introduction to graph theory. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  20. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. S. Sternberg (Ed.). Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 1–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Cline, B. E., Brewster, C. C., & Fell, R. D. (2009). A rule-based system for automatically evaluating student concept maps. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 2282–2291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3), 387–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Czerniak, C. M., & Haney, J. J. (1998). The effect of collaborative concept mapping on elementary preservice teachers’ anxiety, efficacy, and achievement in physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(4), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., & Canas, A. J. (2007). Concept maps: Experiments on dynamic thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 448–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2005). Designing for complex system understanding in the high school biology classroom. Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Google Scholar
  27. Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 938–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Edmondson, K. M. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. Educational psychology press (pp. 15–40). Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Fisher, K. M. (2000). SemNet software as an assessment tool. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 197–221). Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fisher, K. M., Wandersee, J. H. M., & Moody, D. E. (2000). Mapping biology knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Gentner, D. (1978). On relational meaning: The acquisition of verb meaning. Child Development, 49, 988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glaser, R., Chi, M. T. H., & Farr, M. J. (1985). The nature of expertise (National Center for Research in Vocational Education). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  33. Goel, A., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Functional representation of designs and redesign problem solving. In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence—Volume 2 (pp. 1388–1394).Google Scholar
  34. Goel, A. K., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2008). Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: The structure, behavior, and function modeling language. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 23, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grundspenkis, J., & Strautmane, M. (2009). Usage of graph patterns for knowledge assessment based on concept maps. Scientific Journal of Riga Technical University. Computer Sciences, 38(38), 60–71.Google Scholar
  36. Herl, H. E. (1999). Reliability and validity of a computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure content understanding. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(3–4), 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herl, H. E., O’Neil, H. F. J., Chung, G. K., Dennis, R. A., & Lee, J. J. (1997, March). Feasibility of an on-line concept mapping construction and scoring system. Report: ED424233. 27pp.Google Scholar
  38. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert–novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hoffman, R. R. (1998). How can expertise be defined? Implications of research from cognitive psychology. In R. Williams, W. Faulkner, & J. Fleck (Eds.), Exploring expertise (pp. 81–100). Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
  41. Holley, C. D., Dansereau, D. F., & Harold, F. O. N. (1984). Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues. New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  42. Hoppe, H. U., Engler, J., & Weinbrenner, S. (2012). The impact of structural characteristics of concept maps on automatic quality measurement. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS). Sydney, Australia: ISLS.Google Scholar
  43. Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 81–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9087-4. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9087-4
  44. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kinchin, I. M. (2000a). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34(2), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kinchin, I. M. (2000b). From ‘ecologist’ to ‘conceptual ecologist’: The utility of the conceptual ecology for teachers of biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kinchin, I. M. (2001). If concept mapping is so helpful to learning biology, why aren’t we all doing it? International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1257–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kinchin, I. M., De-Leij, F. A. A. M., & Hay, D. B. (2005). The evolution of a collaborative concept mapping activity for undergraduate microbiology students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kommers, P., & Lanzing, J. (1997). Students’ concept mapping for hypermedia design: Navigation through world wide web (WWW) space and self-assessment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3–4), 421–455.Google Scholar
  50. Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Cross, D. R., & Reynolds, S. B. (1989). Multirelational seminatic maps. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 331–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Linn, M. C., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J., Zhang, H., & McElhaney, K. (2010). Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In A. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork. London, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  52. Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1023–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1993, August 1–4). The structure and use of biological knowledge about mammals in novice and experienced students. Paper Presented at the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  54. Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mayr, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Michael, R. S. (1995). The validity of concept maps for assessing cognitive structure. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 55(10-A), 3141.Google Scholar
  58. Mintzes, J. J., Wanderersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (1997). Meaningful learning in science: The human constructivist perspective. In Handbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge. The educational psychology series (pp. 405–447). (1)U North Carolina, Dept of Biological Science, Wilmington, NC, US, San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Pensacola, FL: IHMC.Google Scholar
  62. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Osmundson, E., Chung, G., Herl, H., & Klein, D. (1999). Knowledge mapping in the classroom: A tool for examining the development of students’ conceptual understandings. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  65. Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pearsall, N., Skipper, J., & Mintzes, J. J. (1997). Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology. Science Education, 81(2), 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pemmaraju, S. V., & Skiena, S. S. (2003). Computational discrete mathematics: Combinatorics and graph theory with mathematica. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Automated knowledge visualization and assessment. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 77–115). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Plotnick, E. (1997). Concept mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts: An ERIC digest. Syracuse, NY: Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.Google Scholar
  70. Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. M. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1103–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1999). Concept mapping as a tool for learning: Broadening the framework for student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 47(2), 74–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2000). On the use of concept maps as an assessment tool in science: What we have learned so far. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 2(1), 30.Google Scholar
  73. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Iverson, H., & Yin, Y. (2009). Towards the use of concept maps in large-scale assessments: Exploring the efficiency of two scoring methods. NARST conference.Google Scholar
  74. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., & Shavelson, R. J. (1997). Concept map-based assessment in science: Two exploratory studies. CSE Report, 436.Google Scholar
  76. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rye, J. A., & Rubba, P. A. (2002). Scoring concept maps: An expert map-based scheme weighted for relationships. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Safayeni, F., Derbentseva, N., & Canas, A. J. (2005). A theoretical note on concepts and the need for cyclic concept maps. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 741–766. doi: 10.1002/tea.20074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45(2), 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Literate expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 172–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Schvaneveldt, R. W., Durso, F. T., Goldsmith, T. E., Breen, T. J., Cooke, N. M., Tucker, R. G., et al. (1985). Measuring the structure of expertise. International Journal of Man–machine Studies, 23, 699–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schwendimann, B. A. (2007). Integrating interactive genetics visualizations into high school biology. In Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association 2007. Chicago, IL. Google Scholar
  83. Schwendimann, B. A. (2011a). Integrating genotypic and phenotypic ideas of evolution through critique-focused concept mapping. In Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association 2011. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  84. Schwendimann, B. A. (2011b). Linking genotypic and phenotypic ideas of evolution through collaborative critique-focused concept mapping. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). Hong Kong, China: CSCL Conference.Google Scholar
  85. Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Wiley, E. W. (2005). Windows into the mind. Higher Education, 49(4), 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., & Canaday, D. (2000). Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning—a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1221–1246. Retrieved from Google Scholar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (p. 825). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). The teaching of learning strategies. Innovation Abstracts, 5(32).Google Scholar
  90. Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 166–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations