Concept Mapping
Concept mapping is an educational tool designed to aid in the construction, organization, and communication of knowledge. By visually representing information, concept maps help clarify and elaborate on ideas by showing the relationships between various subtopics. These maps can vary in complexity and are sometimes referred to by other names, including mind maps, semantic maps, and graphic organizers. Originating from constructivist learning theories, concept mapping encourages active participation in the learning process, allowing students to connect new concepts with their existing knowledge. This method not only enhances comprehension but also supports critical thinking and metacognition, fostering a deeper understanding of the material. Moreover, concept maps serve as effective assessment tools, enabling educators to gauge students' grasp of concepts and identify misconceptions. With the advent of digital tools, concept mapping has evolved from traditional pencil-and-paper formats to electronic versions, further facilitating its use in diverse educational settings. Overall, concept mapping is recognized for its inclusivity, accommodating different learning styles and promoting meaningful learning across various subjects.
Concept Mapping
This article presents an overview of concept mapping, a pedagogical tool that is a useful method for constructing, organizing, and communicating knowledge. Concept maps are visual presentations that clarify and explicate ideas and are developed by organizing prior and new knowledge about a particular topic into a map. Concept maps have also been called webbing, semantic mapping, concept organizer, graphic organizer, mind map and cognitive map. They can be visually simple or quite complicated, depending upon the number of nodes and links that are involved in the visual presentation. While concept mapping has its origins in constructivism, this pedagogical tool can be included in teacher-centered classrooms, as well as the student-centered classrooms. They are also used as assessment tools to assess student understandings (or lack thereof). Concept maps have moved from the pencil-and-paper format, as electronic concept maps have been made available through free trial downloads.
Keywords Assimilation Theory; Critical Thinking; Cognitive Map; Concept Organizer; Deductive Reasoning; Formative Assessment; Electronic Concept Map; Graphic Organizer; Inductive Reasoning; Meaningful Learning; Mind Map; Semantic Map; Pedagogical Tool; Summative Assessment; Webbing
Teaching Methods > Concept Mapping
Overview
Concept mapping is a pedagogical tool that is a useful method for constructing, organizing and communicating knowledge. This method challenges the traditional methods of rote memorization and passive learning and effectively promotes learning for all types of learners. Students often have difficulty with note taking and making connections with the content (Long & Carlson, 2011). In fact, research states that rote memorization, simple note-taking and underlining strategies do not adequately involve students in the active pursuit of knowledge as concept maps do (DeSimone, Oka & Tischer, 1999). The term concept mapping has been called webbing, semantic mapping, concept organizer, graphic organizer, mind map, and cognitive map.
Concept maps are visual presentations that are ways to clarify and explicate ideas, by organizing knowledge about a particular topic so that relationships between various subtopics can be displayed visually (Morine-Dershimer, 2006). They are educational tools that help students see the structure of key concepts that are visually presented in two-dimensional structures (Wilen, Hutchinson, Bosse & Kindsvatter, 2004). Concept maps are mental models that students develop as they think about old and new knowledge and the interrelatedness between the two. Construction of concept maps includes actively organizing and analyzing data, correlating appropriate information and synthesizing ideas to create meaning (Kostovich, Paradisz, Wood & O'Brien, 2007). De Simone (2007) states that concept mapping requires the learner to assume an active role in learning by: extracting and attending to important ideas from the text; thinking about how these ideas are related; and organizing the information into an integrated structure of sequences and clusters. According to Craik (1943), the mind constructs small-scale models of reality and constructs explanations. These explanations are dynamic internal models and can be structured into visual models. Solend (2005) states that concept maps are content enhancers that are meant to organize and identify the big issues, activate prior knowledge, and link this prior knowledge to new concepts. Concept maps are used so that students can see the relationship between main points and supporting details. The maps may visually present comparisons, clarify relationships, develop inferences, and draw conclusions. They promote meaningful learning in many content areas, such as in language, math, science, nursing and education.
Concept mapping has its origins in constructivist learning, which stresses the importance of challenging students to actively participate in and accept personal responsibility for learning (Novak, 1998). Information is formed by learners, rather than being transmitted to the individual (Tezsi, Demirli, & Saper (2007). Researchers David Ausubel (1963) and Joseph Novak (1998) are prominent in the development of concept mapping. The theory of concept mapping developed out of Ausubel's assimilation theory, the theory that what is most important in learning is what the student already knows and how the new learning interfaces with or relates to previous knowledge. Novak and his Cornell University associates introduced concept mapping in 1972 (Wilen, Hutchinson, Bosse & Kindsvatter, 2004). Novak and Gowin (1984) proposed concept mapping as a way to promote meaningful learning.
The number and variety of maps are infinite (Duplass, 2006), with no two maps ever alike. Concept maps can be as visually simple or as complicated as needed to impart visual information. All concept maps have nodes (points or vertices) that represent concepts and links (lines and arcs) that represent either causal or temporal relationships between the nodes. Each element articulates various patterns of thought and is a tool for representing and understanding complex thoughts (Chaffee, 2006). Arslan (2006) suggests that there are actually three major elements to the concept mapping process. Students should:
• Write concept names inside ovals, rectangles, or other shapes that represent the concepts;
• Link lines or arrows to show the connections between two concepts; and then
• Link phrases (on specific linking lines) to describe the relations between concepts.
Salend (2005) suggests that there are several types of concept maps that are organized by the knowledge that is presented in the map. Variations of maps include central or hierarchical, directional, comparative and semantic maps. Other types of maps are spider maps and serial maps (All & Huycke, 2007), as well as anticipatory guides (Barton, Heidema, & Jordan, 2002).
Duplass (2006) states that there are a number of reasons concept mapping is an important tool in the classroom, in that it is:
• Appropriate to almost all grade levels and domains;
• Visually enhancing learning;
• Accommodating of different learning styles;
• Easy to teach from and use;
• Inclusive of both information knowledge and procedural knowledge; and
• Promoting the reconstruction of knowledge when students are involved in the making or completing of a concept map (Duplass, 2006, p. 222).
This pedagogical tool can be either teacher-centered or student-centered. In the teacher-centered environment, the concept map can be used as an instructional tool, incorporated into lectures, discussions, questioning techniques and case studies. Teachers who often use these graphic organizers to enhance their own modeling must choose organizers for presentation that correctly depict the concepts that they wish to present and these are developed by them before their use in class. The goal for the use of the concept map in a teacher-centered approach is "to progressively differentiate the information in the concept map while students capture the entire image in their mind's eye" (Duplass, 2006, p. 222). A common method in the teacher-centered approach to the presentation of concept maps is the Reveal Method, the distributing of a blank map that will be completed by the students as the teacher delivers a lecture. The blank map is a note-taking approach, as students fill in or add to the map that has been previously distributed to students.
Student-Constructed Maps
Research shows that student-constructed concept maps are more beneficial than those completed maps provided by the teacher. Novak, Gowin, and Johanssen (1983) state that students retain information longer and generate more specific thinking and reconstruction of knowledge when they actively engage in the building of the maps. They also find new meaning in the subject and new ways to relate what they already know to the content they are learning (Okebukola, 1992). As students analyze the concepts, they distinguish between critical and extraneous attributes. Both inductive and deductive reasoning is facilitated in the process of developing a concept map (All & Huycke, 2007). Students master more content as they are encouraged to answer questions and map representations in their heads before developing a concept map. There are certain steps that most students follow when they are developing a typical concept map. In the process of developing a typical concept map, the student:
• Notes the key words or concepts and phrases or ideas that are used during a lesson or from reading a text;
• Arranges the concept and main ideas in a hierarchy from the most general (abstract) to the more specific and concise;
• Draws circles or ellipses around the concepts;
• Connects the concepts (generally in circles) by means of lines or arrows, accompanied by linking words so that each branch of the map can be read from the top down;
• Provides examples (if possible) at the end of each branch; and,
• Cross-links hierarchies or branching of the map, where appropriate (Okebukola, 1992, p. 218).
Typically, students take several months of regular practice and must be provided with feedback if they are to construct good maps that clearly represent their knowledge (Okebukola, 1992).
Assessment Tools
Concept maps also serve as an assessment tool for teachers because they visually present student understanding or misconceptions of subject matter that the students present in their maps. They can provide formative information about student learning during a lesson or be the summative (or final) assessment tool to evaluate learning (All & Huycke, 2007). Teachers can probe students' mental models of new concepts by assessing their understanding of complex and abstract concepts through use of concept maps (Ausubel, 1963). Teachers must consider what is included in a concept map's content, as well as establish what should not be included. Concept maps can be assessed further by evaluating the links and cross-links developed or underdeveloped within the map. As teachers evaluate the student-produced maps, they see whether students are assimilating new knowledge correctly, lacking skills to communicate perceptions or reflecting adequately on what they do or do not know (All & Huycke, 2007). Teachers also gain a better understanding of where the students are having difficulty conceptualizing key concepts and where they may be faulty in their critical thinking processes.
When developing maps, teachers must consider their purposes or intent. They must consider:
• The type of organizer that most effectively conveys the information they think their students need;
• The type of knowledge that needs to be recorded;
• The type of recording process needed, such as data retrieval maps (for categorical knowledge) or sequence maps (for timelines, flow charts, and escalator diagrams); and,
• The way that knowledge should be organized (Duplass, 2006, 244-245).
Teachers need to introduce concept maps to students and teach the underlying principles, types of maps, and steps in the process of development (All & Huycke, 2007). Research shows that students prefer scaffolding maps by making partially completed maps available to all students. As a result, students have produced "better maps from scratch" (Chang, Sung & Chen, 2001, p. 331).
Concept mapping is time-consuming for novices. With support, students become more aware of the different types of concept maps and their applications. Teachers must direct students in the production of maps, addressing ways to cluster data in a linear manner and then walking them through the many stages of concept map development. However, more recently, automated tools for generating concept maps can reduce the workload of the instructor (Villalon & Calvo, 2011), minimizing the time-consuming element of the erasing and revising processes. Electronic concept maps help people conceptualize and remember myriad facts that can be used in problem-solving activities (Shmaefsky, 2007). Conlon (2006) states that many programs have free trial downloads or are reasonably inexpensive for use in a classroom or on a personal computer. It is also seen as desirable to promote students' acceptance degree of using technology for better learning (Hwang et al., 2014). Programs have been developed to assess concept maps written by way of electronic concept mapping software. However, these programs are fallible, as they are limited in their comparison of concept maps. Students have to use the types of maps available in the electronic assessment program, which takes away the chance to construct one's own knowledge in a limitless approach. Also, the electronic assessments programs often misunderstand the student's language. The electronic assessment programs have been used as a formative assessment tool, where feedback is used as a way to further learning rather than reliably and accurately measuring knowledge.
Student attitudinal studies show that students generally see learning value in concept mapping and prefer using computer tools for map construction rather than using pen and paper. Further studies show that students think concept mapping is hard work, even though it helps them to learn (Chang, Sung & Chen, 2001). However, a well-developed map provides important information to teachers and students alike about the content, structure and interrelatedness of one's knowledge in a specific content area (Taylor & Wros, 2007).
Applications
Types of Concept Maps
• Anticipatory Guides: These concept maps introduce students to new content by having them respond to several teacher-generated oral or written statements or questions concerning specific material (Barton, Heidema, & Jordan, 2002).
• Central and Hierarchical: These types of concept maps are structured around a central topic and used to illustrate concepts and the elements that describe them. Information is presented in order of importance, with items subordinated to other items (Salend, 2005).
• Comparative: These concept maps are presented in such a way that a comparison between two or more concepts is visually apparent; often, Venn diagrams matrixes, or a chart is often most appropriate for visually presenting the comparison (Salend, 2005).
• Directional: Maps of this type visually present information in a sequence and are often used to illustrate cause and effect information or content presented in a timeline or flowchart (Salend, 2005). Often called flow charts, directional maps visually present steps in an organized, linear way.
• Pictorial or Landscape Maps: These maps present information in pictures, landscapes or symbols. Word ideas or concepts can be presented in the shape of a tree, a wheel, a snake, or any other design (Salend, 2005).
• Semantic: Semantic maps are used to introduce, review and clarify previously learned and newly introduced information. Salend (2005) states that these types of concept maps present a word or phrase that serves as a focal point of the web, with web strands used to show subordinate ideas that are related to the key word.
• Serial: Serial concept maps are a series of evolving maps that students can create about a single concept over a specified time period. As critical thinking progresses, this progression is represented in the concept maps; maps become more detailed, integrated, and comprehensive. These maps demonstrate the evolution of the understanding of a concept throughout the process and culminate in the students' final conceptual maps (All & Huycke, 2007).
• Spider: Spider maps require students to illustrate both hierarchical and interrelateness of elements visually (All & Huycke, 2007).
• Systems: Systems concept maps are similar to flowcharts, in that information is organized in parts, with one part flowing to the next, each representing an input and output. The output for one becomes the input for the next element (Salend, 2005).
• Webbing: Webbing maps are one the most common types of concept maps. In this type of map, the students or teacher draw groups and sub-groups of information to show relationships between each group and the major concept or topic (Morine-Dershimer, 2006).
Teaching Strategies
• Reveal Method: Teachers generally use this method when presenting materials in a teacher-centered approach. As the teacher presents the concept map to the students on an overhead, the teacher keeps parts of the map hidden, revealing components of the concept and examining in detail through class discussion (Duplass, 2006).
• Scaffolding: Scaffolding maps by distributing partially completed maps to the students are a particularly helpful strategy that has resulted in better maps. Teachers can adjust these partially completed maps to differentiate instruction for those who need extra support in understanding concepts, as well as in the development of the maps themselves (Chang, Sung, & Chen, 2001).
Possible Learning Outcomes
Taylor and Wros (2007) have developed a list of learning outcomes for nursing students that could possibly be a focus in other content area classrooms that use concept maps:
• The map shows the "big picture" and supports understanding of salience and complexity.
• The process of developing the map supports critical thinking and metacognition.
• The process expands thinking by forcing students to cluster information, consider the relationships among concepts, and question missing data.
• The links among problems show complex interrelationships, among other points.
• The process supports the development of competence with technology because students can develop skills with computer software (if this type of technology is available to the students).
• The concept map allows educators to more readily understand "holes" in data and errors in thinking.
• The assignment fosters effective and productive interchange between faculty and students (Taylor & Wros, 2007, p. 214).
Viewpoints: Assessing Concept Maps
Teachers often avoid assigning concept maps because they take a lot of time to assess. However, Taylor and Wros (2007) have developed a rubric for evaluating concept maps. They define an "A" grade for a map as one that addresses guidelines but is developed beyond the basics of the concepts. The concept map is complete, comprehensive, insightful and holistic. It shows meaningful connections and an individualized picture. The developer of the map has shown effort beyond the face value of the assignment.
A map that may receive a "B” grade addresses each section of the guidelines but not at a high level, or it may be missing some items or terms. Although it represents basic work, it is missing obvious pieces. The map may or may not flow well, and may not make thoughtful connections.
A "C" grade map has gaps in the final product and is missing sections or important information. It may have areas of error or misunderstanding and may show a lack of insight. The visual image of the concept does not flow well.
Terms & Concepts
Assimilation Theory: Ausubel (1963) presents an assimilation theory in relationship to concept maps. He states that what is most important in learning is what the student already knows and how the new learning interfaces with or relates to previous learning. This relationship can be developed in a concept map.
Critical Thinking: The American Philosophical Association defines critical thinking as a process of purposeful, self-regulating judgment. The key outcomes of critical thinking are interpretation, analysis, evaluation and inference.
Deductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning is a way to think critically by reviewing the general elements and deducing specific instances as a result.
Formative Assessment: Formative assessment is often done at the beginning or during a lesson, thus providing the opportunity for immediate evidence of student learning.
Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is a way to think critically by reviewing the specific instances to reach a general conclusion.
Meaningful Learning: Meaningful learning is the integration of prior knowledge with new concepts and ideas (Ausubel, 1968). As students acquire new knowledge, knowledge is rearranged in the mind to allow development of meaning and understanding of concepts. Students develop a link between old and new knowledge (Clayton, 2006). Meaningful learning is necessary for the development of higher-level thinking skills.
Pedagogical Tool: A pedagogical tool is a specific teaching strategy that a teacher uses to impart the context of a lesson
Summative Assessment: Summative assessment is the final assessment in a lesson to check the level of learning at the end of the course.
Bibliography
All, A. & Huycke, L. (2007). Serial concept maps: Tools for concept analysis. Journal of Nursing Education, 46 , 217-224. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24844931&site=ehost-live
Arslan, M. (2006). The influence of teaching note-taking and information mapping on learning and recalling in Science. Turkish On-line Journal of Educational Technology, 5 , 56-63. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online
Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20486090&site=ehost-live
Ausubel, P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York, NY: Greene & Stratton.
Barton, M., Heidema, C. & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and science. Educational Leadership, 60, 24-29.
Chaffee, J. (2006). Thinking critically. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Chang, K., Sung, Y., & Chen, I. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Journal of Experimental Education, 71 , 5-23. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7217342&site=ehost-live
Clayton, L. (2006). Concept mapping: An effective, active teaching-learning method. Nursing EducationPerspectives, 27 , 197-203. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21801697&site=ehost-live
Conlon, T. (2006). Formative assessment of classroom concept maps: The reasonable fallible analyzer. Journal of InteractiveLearning Research, 17 , 15-36. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19794182&site=ehost-live
Craik, K. (1943). Nature of explanation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UP.
DeSimone, C. (2007). Applications of concept mapping. College Teaching, 55 , 33-36. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24443017&site=ehost-live
DeSimone, C., Oka, E., & Tischer, S. (1999). Multiple uses for networks with college students: Comprehending, constructing, and monitoring ideas. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 55-69.
Duplass, J. (2006). Middle and high school teaching. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Hwang, G., Kuo, F., Chen, N., & Ho, H. (2014). Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students' learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads. Computers & Education, 7177-86. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92512194&site=ehost-live
Kostovich, C., Poradzisz, M., Wood, K., & O'Brien, K. (2007, May). Journal of Nursing Education, 46 , 225-231. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24844932&site=ehost-live
Long, D., & Carlson, D. (2011). Mind the map: How thinking maps affect student achievement. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 13, 1-7. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=77898233&site=ehost-live
Morine-Dershimer, G. (2006). Instructional planning. In J. Cooper (Ed.), Classroom teaching skills, 8th ed. (pp. 20-84). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Novak, J. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Novak, J., & Gowen, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge UP.
Novak, J., Gowin, D., & Johansen, G. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67, 625-645.
Okebukola, P. (1992). Concept mapping with a cooperative learning flavor. The American Biology Teacher, 54, 218-221.
Salend, S. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms. Columbus, Ohio: Prentice-Hall.
Shmaefsky, B. (2007). E-concept mapping. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36 , 14-15. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23550196&site=ehost-live
Taylor, J., & Wros, P. (2007). Concept mapping: A nursing model for care planning. Journal of Nursing Education, 46 , 211-216. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24844930&site=ehost-live
Tezsi, E., Demirli, C., & Saper, V. (2007). English language teaching with electronic concept mapping. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2 , 53-58. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25537089&site=ehost-live
Villalon, J., & Calvo, R. A. (2011). Concept maps as cognitive visualizations of writing assignments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14, 16-27. Retrieved December 17, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65542936&site=ehost-live
Wilen, W., Hutchinson, J., Bosse, M., & Kindsvetter, R. (2004). Dynamics of effective secondary teaching, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Suggested Reading
Abel, W. & Freeze, M. (2006). Evaluation of concept mapping in an associate degree nursing program. Journal of Nursing Education, 45 , 356-364. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22123107&site=ehost-live
Chang, S. (2007, Summer). Externalizing students' mental models through concept maps. Journal of Biological Education, 41 , 107-112. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25314523&site=ehost-live
Ellerman, C., Kataoka-Yahiro, M., & Wong, L. (2006, June). Logic models used to enhance critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Education, 45 , 220-227. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21024239&site=ehost-live
Kinchin, I. (2006, Spring). Concept mapping, Power Point, and a pedagogy of access. Journal of Biological Education, 40 , 79-83. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20486018&site=ehost-live
Li-Ling, H. (2004, December). Developing concept maps from problem-based learning scenario discussions. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48 , 510-518. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14928225&site=ehost-live
Mackinnon, G. (2006). Contentions issues in science education: Building critical thinking patterns through two-dimensional concept mapping. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15 , 433-445.
Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21975133&site=ehost-live
Poole, D., & Davis, T. (2006, Fall). Concept mapping to measure outcomes in study abroad programs. Social Work Education, 25 , 61-77. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19540535&site=ehost-live