Presentation on theme: "Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment in the Classroom Dr. Alison M. Mostrom University."— Presentation transcript:
Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment in the Classroom Dr. Alison M. Mostrom University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
Learning ObjectivesActivities Review Critical Thinking Discuss Anderson et al Construct a Novakian CMap Entire Group Discussion Novak 1998 Appendix I applied to short reading (in small groups) Review Advantages / Disadv. of CMaps Review Benefits / Costs of CMapping Entire Group Discussion
Review Critical Thinking by Discussing Anderson et al (align Objectives, Activities, & Assessment) (10 minutes) Cognitive Process (verb) K nowledge Dimension (noun) R emember U nderstand A pply A nalyze E valuate C reate F actual Knowledge C onceptual Knowledge P rocedural Knowledge M eta-Cognitive Knowledge
How to Construct a CMap (Novak 1998 Appendix I) Identify a major question, problem, issue, or knowledge domain that you wish to map. Entitle your map. Identify major concepts that are pertinent to this Concepts should be 1-3 words (nouns / noun phrase) Write each of these concepts on a separate Post-it TM note Place these major concepts at the top of the page Identify major sub-concepts / subcomponents Place each under the appropriate broad concept Rank order these from broadest / most general / inclusive at the top to most specific at the bottom Using lines with arrows, link concepts to each other; concepts to subcomponents; subcomponents to each other. Arrows can be simple (one sided) or complex (two sided) Above arrows label linkage with a word (or few words) that define the relationship.This connection creates meaning Revise as your ideas about concepts, subcomponents, linkages, and modify your map accordingly Possibly add cross linkages (between different concept clusters).
Implementing CMaps For what purpose in your classroom? suggestions by workshop attendees When (within the course)? suggestions by workshop attendees Using what tools? CMap Tools: cmap.ihmc.us (Institute for Human and Machine Cognition)cmap.ihmc.us suggestions by workshop attendees
Scoring / Grading CMaps Novak & Gowin 1984: Linkages (connecting verbs):1 pt each Hierarchy Levels:5 pts each Valid Cross Links:10 pts each Examples (not hierarchies) 1 pt each TOTAL (Novak & Gowin 1984): = L + H + VCL + E Mostrom (2008) Additional Level of Complexity: Qualitative Emphasis:5 pts each –concept box size; linkage line thickness; font characteristics TOTAL (Mostrom 2008): = L + H + VCL + E + QE CMap Tools: Compare 2 CMaps (final vs. first)
Additional Grading Scales for Assessing CMaps Cañas, A. J., J. D. Novak, N. L. Miller, C. Collado, M. Rodriguez, M. Concepción C. Santana, &L. Peña Confiabilidad de una taxonomìa topológica para mapas conceptuales. In A. J. Cañas, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proc. of the Second Int. Conference on Concept Mapping. Vol. I., pp San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Grading Scale: Topological Scale 0-6 (Translated) Level 0: Concepts: lengthy; Linkages: lacking; Complexity: Linear Level 1: Concepts: lengthy; Linkages: 1/2 with connecting verbs; Complexity: Linear (0 branches) Level 2: Same as Level 1 except Complexity: 1-2 branches = low Level 3: Concepts: concise; Linkages: all with connecting verbs; Complexity: 3-4 bifurcations = moderate; < 3 Hierarchy levels. Level 4: Concepts: concise: Linkages: all with verbs: Complexity: 5-6 bifurcations = high; 3+ Hierarchy levels; Level 5: same as Level 4 except add 1-2 cross-links Level 6: same as level 4 except add > 2 cross-links
Additional Grading Scales for Assessing CMaps (continued) Miller, N. L., & Canas, A.J A semantic scoring rubric for concept maps: design and reliability. Proc. of the Third Int. Conference on Concept Mapping. (Eds A. J. Canas, P. Reiska, M. Ahlberg, & J.D. Novak). Tallinn, Estonia, & Helsinki, Finland. Grading Scale: 0: unevaluated; 1-5: Very Low; 6-8: Low; 9-11: Intermediate; 12-14: High; Very High Criterion #1: concept relevance & completeness (0-3 pts) Criterion #2: propositions as semantic units (0-2 pts) Criterion #3: erroneous propositions (e.p.) (0-2 points) 0 points: > 2 e.p.; 1 point: 1-2; 2 pts: no e.p. Criterion #4: dynamic propositions (0-4 points) Criterion #5: quantity and quality of cross-links (0-5 points) Criterion #6: presence of cycles (feedback loops) (0-2 points)
Discuss Advantages & Disadvantages of CMapping Advantages: Value to Students: suggestions by workshop attendees Advantages: Value to Teachers: suggestions by workshop attendees Advantage: Disadvantages: Can CMaps Promote Misunderstanding? suggestions by workshop attendees :
Discuss Benefits & Costs of Students Using CMapping Benefits: to Students: suggestions by workshop attendees Benefits: to Teachers: suggestions by workshop attendees Costs: to Teachers: suggestions by workshop attendees
L. DEE FINKS (2003) FIG. 2.2: THE INTERACTIVE NATURE OF SIGNIFICANT LEARNING: SIGNIFICANT LEARNING HOW TO LEARN FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE APPLICATION INTEGRATION CARING HUMAN DIMENSION
Literature Anderson, L. W., D. R. Krathwohl, P. W. Airasian, K. A. Cruikshank, R. E. Mayer, P. R. Pintrich, J. Raths, and M. C. Wittrock A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longhman. Blumberg, P Developing Learner-Centered Teaching: A Practical Guide for Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Blumberg, P Maximizing learning through course alignment and experience with different types of knowledge. Innov. High Educ 34: DOI /s Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (eds) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Report of the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cañas, A. J., J. D. Novak, N. L. Miller, C. Collado, M. Rodriguez, M. Concepción C. Santana, & L. Peña Confiabilidad de una taxonomìa topológica para mapas conceptuales. In A. J. Cañas, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proc. of the Second Int. Conference on Concept Mapping. Vol. I., pp San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica.
Literature (continued) Coty, T., & E. Kornfeind What is Animal Behavior Final CMap. BS305: Animal Behavior, USP, Fall Coty, T., Nervous System CMap. BS280: Comparative Animal Physiology, USP, Spring Fink, L. D Creating Significant Learning Experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Halpern, P The Pursuit of Destiny: A History of Prediction Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Havlusch, G., Linton, S. & Mezhiritsky, V What is Ecology? Final CMap for BS377: Ecology, USP, Spring Miller, N. L., & Canas, A.J A semantic scoring rubric for concept maps: design and reliability. Proc. of the Third Int. Conference on Concept Mapping. (Eds A. J. Canas, P. Reiska, M. Ahlberg, & J.D. Novak). Tallinn, Estonia, & Helsinki, Finland. (electronic access: paper A8) Mostrom, A. M A Unique use of concept maps as the primary organizing structure in two upper-level undergarduate biology courses: results from the first implementation. Proc. of the Third Int. Conference on Concept Mapping. (Eds A. J. Canas, P. Reiska, M. Ahlberg, & J.D. Novak). Tallinn, Estonia, & Helsinki, Finland. (electronic access: paper B7)
Literature (continued) Novak J. D. accessed Concept Map about Concept Maps within concept map link within CMap Tools web site: cmap.ihmc.us/conceptmap.html Novak, J. D Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps TM as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Novak, J. D., and D.B. Gowin Learning How to Learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nguyen, Sara, and Salamat, Rosen How to build a concept map. BS377 Ecology. Weimer, M Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.