Concept Mapping as a Window into Student Understanding

Concept Mapping as a Window into Student

Understanding

Biology Scholars ProgramSoTL Institute

July, 2010

William CliffDepartment of Biology

Niagara University

Types of Conceptual Learning

• Meaningful Learning−New concepts are linked to

existing knowledge in a highly integrated framework of ideas

• Rote Learning−New concepts are minimally

linked to existing knowledge and are stored in an arbitrary, verbatim and nonsubstantive fashion

From: Mintzes J. Concept Mapping in College Science. Mintzes J and Leonard W, eds. Handbook of College Science Teaching. NSTA Press, 2006.

• A 2D node-link-node diagram that depicts the most important concepts and propositions in a knowledge domain

• A network of propositions where related concepts are interlinked by labeled lines

What is a Concept Map?

Concept Map of Concept Mapping

Modified from: Novak JD & Canas AJ (2006) http//cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/Research Papers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

Concept Maps as Measuring Tools• Task• Student Response Format• Scoring System

Mapping Tasks• Fill-in skeleton map

−Fill-in nodes (concepts)−Fill-in links (verbs)−Selected or free response

• Self generated−Concepts provided−De novo

Example of Mapping TaskFill-in Nodes

What are the cardiovascular factors that determine mean arterial pressure (MAP)?

MAP

Example of Mapping TaskFill-in Links

Self Generated Mapping Exercise

DRAW a CONCEPT MAP that illustrates the proper FUNCTIONAL INTERRELATIONS between the following FIVE CONCEPTS. Be sure to include appropriate explanatory labels on your connecting arrows. Please use the abbreviation for each concept (i.e. CO for Cardiac Output) in each box. Concepts: Total Blood Volume (BV) Peripheral Blood Flow (BF) Arterial Blood Pressure (BP) Peripheral Resistance (PR) Cardiac Output (CO)

Self Generated MapDRAW a CONCEPT MAP that illustrates the proper FUNCTIONAL INTERRELATIONS between the following FIVE CONCEPTS. Be sure to include appropriate explanatory labels on your connecting arrows. Please use the abbreviation for each concept (i.e. CO for Cardiac Output) in each box. Concepts: Total Blood Volume (BV) Peripheral Blood Flow (BF) Arterial Blood Pressure (BP) Peripheral Resistance (PR) Cardiac Output (CO)

How can Concept Maps be Evaluated or Scored?

• Holistically or qualitatively• Quantitatively by scoring rubrics

−Structural Complexity−Content Validity

• Comparison with expert maps

Scoring Concept Maps

Structural Scoring Method

McClure, JR et al. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36:475, 1999

First level of Hierarchy

Second level of Hierarchy

Propositions score 1 x 8 = 8

Hierarchies score 5 x 2 = 10

Cross-links score 10 x 1 = 10

Examples score 1 x 2 = 2

Total = 30

Concept Map of Concept Mapping

Modified from: Novak JD & Canas AJ (2006) http//cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/Research Papers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

Structural Scoring Rubric

McClure, JR et al. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36:475, 1999

Propositions score 1

Hierarchies score 5

Cross-links score 10

Examples score 1

Concept Map of Concept Mapping

Modified from: Novak JD & Canas AJ (2006) http//cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/Research Papers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

1st Level

2nd Level 2nd Level

3rd Level3rd Level

3rd Level

Crosslink

Crosslink

ExampleExampleCrosslink

Propositions score 1 x 14 = 14

Hierarchies score 5 x 3 = 15

Cross-links score 10 x 3 = 30

Examples score 1 x 2 = 2

Total = 61

Relational Scoring Method

West, DC et al. Med. Educ. 36:820, 2002

Valid relation score 1 x 0 = 0

Correct relation score 2 x 1 = 2

Peripheral relation score 1 x 2 = 2

Core relation score 23 x 3 = 69

Total = 74

90%

Total relation score 27 x 3 = 81

Assessment ExerciseDRAW a CONCEPT MAP that illustrates the proper FUNCTIONAL INTERRELATIONS between the following FIVE CONCEPTS. Be sure to include appropriate explanatory labels on your connecting arrows. Please use the abbreviation for each concept (i.e. CO for Cardiac Output) in each box. Concepts: Total Blood Volume (BV) Peripheral Blood Flow (BF) Arterial Blood Pressure (BP) Peripheral Resistance (PR) Cardiac Output (CO)

Example of Expert Map

from Silverthorn D. Human Physiology. An Integrated Approach. 2007

Expert Criterion Map

Student

Maps

Cliff, W. Using concept mapping to assess understanding of cardiovascular physiology. FASEB J. 18:300.6, 2004.

CO→BP CO→BV CO→BF CO→PR n=11 n=12 n=17 n= 4

BV→BP BV→CO BV→BF BV→PR n=11 n=20 n=11 n= 9

BF→BP BF→CO BF→BV BF→PR n=11 n=15 n=6 n= 6

PR→BP PR→CO PR→BV PR→BF n=16 n=28 n=4 n=18

BP→CO BP→BV BP→BF BP→PR n=29 n=5 n=14 n=7

CO→BP n=25

BV→CO n=42

PR→BP N=30

PR→BF n=39

BP→BF n=25

BV→BP n=15

Causal Links between Cardiovascular Parameters on Student Concept Maps.

N= 71 maps

Summary and Conclusions1. Commonly found links demonstrated valid propositions:

CO determines BP PR determines BP BV determines BP BP determines BF BV determines CO PR determines BF

These suggest that students have correct conceptions of the heart as a

pump and of the relations between pressure, flow and resistance.

2. Common misconceptions were expressed in the propositions:

BP determines CO PR determines CO

In some instances these propositions indicate confusion about the

equivalency of CO and BF

i.e. CO ≈ BF This may be associated with misunderstanding of the association between

the following relations:

BP ∝ CO x PR BF ∝ BP / PR

Advantages of Concept Mapping

for Assessing Student Learning• Makes visible the complex structure

of student’s declarative knowledge• Uncovers student

misunderstandings• Reveals student conceptual change

Recommendations

• Student Training• Task Selection• Scoring• Analysis

Further Resources• M. Zeilik. Concept Mapping. [online]

www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cl1/flag/cat/catframe

• J. Mintzes and W. Leonard, eds. Handbook of College Science Teaching. NSTA Press, 2006.

• M. Ruiz-Primo and R. Shavelson. Problems and Issues in the Use of Concept Maps in Science Assessment. J. Res. Sci. Teaching. 33:569-600, 1996.

• J. Nesbit and O. Adesope. Learning with Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis. Rev. Edu. Res. 76:413-448, 2006.