Construction of Concept Maps Provides
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 14

Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment in the Classroom Dr. Alison M. Mostrom [email protected] PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 66 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment in the Classroom Dr. Alison M. Mostrom [email protected] University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. Learning ObjectivesActivities. Review Critical Thinking. Discuss Anderson et al. 2001. Construct a

Download Presentation

Construction of Concept Maps Provides a Learning-Centered Environment in the Classroom Dr. Alison M. Mostrom [email protected]

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Construction of concept maps provides a learning centered

Construction of Concept Maps Provides

a Learning-Centered Environment

in the Classroom

Dr. Alison M. [email protected]

University of the Sciences in Philadelphia


Learning objectives activities

Learning ObjectivesActivities

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


Construction of concept maps provides a learning centered

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


How to construct a cmap novak 1998 appendix i

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).


Implementing cmaps

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


Scoring grading cmaps

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

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


Additional grading scales for assessing cmaps continued

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)


Discuss advantages disadvantages of cmapping

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

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 fink s 2003 fig 2 2 the interactive nature of significant learning

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


Literature

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.


Literature continued

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)


Literature continued1

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.


  • Login