Concepts Maps as Versatile Learning, Teaching, and Assessment Tools

  • Beat Adrian SchwendimannEmail author
Living reference work entry


Concept maps can serve as versatile tools for learning, teaching, and assessment to support integrating complex concepts. Research suggests that concept maps can be successfully implemented in a wide variety of settings, from K12 to higher and professional education. However, the effectiveness of concept maps depends on different factors, such as concept map training, choosing a suitable form of concept map to match the task and learner, and how to evaluate concept maps. This chapter presents two case studies that use a particular form of concept map, a Knowledge Integration Map, to illustrate different concept mapping tasks and evaluations. This chapter concludes that, if implemented thoughtfully, concept maps can be versatile tools to support knowledge integration processes toward a deeper understanding of the relations and structures of complex concepts.


Concept map Assessment tool Learning tool Knowledge integration Knowledge Integration Map 



The research for this chapter was supported by the National Science Foundation grant DRL-0334199 (“The Educational Accelerator: Technology Enhanced Learning in Science”).


Parts of this chapter have been previously published by the author in the form of a dissertation, journal articles, and book chapters.


  1. Acton, W. H., Johnson, P. J., & Goldsmith, T. E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment – Comparison of referent structures. Journal of Education & Psychology, 86(2), 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamczyk, A., & Willson, M. (1996). Using concept maps with trainee physics teachers. Physics Education, 31(6), 374–381.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. Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). A functional taxonomy of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2/3), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56(10), 1891–1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Development of knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit activities. Science Education, 84, 658–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13(9), 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ariew, A. (2003). Ernst Mayr’s ‘ultimate/proximate’ distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biology and Philosophy, 18(4), 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atay, S., & Karabacak. (2012). Care plans using concept maps and their effects on the critical thinking dispositions of nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 18(3), 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ault, C. R. (1985). Concept mapping as a study strategy in earth science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 15, 38–44.Google Scholar
  11. Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Using concept mapping for assessment in physics. Physics Education, 30, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: An introduction to school learning. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  13. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology – A cognitive view. London, UK: Holt, Rienhart and Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Ayala, C. C., Yin, Y., Shavelson, R. J., & Vanides, J. (2002). Investigating the cognitive validity of science performance assessment with think alouds: Technical aspects. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Researcher Association.Google Scholar
  15. Aydin, S., Aydemir, N., Boz, Y., Cetin-Dindar, A., & Bektas, O. (2009). The contribution of constructivist instruction accompanied by concept mapping in enhancing pre-service chemistry teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemistry in the laboratory course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 518–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bakri, F., & Muliyati, D. (2018). Design of multiple representations e-learning resources based on a contextual approach for the basic physics course. Proceedings from Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1013(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  17. Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 373–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham, UK/Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bascones, J., & Novak, J. D. (1985). Alternative instructional systems and the development of problem-solving skills in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 253–261.Google Scholar
  20. Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1998). Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(3), 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Birbili, M. (2006). Mapping knowledge: Concept maps in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 8(2).Google Scholar
  23. Bjork, R. A., & Linn, M. C. (2006). The science of learning and the learning of science – Introducing desirable difficulties. APS Observer, 19(3), 1–2.Google Scholar
  24. BouJaoude, S., & Attieh, M. (2008). The effect of using concept maps as study tools on achievement in chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(3), 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brandt, L., Elen, J., Hellemans, J., Heerman, L., Couwenberg, I., Volckaert, L., & Morisse, H. (2001). The impact of concept mapping and visualization on the learning of secondary school chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1303–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Crocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  27. Bressington, D. T., Wong, W.-K., Lam, K. K. C., & Chien, W. T. (2018). Concept mapping to promote meaningful learning, help relate theory to practice and improve learning self-efficacy in Asian mental health nursing students: A mixed-methods pilot study. Nurse Education Today, 60, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Brody, M. J. (1993). Student misconceptions of ecology: Identification, analysis and instructional design. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the third international seminar on misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  29. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological learning theory and the design of innovative environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Shauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Contributions of instructional innovation to understanding learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Brown, D. S. (2003). High school biology: A group approach to concept mapping. American Biology Teacher, 65(3), 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Bruechner, K., & Schanze, S. (2004). Using concept maps for individual knowledge externalization in medical education. In First international conference on concept mapping. Pamplona, Spain.Google Scholar
  32. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York, NY: Vantage.Google Scholar
  33. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1986). A study of thinking. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Buntting, C., Coll, R. K., & Campell, A. (2006). Student views of concept mapping use in introductory tertiary biology classes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(4), 641–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Byrne, J., & Grace, M. (2010). Using a concept mapping tool with a photograph association technique (compat) to elicit children’s ideas about microbial activity. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 37–43.Google Scholar
  36. Cakir, M., & Crawford, B. (2001). Prospective biology teachers’ understanding of genetics concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the education of Teachers in Science, Costa Mesa, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Cañas, A. J. (2003). A summary of literature pertaining to the use of concept mapping techniques and technologies for education and performance support. The Institute for Human and Machine Cognition 40 S. Alcaniz St. Pensacola FL 32502ñas/Publications/ConceptMapLitReview/
  38. Cañas, A. J. (2004). Cmap tools – Knowledge modeling kit [Computer Software]. Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC).Google Scholar
  39. Canas, A. J. (2016). Cmap tools – Knowledge modeling kit [Computer Software]. Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC).Google Scholar
  40. Cañas, A. J., Novak, J. D., & Reiska, P. (2012). Freedom vs. Restriction of content and structure during concept mapping – Possibilities and limitations for construction and assessment. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on concept mapping, Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conference on Concept Mapping Valletta, Malta 2012 (pp. 247–257).Google Scholar
  41. Cañas, Suri, Sanchez, Gallo, & Brenes. (2003). Synchronous collaboration in cmap tools. IHMC.Google Scholar
  42. Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 169–200). Cambridge, MA/New York, NY: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences/Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Cathcart, Laura, Stieff, Mike, Marbach-Ad, Gili, Smith, Ann, & Frauwirth, Kenneth. (2010). Using knowledge structure maps as a foundation for knowledge management. ICLS.Google Scholar
  44. Chand, L., Sowmya, K., & Silambanan, S. (2018). Meaningful learning in medical science by self-directed approach of concept mapping. Journal of Education Technology in Health Sciences, 5(1), 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. Chang, S.-N. (2007). Externalising students’ mental models through concept maps. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Chartrand, G., & Zhang, P. (2004). Introduction to graph theory. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  49. Chen, S.-L., Liang, T., Lee, M.-L., & Liao, I.-C. (2011). Effects of concept map teaching on students’ critical thinking and approach to learning and studying. The Journal of Nursing Education, 50(8), 466–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inference and repairing mental models. In Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (Vol. 5, pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  53. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Chiu, J. (2008). Examining the role of self-monitoring and explanation prompts on students’ interactions with dynamic molecular visualizations. In Poster presented at the 8th international conference of the learning sciences, international perspectives in the learning sciences: Cre8ting a learning world, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  55. Chiu, J. L. (2009). The impact of feedback on student learning and monitoring with dynamic visualizations. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  56. Cicagnani. (2000). Concept mapping as a collaborative tool for enhancing online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3).Google Scholar
  57. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Clark, D. B., & Slotta, J. (2000). Evaluating media-enhancement and source authority on the Internet: The knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 859–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Cliburn, J. W., Jr. (1990). Concept maps to promote meaningful learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19(4), 212–217.Google Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3), 387–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11.Google Scholar
  63. Crank, J. N., & Bulgren, J. A. (1993). Visual depictions as information organizers for enhancing achievement of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(3), 140–147.Google Scholar
  64. Cuthbert, A., & Slotta, J. (2004). Fostering lifelong learning skills on the World Wide Web: Critiquing, questioning and searching for evidence. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 821–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Daley, B. J., & Torre, D. M. (2010). Concept maps in medical education: An analytical literature review. Medical Education, 44(5), 440–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Davis, E. A. (2004). Knowledge integration in science teaching: Analysing teachers’ knowledge development. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Davis, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, D. (2002). It’s all the news: Critiquing evidence and claims. Science Scope, 25(5), 32–37.Google Scholar
  70. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1995). Students’ conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptual change in evolution. Science Education, 79(6), 637–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. DeMeo, S. (2007). Constructing a graphic organizer in the classroom: Introductory students’ perception of achievement using a decision map to solve aqueous acid-base equilibria problems. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(3), 540–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age. (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  76. diSessa, A. A. (2002). Students’ criteria for representational adequacy. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Synbolizing, modeling, and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 105–129). Boston, MA: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265–282). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. diSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird’s eye view of the “pieces” vs. “Coherence” controversy. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  79. 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
  80. 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
  81. Edmondson, K. M. (1993). Concept mapping for meaningful learning in veterinary education. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the third international seminar on misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  82. Edmondson, K. M. (1995). Concept mapping for the development of medical curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(7), 777–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Edmondson, K. M. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In Assessing science understanding (pp. 15–40). Academic Press.Google Scholar
  84. El-Hay, S. A. A., El Mezayen, S. E., & Ahmed, R. E. (2018). Effect of concept mapping on problem solving skills, competence in clinical setting and knowledge among undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 8, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Englebrecht, A. C., Mintzes, J. J., Brown, L. M., & Kelso, P. R. (2005). Probing understanding in physical geology using concept maps and clinical interviews. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  88. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Fang, N. (2018). An analysis of student experiences with concept mapping in a foundational undergraduate engineering course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(2), 294.Google Scholar
  90. Farrokh, K., & Krause, G. (1996). The relationship of concept-mapping and course grade in cell biology. Meaningful Learning Forum, 1.Google Scholar
  91. Fisher, K. M. (2000). SemNet software as an assessment tool. In Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 197–221). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  92. Fisher, K. M., Wandersee, J. H. M., & Moody, D. E. (2000). Mapping biology knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  93. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1995). Collaboration through concept maps. In CSCL 1995 proceedings, 95, 135–138.Google Scholar
  95. Gallenstein, N. L. (2005). Never too young for a concept map. Science and Children, 43(1), 44–47.Google Scholar
  96. Garwood, J. K., Ahmed, A. H., & McComb, S. A. (2018). The effect of concept maps on undergraduate nursing students’ critical thinking. Nursing Education Perspectives, 39(4), 208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Gentner, D. (1978). On relational meaning: The acquisition of verb meaning. Child Development, 49, 988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Gerdeman, J. L., Lux, K., & Jacko, J. (2013). Using concept mapping to build clinical judgment skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 13(1), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Gerstner, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2009). Concept map structure, gender and teaching methods: An investigation of students’ science learning. Educational Research, 51(4), 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Glaser, R., Chi, M. T. H., & Farr, M. J. (1985). The nature of expertise. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  101. Goel, A., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Functional representation of designs and redesign problem solving. In Proceedings of the 11th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, 2, 1388–1394.Google Scholar
  102. 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
  103. González, F. M. (1997). Diagnosis of spanish primary school students’ common alternative science conceptions. School Science and Mathematics, 97(2), 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Special Issue: Students’ Models and Epistemologies of Science), 28(9), 799–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Grossschedl, J., & Tröbst, S. (2018). Biologie lernen durch Concept Mapping: Bedeutung eines Lernstrategietrainings für kognitive Belastung, kognitive Prozesse und Lernleistung–Kurzdarstellung des DFG–Projekts. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Biologie (ZDB)-Biologie Lehren und Lernen, 22(1), 20–30.Google Scholar
  106. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 356–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: Exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human Computer Interaction, 5(2), 305–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Halford, G. S. (1993). Children’s understanding: The development of mental models. Australia Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  110. Hamdiyati, Y., Sudargo, F., Redjeki, S., & Fitriani, A. (2018). Using concept maps to describe undergraduate students’ mental model in microbiology course. Proceedings from Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1013(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  111. Hay, D. B. (2007). Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Hay, D. B. (2008). Developing dialogical concept mapping as an e-learning technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 1057–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Heinze-Fry, J. A. (1998). Concept mapping: Weaving conceptual connections. In Weaving connections: Cultures and environments – Selected papers from the 26th annual North American association of environmental education conference (NAAEE) (pp. 138–147), Troy, OH.Google Scholar
  114. Heinze-Fry, J. A., & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74(4), 461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 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
  116. 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
  117. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 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
  119. 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
  120. Hoadley, C., & Kirby, J. (2004). Socially relevant representations in interfaces for learning. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Embracing diversity in the learning sciences: Proceedings of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 262–269). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  121. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Holley, C. D., Dansereau, D. F., & Harold, F. O. N. (1984). Spatial learning strategies: Techniques, applications, and related issues. New York, NY: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Hook, P. A., & Boerner, K. (2005). Educational knowledge domain visualizations: Tools to navigate, understand, and internalize the structure of scholarly knowledge and expertise. In New directions in cognitive information retrieval (pp. 187–208). Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  124. 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, NSW: ISLS.Google Scholar
  125. Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77(1), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Hoz, R., Tomer, Y., Bowman, D., & Chayoth, R. (1987). The use of concept mapping to diagnose misconceptions in biology and earth sciences. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international seminar misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics (Vol. I, pp. 245–256). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  127. Hsu, Y. S. (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment: The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the process of students’ conceptual change. Science Education, 92(2), 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H., & Hwang, F. (2008). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understandings about seasons: The design of a technology-enhanced learning environment. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  130. Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 81–97. Scholar
  131. Inspiration. (2016). Inspiration.Google Scholar
  132. Irvine, L. (1995). Can concept mapping be used to promote meaningful learning in nurse education? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21(6), 1175–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Kaya, O. N. (2008). A student-centred approach: Assessing the changes in prospective science teachers’ conceptual understanding by concept mapping in a general chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Keraro, F. N., Wachanga, S. W., & Orora, W. (2007). Effects of cooperative concept mapping teaching approach on secondary school students’ motivation in biology in Gucha district. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Kern, C., & Crippen, K. J. (2008). Mapping for conceptual change. The Science Teacher, 75(6), 32–38.Google Scholar
  137. Kinchin, I. M. (2000a). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34(2), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 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
  139. 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
  140. Kinchin, I. M. (2014). Concept mapping as a learning tool in higher education: A critical analysis of recent reviews. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 62(1), 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 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
  142. Kinchin, I. M., & Hay, D. B. (2007). The myth of the research-led teacher. Teachers and Teaching, 13(1), 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Klein, G., Moon, B. M., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 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
  146. Koopman, M., Teune, P., & Beijaard, D. (2011). Development of student knowledge in competence-based pre-vocational secondary education. Learning Environments Research, 14(3), 205–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Koponen, I. T., & Nousiainen, M. (2018). Concept networks of students’ knowledge of relationships between physics concepts: Finding key concepts and their epistemic support. Applied Network Science, 3(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  148. Koponen, I. T., & Pehkonen, M. (2010). Coherent knowledge structures of physics represented as concept networks in teacher education. Science & Education, 19(3), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  150. 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
  151. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. In R. Pea & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Learning in doing: Social, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 29–129). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  152. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Carpenter, S., & Penner, D. (2000). The interrelated development of inscriptions and conceptual understanding. In Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 325–360). Madison, WI/Mahwah, NJ: University of Wisconsin/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  154. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research. Special Issue: Toward a Unified Approach to Learning as a Multisource Phenomenon, 60(1), 1–63.Google Scholar
  155. Levine, R. (1998). Cognitive lab report (report prepared for the national assessment governing board). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  156. Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integation environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Linn, M. C. (2002). Science education: Preparing lifelong learners. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  158. Linn, M. C. (2008). Teaching for conceptual change: Distinguish or extinguish ideas. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  159. 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
  160. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B.-S. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  161. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511–544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  162. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313(5790), 1049–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Multifaceted assessment of inquiry-based science learning. Educational Assessment, 15(2), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Liu, X. (2004). Using concept mapping for assessing and promoting relational conceptual change in science. Science Education, 88(3), 373–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Liu, X., & Hinchey, M. (1993). The validity and reliability of concept mapping as an alternative science assessment. In The proceedings of the third international seminar on misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Misconceptions Trust.Google Scholar
  168. Liu, X., & Hinchey, M. (1996). The internal consistency of a concept mapping scoring scheme and its effect on prediction validity. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 921–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Mahler, S., Hoz, R., Fischl, D., Tov-Ly, E., & Lernau, O. Z. (1991). Didactic use of concept mapping in higher education: Applications in medical education. Instructional Science, 20(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Mancinelli, C., Gentili, M., Priori, G., & Valitutti, G. (2004). Concept maps in kindergarten. In Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad pública de navarra.Google Scholar
  171. Maneval, R. E., Filburn, M. J., Deringer, S. O., & Lum, G. D. (2011). Concept mapping: Does it improve critical thinking ability in practical nursing students? Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(4), 229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Marcum, J. (2008). Instituting science: Discovery or construction of scientific knowledge? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 22, 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1993). 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, August 1–4, 1993Google Scholar
  174. 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
  175. Markow, P. G., & Lonning, R. A. (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: Students’ perceptions and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1015–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Martin, D. J. (1994). Concept mapping as an aid to lesson planning: A longitudinal study. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 6(2), 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  178. Mason, C. L. (1992). Concept mapping: A tool to develop reflective science instruction. Science Education, 76(1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Maton, K., & Doran, Y.J. ( press, 2016) Semantic density: A translation device for revealing complexity of knowledge practices in discourse, part 1 – Wording, Onomázein, August.Google Scholar
  180. Mayr, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  181. 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
  182. McMillan, W. J. (2010). Teaching for clinical reasoning – Helping students make the conceptual links. Medical Teacher, 32, 436–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Metcalf, S. J., Reilly, J. M., Kamarainen, A. M., King, J., Grotzer, T. A., & Dede, C. (2018). Supports for deeper learning of inquiry-based ecosystem science in virtual environments-Comparing virtual and physical concept mapping. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 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
  185. Mintzes, J., & Quinn, H. J. (2007). Knowledge restructuring in biology: Testing a punctuated model of conceptual change. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Mintzes, J. J., Wanderersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35.Google Scholar
  187. 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). Wilmington, NC/San Diego, CA: University of North Carolina, Department of Biological Science/Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Educational Psychology Press/Academic.Google Scholar
  189. Mistades, V. M. (2009). Concept mapping in introductory physics. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(1), 177.Google Scholar
  190. Moreira, M. A. (1987). Concept mapping as a possible strategy to detect and to deal with misconceptions in physics. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international seminar “misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics” (Vol. III, pp. 352–360). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  191. Morfidi, E., Mikropoulos, A., & Rogdaki, A. (2018). Using concept mapping to improve poor readers’ understanding of expository text. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Mun, K., Kim, J., Kim, S.-W., & Krajcik, J. (2014). Exploration of high school students concepts about climate change through the use of an issue concept map (ic-map). In International conference on science education 2012 proceedings (pp. 209–222). Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  193. Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 699–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Nejat, N., Kouhestani, H. R., & Rezaei, K. (2011). Effect of concept mapping on approach to learning among nursing students. HAYAT, 17(2), 22–31.Google Scholar
  195. 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
  196. Nicoll, G., Francisco, J. S., & Nakhleh, M. (2001a). An investigation of the value of using concept maps in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Nicoll, G., Francisco, J.S., & Nakhleh, M.B. (2001b). A three-tier system for assessing concept map links: A methodological study.Google Scholar
  198. Nijman, J. L., Sixma, H., Triest, B. V., Keus, R. B., & Hendriks, M. (2012). The quality of radiation care: The results of focus group interviews and concept mapping to explore the patients perspective. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 102(1), 154–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Norton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77(1), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Novak, J. D. (1980). Meaningful reception learning as a basis for rational thinking. In The psychology of teaching for thinking and creativity. Columbus, Oh: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  201. Novak, J. D., Bob Gowin, D., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Pensacola, FL: IHMC.Google Scholar
  203. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Nugrahani, R., Prasetyo, A. P. B., & Iswari, R. S. (2018). Authentic assessment of fungi for vocational school student: concept map, self assessment and performance test. Journal of Innovative Science Education, 7(1), 11–24.Google Scholar
  205. 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
  206. Odom, A. L., & Kelly, P. V. (2001). Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to teach diffusion and osmosis concepts to high school biology students. Science Education, 85(6), 615–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Oezmen, H., Demircioglu, G., & Coll, R. K. (2007). A comparative study of the effects of a concept mapping enhanced laboratory experience on turkish high school students’ understanding of acid-based chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  208. Okebukola, P. A. (1992). Concept mapping with a cooperative learning flavor. The American Biology Teacher, 54(4), 218–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Okebukola, P. A., & Jegede, O. J. (1989). Students’ anxiety towards and perception of difficulty of some biological concepts under the concept-mapping heuristic. Research in Science & Technological Education, 7(1), 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67(4), 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. 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
  212. 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
  213. Pankratius, W. J. (1990). Building an organized knowledge base: Concept mapping and achievement in secondary school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Park, H. J. (2007). Components of conceptual ecologies. Research in Science Education, 37(2), 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. Parnafes, O., & diSessa, A. A. (2004). Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 251–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. 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
  217. Pemmaraju, S. V., & Skiena, S. S. (2003). Computational discrete mathematics: Combinatorics and graph theory with mathematica. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. Penner, D. E. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 784–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. 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
  220. Plotnick, E. (1997). Concept mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts: An ERIC digest. Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.Google Scholar
  221. Popova-Gonci, V., & Lamb, M. C. (2012). Assessment of integrated learning: Suggested application of concept mapping to prior learning assessment practices. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60, 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. Preszler, R. (2004). Cooperative concept mapping: Improving performance in undergraduate biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(6), 30–35.Google Scholar
  223. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Huebscher, R. (2003). Improving navigation and learning in hypertext environments with navigable concept maps. Human Computer Interaction, 18(4), 395–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. Pushkin, D. (1999). Concept mapping and students, physics equations and problem solving. In M. Komorek, H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graeber, & A. Kross (Eds.), Research in science education – Past, present, and future (Vol. 1, pp. 260–262). Kiel, Germany: IPN Kiel.Google Scholar
  225. Rebich, S., & Gautier, C. (2005). Concept mapping to reveal prior knowledge and conceptual change in a mock summit course on global climate change. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. Reiska, P., Dahncke, H., & Behrendt, H. (1999). Concept maps in a research project on “learning physics and taking action”. In M. Komorek, H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graeber, & A. Kross (Eds.), Research in science education – Past, present, and future (Vol. 1, pp. 257–259). Kiel, Germany: IPN Kiel.Google Scholar
  227. Reiska, P., Soika, K., & Cañas, A. J. (2018). Using concept mapping to measure changes in interdisciplinary learning during high school. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), 10(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  228. 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
  229. Ritchhart, R., Turner, T., & Hadar, L. (2009). Uncovering students’ thinking about thinking using concept maps. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. Roessger, K. M., Daley, B. J., & Hafez, D. A. (2018). Effects of teaching concept mapping using practice, feedback, and relational framing. Learning and Instruction, 54, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. 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
  232. Roth, W. M. (1993). Using Vee and concept maps in collaborative settings: Elementary education majors construct meaning in physical science courses. School Science and Mathematics, 93(5), 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. Roth, W. M. (1994a). Student views of collaborative concept mapping: An emancipatory research project. Science Education, 78(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. Roth, W. M. (1994b). Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping – New perspectives for the teacher. International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 503–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  237. Royer, R., & Royer, J. (2004). Comparing hand drawn and computer generated concept mapping. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(1), 67–81.Google Scholar
  238. 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
  239. 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 2009, Garden Grove (CA).Google Scholar
  240. 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
  241. 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
  242. 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
  243. Rutledge, M. L., & Mitchell, M. A. (2002). High school biology teachers’ knowledge structure, acceptance and teaching of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 64(1), 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. 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
  245. 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. Scholar
  246. Santhanam, E., Leach, C., & Dawson, C. (1998). Concept mapping: How should it be introduced, and is there evidence for long term benefit? Higher Education, 35(3), 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  247. Sarhangi, F., Masoumy, M., Ebadi, A., Seyyed Mazhari, M., Rahmani, A., & Raisifar, A. (2011). Effect of concept mapping teaching method on critical thinking skills of nursing students. Iranian Journal of Critical Care Nursing (IJCCN). 143–148.Google Scholar
  248. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45(2), 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  249. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Literate expertise. In Toward a general theory of expertise. Prospects and limits (pp. 172–194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  250. Schaap, H., Van der Schaaf, M. F., & De Bruijn, E. (2011). Development of students’ personal professional theories in senior secondary vocational education. Evaluation & Research in Education, 24(2), 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  251. Schau, C., & Mattern, N. (1997). Assessing students’ connected understanding of statistical relationships. From Gal, I. & Garfield, J. B. (editors). The Assessment Challenge in Statistics Education. IOS Press, 1997 (on behalf of the ISI). ISBN 90 5199 333 1, (pp. 91–104).Google Scholar
  252. Schau, C., Mattern, N., Weber, R., Minnick, K., & Witt, C. (1997). Use of fill-in concept maps to assess middle school students’ connected understanding of science. AERA annual meeting, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  253. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  254. Schmid, R. F., & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84(2), 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  255. Schuster, P. M. (2011). Concept mapping: A critical thinking approach to care planning. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis.Google Scholar
  256. Schvaneveldt, R. W., Durso, F. T., Goldsmith, T. E., Breen, T. J., Cooke, N. M., Tucker, R. G., & DeMaio, J. C. (1985). Measuring the structure of expertise. International Journal of Man-Maschine Studies, 23, 699–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  257. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  258. Schwendimann, B. A. (2007). Integrating interactive genetics visualizations into high school biology. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  259. Schwendimann, B. A. (2009). Scaffolding an integrated understanding of biology through dynamic visualizations and critique-focused concept mapping. Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  260. Schwendimann, B. A. (2011a). Mapping biological ideas: Concept maps as knowledge integration tools for evolution education (Dissertation). Retrieved from
  261. Schwendimann, B. A. (2011b). Integrating genotypic and phenotypic ideas of evolution through critique-focused concept mapping. AERA annual meeting 2011, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  262. Schwendimann, B. A. (2011c). 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
  263. Schwendimann, B. A. (2014a). Making sense of knowledge integration maps. In D. Ifenthaler & R. Hanewald (Eds.), Digital knowledge maps in education: Technology enhanced support for teachers and learners. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  264. Schwendimann, B. A. (2014b). Comparing two forms of concept map critique activities to support knowledge integration in biology education. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on concept mapping. Santos, Brazil: International Conference on Concept Mapping.Google Scholar
  265. Schwendimann, B. A., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Comparing two forms of concept map critique activities to facilitate knowledge integration processes in evolution education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 70–94Google Scholar
  266. Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Wiley, E. W. (2005). Windows into the mind. Higher Education, 49(4), 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  267. Shawli, A. S. (2018). Concept mapping as an assessment of cognitive load and mental effort in complex problem solving in chemistry (Doctoral thesis). Montana State University.Google Scholar
  268. Shen, J. (2010). Nurturing students’ critical knowledge using technology-enhanced scaffolding strategies in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 1–12. Scholar
  269. Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (2007). From conceptual change to transformative modeling: A case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy. Science Education, 91(6), 948–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  270. Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (2010). Justifying alternative models in learning the solar system: A case study on K-8 science teachers’ understanding of frames of reference. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  271. Silva, J. H. D., Foureaux, G., Sá, M. A. D., Schetino, L. P. L., & Guerra, L. B. (2018). The teaching and learning of human anatomy: The assessment of student performance after the use of concept maps as a pedagogical strategy. Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 24(1), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  272. Sizmur, S., & Osborne, J. (1997). Learning processes and collaborative concept mapping. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1117–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  273. Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students’ misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 373–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  274. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2000). How do students make sense of Internet resources in the science classroom? In M. J. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Learning the sciences of the 21st century (pp. 193–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.Google Scholar
  275. Snead, D., & Snead, W. L. (2004). Concept mapping and science achievement of middle grade students. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(4), 306–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  276. Songer, N. B. (2006). Biokids: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355–369). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  277. Spaulding, D. T. (1989). Concept mapping and achievement in high school biology and chemistry. Dissertation. Florida. Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  278. Starr, M. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (1990). Concept maps as a heuristic for science curriculum development: Toward improvement in process and product. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 987–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  279. Stensvold, M. S., & Wilson, J. T. (1990). The interaction of verbal ability with concept mapping in learning from a chemistry laboratory activity. Science Education, 74(4), 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  280. Stewart, J. (1979). Concept maps: A tool for use in biology teaching. American Biology Teacher, 41(3), 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  281. Stice, C. F., & Alvarez, M. C. (1987). Hierarchical concept mapping in the early grades. Childhood Education, 64(2), 86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  282. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  283. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  284. Sun, J. C.-Y., Hwang, G.-J., Lin, Y.-Y., Yu, S.-J., Pan, L.-C., & Chen, A. Y.-Z. (2018). A votable concept mapping approach to promoting students’ attentional behavior: An analysis of sequential behavioral patterns and brainwave data. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 177–191.Google Scholar
  285. Sundararajan, N., Adesope, O., & Cavagnetto, A. (2018). The process of collaborative concept mapping in Kindergarten and the effect on critical thinking skills. Journal of STEM Education, 19(1), 5–13.Google Scholar
  286. Suprapto, N., Prahani, B. K., Jauhariyah, M. N. R., & Admoko, S. (2018). Exploring physics concepts among novice teachers through CMAP tools. Proceedings from Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 997(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  287. 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
  288. Syarifuddin, H. (2018). The effect of using concept maps in elementary linear algebra course on students’ learning. Proceedings from IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 335(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  289. Tabak, I., Weinstock, M., & Zvilling-Beiser, H. (2009). Epistemology and learning in the disciplines: Cross-domain epistemological views of science versus humanities students. In J. Shen (Ed.), Critique to learn science. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, Garden Grove, CA.Google Scholar
  290. Taylor, L. A., & Littleton-Kearney, M. (2011). Concept mapping: A distinctive educational approach to foster critical thinking. Nurse Educator, 36(2), 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  291. Trowbridge, J. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1994). Identifying critical junctures in learning in a college course on evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  292. Trowbridge, J. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1996). How do graphics presented during college biology lessons affect students’ learning? Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(1), 54–57.Google Scholar
  293. Tsai, C.-C., & Huang, C.-M. (2002). Exploring students’ cognitive structures in learning science: A review of relevant methods. Journal of Biological Education, 36(4), 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  294. Tseng, H.-C., Chou, F.-H., Wang, H.-H., Ko, H.-K., Jian, S.-Y., & Weng, W.-C. (2011). The effectiveness of problem-based learning and concept mapping among Taiwanese registered nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 31(8), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  295. Tsui, C., & Treagust, D. (2010). Evaluating secondary students’ scientific reasoning in genetics using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1073–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  296. Turan-Oluk, N., & Ekmekci, G. (2018). The effect of concept maps, as an individual learning tool, on the success of learning the concepts related to gravimetric analysis. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19, 819–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  297. Uzuntiryaki, E., & Geban, O. (2005). Effect of conceptual change approach accompanied with concept mapping on understanding of solution concepts. Instructional Science, 33(4), 311–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  298. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Using representational tools to support historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  299. Van Bommel, M., Kwakman, K., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2012). Experiences of social work students with learning theoretical knowledge in constructivist higher vocational education: A qualitative exploration. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 64(4), 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  300. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. Program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(3), 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  301. Van Neste-Kenny, J., Cragg, C. E. B., & Foulds, B. (1998). Using concept maps and visual representations for collaborative curriculum development. Nurse Educator, 23(6), 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  302. Van Zele, E., Lenaerts, J., & Wieme, W. (2004). Improving the usefulness of concept maps as a research tool for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1043–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  303. Veo, P. (2010). Concept mapping for applying theory to nursing practice. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 26(1), 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  304. Vilela, R., Austrilino, L., & Costa, A. (2004). Using concept maps for collaborative curriculum development. In Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping, Pamplona, Spain.Google Scholar
  305. Walker, J. M. T., & King, P. H. (2003). Concept mapping as a form of student assessment and instruction in the domain of bioengineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(2), 167–178.Google Scholar
  306. Wallace, J. D., & Mintzes, J. J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1033–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  307. Wandersee, J. H. (1996). Bioinstrumentation: Tools for understanding life. Reston, WA: National Association of Biology Teachers.Google Scholar
  308. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (p. 825). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  309. Watson, C. E. (2005). Graphic organizers: Toward organization and complexity of student content knowledge (Dissertation).Google Scholar
  310. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  311. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). The teaching of learning strategies. Innovation Abstracts, 5, 4.Google Scholar
  312. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  313. West, D. C., Pomeroy, J. R., Park, J. K., Gerstenberger, E. A., & Sandoval, J. (2000). Critical thinking in graduate medical education: A role for concept mapping assessment? JAMA, 284(9), 1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  314. Wisdom Soft. (2016). Autoscreenrecorder 2.0. Autoscreenrecorder 2.0 [Computer Software].Google Scholar
  315. Wise, A. M. (2007). Map it: How concept mapping affects understanding of evolutionary processes (Thesis).Google Scholar
  316. 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
  317. Zeilik, M., Schau, C., Mattern, N., Hall, S., Teague, K. W., & Bisard, W. (1997). Conceptual astronomy: A novel model for teaching postsecondary science courses. American Journal of Physics, 65, 987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  318. 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 2009, Garden Grove (CA).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Dirk Ifenthaler
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Learning, Design and TechnologyUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations