Concept Mapping in Introductory Physics

Volume 3, Issue 1, 2009

Concept Mapping in Introductory Physics

Voltaire Mal ari Mistades, Assistant Professor of Physics, De La Sal e University, Philippines
mistadesv@dlsu.edu.ph

Abstract

Concept mapping is a meta-learning strategy based on the Ausubel-Novak-Gowin theory of
meaningful learning. In a concept map, concepts are related with linking words to form propositions.
By expanding this concept-proposition link, one eventual y forms a web of concepts whose meanings
are embedded in the presented map. The paper describes the author’s experience with students’ use
of concept maps and how concept maps are scored. The strategy was utilized as an advance
organizer and as an assessment tool (for diagnostic and summative purposes). Sample concept maps
constructed by students taking up Introductory Physics are presented.

Introduction

Concept mapping is a meta-learning strategy based on the Ausubel-Novak-Gowin theory of
meaningful learning (Ausubel, Novak, and Hanesian, 1978; Novak and Gowin, 1984). It had its origins
in research done at Cornel University to study changes in students’ understanding of science
concepts over a 12-year span of schooling (Novak, 1990). The Cornel University group, led by Joseph
Novak, worked with the idea that new concept meanings were acquired through assimilation into
existing concept/prepositional frameworks. This idea of hierarchical representation of
concept/prepositional frameworks was eventual y described as “cognitive maps” or “concept maps”.

Basic to making a concept map for a piece of scientific knowledge is the ability of the student to
identify and relate its salient points to a general (or super-ordinate) concept. Concepts can be
connected with linking words to form propositions (for example, potential energy may be classified as
either gravitational potential energy or elastic potential energy). Wandersee (1990) describes a
concept map as a schematic device for representing a set of concept meanings embedded in a
framework of propositions.

Novak, Mintzes, and Wandersee (2000) posit that learning may proceed in two different ways. Rote
learning occurs when the learner makes no effort to relate new concepts and propositions to prior
relevant knowledge s/he possesses. Meaningful learning occurs when the learner seeks to relate new
concepts and propositions to relevant existing concepts and propositions in her/his cognitive structure.
When students are presented with innumerable bits of information to be recal ed, it is difficult for them
to consider how each bit of information relates to what they already know, thus they resort to rote
learning.

The perspective presented by Edmondson (2000) – “the fundamental goal of education is to facilitate
learning through shared meaning between teacher and student” – views students as active
participants in the process of knowledge construction and not simply as passive recipients of
knowledge that is “given” by the teacher. As noted by Novak, Mintzes, and Wandersee (2000),
students who learn meaningful y integrate information from different sources. Students form
connections between new information and material that has been previously studied.

During the early years of research in concept maps, Symington and Novak (1982) found that primary-
grade students are capable of developing very thoughtful concept maps, which they can explain
intel igently to others. This observation led the researchers to explore even more the value of concept
maps in organizing the instructional material and helping students learn this material.

---

Yin, et. al. (2005) describe a concept map as fol ows, “[concept map] includes nodes (terms or
concepts), linking lines (usual y with a unidirectional arrow from one concept to another), and linking
phrases which describe the relationship between nodes. Linking lines with linking phrases are cal ed
labeled lines. Two nodes connected with a labeled line are cal ed a proposition. Moreover, concept
arrangement and linking line orientation determine the structure of the map (e.g. hierarchical or non
hierarchical)”.

Building on the spoke, chain, and net structures proposed by Kinchin (2000), researchers from
Stanford University (Yin, et. al., 2005) propose five possible structure types that could be used to
describe concept maps:

a) Linear



b) Circular





linking phrase

concept




c) Hub Spokes



d) Tree

















e) Network / Net








Concept Maps: Pedagogical Implications

The main idea behind concept mapping is that expertise or understanding can be assessed by asking
a student to construct a map by relating concepts in a hierarchical structure using prepositional
statements as the links or connectors. This resulting map reflects the student’s mental structure
related to the concept(s) presented.

Concept maps provide the educator a glimpse into the learning of the student, in particular with the
qualitative aspects of students’ learning. They reveal students’ cognitive structures due to prior
knowledge and experiences. They also reveal errors, misconceptions, and alternative frameworks
(Edmondson, 2000). Kinchin (2000) emphasized “pupil-produced maps” as the ones that are most
beneficial in the learning process, arguing that concept maps are able to reveal students’
misconceptions in learning that are not captured by traditional assessment tools.

Although much research has stil yet to be done on student’s facility in using concept maps, Good
(2000) notes that the process of concept mapping is recognized by most science educators as a valid
way to assess understanding and as a useful instructional tool. Mistades (2003) described the use of
concept maps both as an advance organizer for a chapter and as an assessment instrument (both for
diagnostic and summative purposes) for an Introductory Physics class for Liberal Arts students.

2

---

Concept maps have al owed the researcher to determine what particular concepts the students have
clearly grasped and which concepts would need a little bit more polishing.

Edmondson (1995) discussed the positive effect of concept maps in the development of a problem-
based veterinary curriculum. In a study that implemented concepts maps as a methodology to teach
and evaluate the critical thinking of senior clinical nursing students, Daley, et. al. (1999) showed that
there is a statistical y significant increase in concept map scores possibly indicative of the increase in
student’s conceptual understanding and critical thinking. First-year col ege chemistry students who
were taught the use of concept maps to help them understand the concepts involved in the
experiments they performed responded very positively toward the use of concept maps. They felt
strongly that constructing the maps helped them understand the conceptual chemistry of the
experiments (Markow & Lonning, 1998).

Concept Maps: Scoring Schemes

Several schemes for scoring concept maps have been suggested. McClure, Sonak, and Suen (1999)
compared six different scoring methods of concept maps and found them al to be correlated with each
other. Shavelson and Ruiz-Primo (2000) presents a scoring scheme adapted from the outline
developed by the Cornel University (Novak, 1990) group:
(a) score the components found in the student’s map, focusing on three components:
(i) propositions (concepts and content)
(i ) hierarchy levels (relationships, links, and cross-links)
(i i) examples
(b) compare a student’s map with an expert’s map
(c) a combination of map components and comparison with an expert’s map

The scoring scheme devised by Markham, Mintzes, and Jones (1994) utilized six observed aspects of
a student’s map:
(1) number of concepts presented,
(2) concept relationships,
(3) branchings,
(4) hierarchies,
(5) cross-links, and
(6) examples.

Concept Maps Prepared by Introductory Physics Students

The fol owing figures represent concept maps in Physics prepared by students of De La Sal e
University – Manila in their Introductory Physics course. Notice the varying level of sophistication in
each sample, by looking at the number of concepts placed in the map, links and cross-links involved,
prepositions used to link the various concepts, and examples that were given.

Figure 1 shows the various components looked into when scoring a student’s concept map. An
analysis conducted by Johnson et. al. (1991) of the growing body of research on col aborative learning
showed that when students work in smal groups and cooperate in striving to learn subject matter, the
end result is a positive cognitive and affective outcome. Figures 2 and 3 are sample concept maps
created by a group of students in class. Figure 4 depicts a concept map with a lot of branchings,
examples, and cross-links involved in the diagram.








3

---

branching



examples











concept
major c
oncept
relationship

hierarchies
crosslink


Figure 1. Student’s Concept Map in Electricity


























Figure 2. Group Concept Map in Electricity

4

---

Figure 3. Group Concept Map in Introductory Physics





















Figure 4. Student’s Concept Map Relating Work, Energy, and Power





Figure 4. Student’s Concept Map Relating Work, Energy, and Power

5

---

References
Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D., and Hanesian, H., (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View,
Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New York.
Daley, B.J., Shaw, C.R., Balisteri, T., Glasenapp, K., & Piacentine, A., (1999). Concept maps: A
strategy to teach and evaluate critical thinking, Journal of Nursing Education, 38(1), 42-47.
Edmondson, K. M., (1995). Concept mapping for the development of medical curricula, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 32(7), 777-793.
Edmondson, K.M., (2000). Assessing Science Understanding Through Concept Maps, in Assessing
Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View; Novak, J., Mintzes, J., and Wandersee, J.,
Eds.; Academic Press, California.
Good, R.G., (2000). Cautionary Notes on Assessment of Understanding Science Concepts and Nature
of Science, in Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View; Novak, J.,
Mintzes, J., and Wandersee, J., Eds.; Academic Press, California.
Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., and Skon, L., (1991). The effects of cooperative,
competitive and individualistic goal structure on achievement: A meta-analysis, Psychological
Bul etin, 89, 47-62.
Kinchin, I.M., (2000). Using concept maps to reveal understanding: A two-tier analysis, School
Science Review, 81, 315-333.
Markham K.M., Mintzes, J.J., and Jones, M.G., (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation
tool, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 91-101.
Markow, P.G. and Lonning, R.A., (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in col ege chemistry labs:
Students’ perceptions and effects on achievement, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
35(9), 1015-1029.
McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K., (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning:
Reliability, validity, and logical practicality, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-
492.
Mistades, V., (2003). Physics Without the Numbers: Concept Mapping as an Assessment Tool in
Introductory Physics for Liberal Arts Students, presented during the Physics Col oquium, De La
Sal e University - Manila, March 2003.
Novak, J.D., (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
Novak, J.D. and Gowin, D.B., (1984). Learning How to Learn, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Novak, J.D., Mintzes, J., and Wandersee, J., (2000). Learning, Teaching, and Assessment: A Human
Constructivist Perspective, in Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View;
Novak, J., Mintzes, J., and Wandersee, J., Eds.; Academic Press, California.
Shavelson, R.J., and Ruiz-Primo, M.A., (2000). On the Psychometrics of Assessing Science
Understanding, in Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View; Novak, J.,
Mintzes, J., and Wandersee, J., Eds; Academic Press, California.
Symington, D. and Novak, J.D., (1982). Teaching children how to learn, Educational Magazine, 39(5),
13-16.
Wandersee, J., (1990). Concept mapping and the cartography of cognition, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 27(10), 923-936.
Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Ayala, C.C., & Shavelson, R.J., (2005). Comparison of two
concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 166-184.



6

---