In the traditional school using didactic pedagogy, instruction and assessment focused primarily upon knowledge tasks. Through direct instruction, teachers delivered content that students were expected to absorb into their long-term memory. The performance of students was measured largely by their capacity to recall facts, terms, and basic concepts, so-called “knowledge assessments.” (Kalantzis, 309) To this end, students were expected to devote tremendous time and energy on memorization tasks. Their performance was then measured who “learned more.” (Kalantzis, 309) Teachers rewarded or punished their students accordingly.
The traditional, didactic approach to instruction and assessment can be problematic. Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy of learning sees knowledge tasks as fundamentally important. However, it also sees knowledge as only the beginning of a sequential, hierarchical process leading to the development of higher-level thinking skills such as application, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. (Bloom’s) Therefore, instruction that primarily uses direct instruction and focuses on memorization tasks inevitably deprives students of opportunities needed to develop more fully as learners. Bloom’s adherents are far more likely to support a constructivist method in which students are actively involved in the making knowledge and meaning. While Boom presents a compelling case for a more versatile pedagogy, his critique of direct instruction is not universally accepted.
David Ausubel’s research into cognitive structures supports a more nuanced view of traditional instruction and assessment that allows for both “reception learning” and “discovery learning.” According to the principles of Ausubel’s Assimilation Theory, brain structure determines the process by which meaningful learning occurs. (Novak) Ausubel contends that:
- " 'new meanings are built upon prior relevant knowledge, experiences and concepts, called “progressive differentiatio'”;
- 'knowledge is organized hierarchically with general or inclusive concepts at higher levels and specific or exclusive concepts at lower levels';
- 'explicit, precise connections are made between concepts'; and ,
- 'learners find clarification of ideas that may have been initially confusing, called “integrative reconciliation.' ” (Novak)
While Ausubel’s theory may not imply the need for a complete departure from didactic pedagogy emphasizing “reception learning,” it does point to the need to use teaching and learning strategies that are aligned to the brain’s cognitive structure.
Concept mapping, and to a lesser degree mental mapping, are more contemporary instructional strategies that promote higher-level thinking in ways that are consistent with cognition research. Thus, concept mapping has the potential to address important issues raised by Bloom and Ausubel. As we will see, it is especially valuable as a formative assessment tool.
Explication of the Theory
Concept mapping originated from studies led by Cornell University professor Jack Novak into the ability of young children to learn “abstract, basic science concepts.” (Novak) During the course of his research, Novak discovered that concept mapping had the potential to overcome what Jean Piaget believed were insurmountable hurdles preventing young people from moving beyond the “concrete operational stage” of development. (Edwards)
According to Novak et. al concepts maps:
“show the specific label (usually a word or two) for one concept in a node or box, with lines showing linking words that create a meaningful statement or proposition. We define concepts as perceived regularities or patterns in events or objects, or records of events or objects, designated by a label. Concepts are arranged hierarchically with the most general, most inclusive concept at the top, and the most specific, least general concepts toward the bottom. Propositions are statements about some event or object that shows a relationship between two or more concepts. There may also be cross-links showing relationships between concepts in two different areas of the concept map. Identifying new crosslinks may sometimes lead to a creative insight. Concept maps are also based on an explicit cognitive psychology of learning, and constructivist epistemology, … Other knowledge representation schemes, such as Mind Maps, usually lack one or more of the above characteristics.” (Novak)
In short, Novak discovered that concept maps, and to a lesser degree mind maps, were “very powerful and concise knowledge representation tools.”
Immediate Applications
Concept and mind maps can be categorized according to task, format, and assessment, as illustrated in the visual below. (Ruiz-Primo)
1. Task: Instructors can assign concept and mind mapping activities along a spectrum of high- and low-directed tasks. (Ruiz-Primo)
a) High-Directed: Instructors create the map and complete most of its items. Students are then directed to fill-in-lines or blanks to demonstrate their knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter.
b) Low-Directed: Instructors have students create a map on their own and give either a high or low amount of direction to students about the concepts and structure of the map. For example, instructors may provide students a list of topics, subtopics, terms, and/or connections that must be included in the map.
2. Format: The development of both concept and mind maps helps achieve desirable educational outcomes that are consistent with cognition research.
a) Concept Maps: Instructors typically create a focus question for students that involves the explanation of a concept, process, or problem. Students then create a hierarchial map including statements showing the relationships between concepts. (Novak) This process of representing ideas in a visual form and creating cross-links between the concepts provides a "hands-on activity" that aids the "reception learning process." (Cañas) Concept maps also allow instructors and students to move past rote learning to meaningful learning. As Cañas and Novak note, "both by identifying large general concepts held by the learner prior to instruction on more specific concepts, and by assisting in the sequencing of learning tasks though progressively more explicit knowledge that can be anchored into developing conceptual frameworks." (Cañas) In short, concept maps are useful for developing conceptual knowledge that is contextually-embedded.
b) Mind Maps: Instructors introduce a concept that students should represent with the mind map. Students use a variety of techniques to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the concept including a central image, main branches that have distinct colors, subranches the grow from the ends of main branches, labels applied above the branches (rather than in a circles), and a clockwise arrangment. (Buzan) According to Tony Buzan, the originator of mind mapping, this process is powerful because it mirrors and maginifes the brain's pattern of perception and association. (Buzan)
3. Assessment: Instructors can use both Concept and Mind Maps for diagnostic, formative and summative assessment.
a) Diagnostic: Instructors can use conept and mind maps "to find out what a learner already knows so what they are taught is appropriate to their needs." (Kalantzis, 306)
b) Formative: Instructors can use concept and mind maps to monitor student learning and provide ongoing feedback that can improve educational outcomes. According to Thomas Angelo and Patricia Cross concept and minds maps are especially powerful as formative assessment tools. They can both be used prior to a lesson to discover what "preconceptions and knowledge a student brings to a topic; determine a change in understanding by employing it before, during, and after lessons; and as student feedback for shaping the direction of lessons." (Stout)
c) Summative: Instructors can use concept and mind maps to evaluate student learning at the end of an instructional unit. Mapping "tend[s] to reveal the idiosyncratic way that students view a[n] ... explanation." (Concept)
Strengths and Weaknesses
Concept and mind maps are most powerful when used to diagnose the student learning or to give feedback to students as-they-go. In effect, mapping is an excellent springboard to summative assessment. However, it is less useful as a summative assessment tool. The power of mapping as a diagnostic and formative assessment tool is best understood in contrast to select response tests which have long been an instrumental part of didactic education. The limits of mapping as a summative assessment tool become clear when it is actually put into practice.
Select response tests require students to select a "correct" answer from among two or more choices and a generally considered to be "objective." These tests can be used for diagnostic, formative, or summative assessment. (Test) When writing select response tests, it is generally considered important to avoid ambiguous statements, unintentional clues, and complex syntax and vocabulary that might confuse students. (Test) Test writers must also work carefully to create wrong answers, or foils, that are plausible incorrect responses. Despite their best efforts, select response tests are limited in value because they cannot assess "complicated, multifaceted ideas ground in whole disciplinary practices, or ways of seeing and thinking about the world." (Kalantzis, 311) Professors Mary Kalantzis and Bill Cope point out other problems with select response tests:
- It is "hard to ask questions requiring deeper understanding and interpretation." (311)
- It is limited to "facts, rules, and definitions that can be isolated as separate atoms of knowledge." (312)
- It does not "directly test a student's capacity to see the world and interact with the world in a way that ... involves accessing and assembling findable cognitive resources." (313)
In short, many skills and ways of knowing are far too complicated to be measured effectively with select response tests. However, concept and maps are such powerful tools precisely because they demand a set of skills and sensibilities proper to the contemporary context. Unlike select response tests, the creation of concept and mind maps requires deeper understanding and interpretation, forces students to make connects between knowledge, and allows students to access and assemble findable resources. It is also extremely practical if when it does not require the standardization which is seemingly made simple by select response exams.
While concept and mind maps are useful for diagnostic and formative assessment tasks, it better left behind as a summative assessment tool. There are several issues to consider. First, grading maps can be a difficult process unless the instructor provides students with a high-directed map exercise. However, high-directed concept and mind maps do not place the same cognitive burden as low-direct maps, nor do they provide students the opportunity creatively arrange their concepts. Second, grading low-directed maps can be a highly subjective endevour particularly when used in humanities and soft-sciences. As a result, it does not provide a clear "retrospective view on what has been learned" at the end of a unit. (Kalantzis, 337)
Implications of the Practice
Technology has the potential to amplify the power of concept and mind mapping. In part, educational researchers and developers have developed software and cloud computing programs that have simplified the process of mapping for students. More importantly, the technology-mediated programs create unprecedented opportunities to gather analytical information that tracks the students thought process throughout the mapping process which can be extremely valuable for diagnostic and formative assessment.
When mapping techniques were first developed, instructors and students were directed to use relatively simple technologies, like a pencil and post-it-notes, so that it would be possible to revise, supplement, and expand their ideas. On a practical level these techniques often led to frustration owing to the inevitable messiness involved in the process. As a result, these techniques quite often turned off students who lacked good hand-writing and artistic skills. Technology-mediated mapping programs help alleviate these problems. The technology-mediated mapping tools created by educators make the mapping relatively easy and produce artifacts with strong visual appeal. ThinkBuzan is an excellent example of mind mapping software that is simple to use and has great aesthetics.
The real power of technology-mediated mapping programs can be found in analytics. InfoWriter, 2013 is a writing and formative assessment tool developed by a team led by Dr. Bill Cope at the University of Illinois that includes an "online concept or information mapping tool that highlights the thinking underlying student writing or exemplar reading texts." (Cope) In particular, the event timeline "records the path that students take as they create their concept maps." This information can then be used both by instructors and students to identify possible errors or omissions in their thinking that would lead to an inaccurate concept map. More importantly, it allows the students to easily modify the maps to make corrections. In effect, InfoWriter makes the student's thinking visible to instructors, who can use the information to design more effective interventions, and to students themselves, who can use the information to think more effectively about their own thinking.
References
"Bloom's Taxonomy." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Aug. 2014. Web. 05 Sept. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy>.
Cañas, Alberto J., and Joseph D. Novak. "The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them." N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Sept. 2014. <http://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.htm>.
"Concept Map Of Concept Maps - Figure 1." Field-tested Learning Assessment Guide, n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2014. <http://www.flaguide.org/cat/conmap/conmapfig1.php>.
Concept Mapping. Virginia Commonweath University, n.d. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vcu.edu%2Fcte%2Fresources%2FOTLRG%2F06_03_ConceptMapping.html>.
Cope, Bill. "Projects: InfoWriter, 2013." Scholar. Common Ground, n.d. Web. 06 Sept. 2014. <http://newlearningonline.com/scholar/projects>.
Edwards, Leila, Jane Hopgood, Katies Rosenberg, and Kimberley Rush. "Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development." Mental Development and Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Sept. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fehlt.flinders.edu.au%2Feducation%2FDLiT%2F2000%2FPiaget%2Fstages.htm%23concrete%20operations>.
"Formative vs Summative Assessment" Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation. Carnegie Mellon, n.d. Web. 03 Sept. 2014. <http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/basics/formative-summative.html>.
Kalantzis, Mary, and Bill Cope. Literacies. Port Melbourne, Vic.: Cambridge UP, 2012. Print.
Novak, Joseph D. "The Origins of the Concept Mapping Tool and the Continuing Evolution of the Tool." Institute of Human and Machine Cognition. Information and Visualization Journal, 2006. Web. 5 Sept. 2014.
Ruiz-Primo, Maria Araceli. "Examining Concept Maps as an Assessment Tool." Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. N.p., 2004. Web. 5 Sept. 2014. <http://cmc.ihmc.us/papers/cmc2004-036.pdf>.
Stout, Karen. "Center for Instructional Innovation and Assessment - Western Washington University's Teaching and Learning Center." CIIA: Teaching and Learning Resources. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Sept. 2014. <http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/cii/resources/modules/concept/>.
"Test-Writing Guidelines." Selected Response Tests (n.d.): n. pag. Florida International University. Web. 6 Sept. 2014. <http://www2.fiu.edu/~malopez/lecturesEDF3430/Lecture%205%20-%20Selected%20Response%20Tests.pdf>.