html5-img
1 / 14

Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment in the Classroom Dr. Alison M. Mostrom a.mostrom

Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment in the Classroom Dr. Alison M. Mostrom a.mostrom@usp.edu University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. Learning Objectives Activities. Review Critical Thinking. Discuss Anderson et al. 2001. Construct a

Mercy
Download Presentation

Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment in the Classroom Dr. Alison M. Mostrom a.mostrom

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment in the Classroom Dr. Alison M. Mostroma.mostrom@usp.edu University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

  2. Learning Objectives Activities Review Critical Thinking Discuss Anderson et al. 2001 Construct a “Novakian CMap” Novak 1998 Appendix I applied to short reading (in small groups) Review Advantages / Disadv. of CMaps Entire Group Discussion Review Benefits / Costs of CMapping Entire Group Discussion

  3. Review Critical Thinking by Discussing Anderson et al. 2001(align Objectives, Activities, & Assessment) (10 minutes)

  4. 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-itTM 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).

  5. 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) • suggestions by workshop attendees

  6. 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”)

  7. 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. 2006.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. 153-161. 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

  8. Additional Grading Scales for Assessing CMaps(continued) • Miller, N. L., & Canas, A.J. 2008. 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; 15-18 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)

  9. 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:

  10. 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

  11. L. DEE FINK’S (2003) FIG. 2.2: THE INTERACTIVE NATURE OF SIGNIFICANT LEARNING: LEARNING HOW TO LEARN FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE CARING SIGNIFICANT LEARNING APPLICATION HUMAN DIMENSION INTEGRATION

  12. 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. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longhman. • Blumberg, P. 2009. Developing Learner-Centered Teaching: A Practical Guide for Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. • Blumberg, P. 1009. Maximizing learning through course alignment and experience with different types of knowledge. Innov. High Educ 34: 93-103. DOI 10.1007/s10755-009-0905-2 • Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (eds). 2000. 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. 2006. 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. 153-161. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica.

  13. Literature (continued) • Coty, T., & E. Kornfeind. 2008. “What is Animal Behavior” Final CMap. BS305: Animal Behavior, USP, Fall 2008. • Coty, T., 2009. “Nervous System” CMap. BS280: Comparative Animal Physiology, USP, Spring 2009. • Fink, L. D. 2003. Creating Significant Learning Experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. • Halpern, P. 2000. The Pursuit of Destiny: A History of Prediction Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. • Havlusch, G., Linton, S. & Mezhiritsky, V. 2006. “What is Ecology?” Final CMap for BS377: Ecology, USP, Spring 2007. • Miller, N. L., & Canas, A.J. 2008. 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: http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2008/cmc2008Program.html paper A8) • Mostrom, A. M. 2008. 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: http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2008/cmc2008Program.html paper B7)

  14. Literature (continued) • Novak J. D. accessed 2009. “Concept Map about Concept Maps” within “concept map link” within CMap Tools web site: cmap.ihmc.us/conceptmap.html • Novak, J. D. 1998. 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. 1984. Learning How to Learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. • Nguyen, Sara, and Salamat, Rosen. 2009. How to build a concept map. BS377 Ecology. • Weimer, M. 2002. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

More Related