Presentation on theme: "Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment"— Presentation transcript:
1Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment in the ClassroomDr. Alison M. MostromUniversity of the Sciences in Philadelphia
2Learning Objectives Activities Review CriticalThinkingDiscuss Andersonet al. 2001Construct a“Novakian CMap”Novak 1998 Appendix Iapplied to short reading(in small groups)ReviewAdvantages / Disadv.of CMapsEntire Group DiscussionReviewBenefits / Costsof CMappingEntire Group Discussion
3Review Critical Thinking by Discussing Anderson et al Review Critical Thinking by Discussing Anderson et al (align Objectives, Activities, & Assessment) (10 minutes)CognitiveProcess(verb)KnowledgeDimension(noun)RememberUnderstandApplyAnalyzeEvaluateCreateFactualConceptualProceduralMeta-Cognitive
4How 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 thisConcepts should be 1-3 words (nouns / noun phrase)Write each of these concepts on a separate Post-itTM notePlace these major concepts at the top of the pageIdentify major sub-concepts / subcomponentsPlace each under the appropriate broad conceptRank order these from broadest / most general / inclusive at the top to most specific at the bottomUsing 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 accordinglyPossibly add cross linkages (between different concept clusters).
5Implementing CMaps For what purpose in your classroom? suggestions by workshop attendeesWhen (within the course)?Using what tools?CMap Tools: cmap.ihmc.us (Institute for Human and Machine Cognition)
6Scoring / Grading CMaps Novak & Gowin 1984:Linkages (connecting verbs): 1 pt eachHierarchy Levels: 5 pts eachValid Cross Links: 10 pts eachExamples (not hierarchies) 1 pt eachTOTAL (Novak & Gowin 1984): = L + H + VCL + EMostrom (2008) Additional Level of Complexity:Qualitative Emphasis: 5 pts eachconcept box size; linkage line thickness; font characteristicsTOTAL (Mostrom 2008): = L + H + VCL + E + QECMap Tools: “Compare 2 CMaps” (“final” vs. “first”)
7Additional 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: LinearLevel 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-linksLevel 6: same as level 4 except add > 2 cross-links
8Additional 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; : Low; : Intermediate; : High; Very HighCriterion #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)
9Discuss Advantages & Disadvantages of CMapping Advantages: Value to Students:suggestions by workshop attendeesAdvantages: Value to Teachers:suggestions by workshop attendees Advantage:Disadvantages:Can CMaps Promote Misunderstanding?suggestions by workshop attendees:
10Discuss Benefits & Costs of Students Using CMapping Benefits: to Students:suggestions by workshop attendeesBenefits: to Teachers:Costs: to Teachers:
11L. DEE FINK’S (2003) FIG. 2.2: THE INTERACTIVE NATURE OF SIGNIFICANT LEARNING: HOW TOLEARNFOUNDATIONALKNOWLEDGECARINGSIGNIFICANTLEARNINGAPPLICATIONHUMANDIMENSIONINTEGRATION
12LiteratureAnderson, 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 /sBransford, 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.
13Literature (continued) Coty, T., & E. Kornfeind “What is Animal Behavior” Final CMap. BS305: Animal Behavior, USP, Fall 2008.Coty, T., “Nervous System” CMap. BS280: Comparative Animal Physiology, USP, Spring 2009.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 2007.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)
14Literature (continued) Novak J. D. accessed “Concept Map about Concept Maps” within “concept map link” within CMap Tools web site: cmap.ihmc.us/conceptmap.htmlNovak, J. D Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept MapsTM 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.