concept maps and vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to...
TRANSCRIPT
Concept maps and Vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learningAuthor(s): JOSEPH D. NOVAKSource: Instructional Science, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1990), pp. 29-52Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23369903 .
Accessed: 14/10/2014 16:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Instructional Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Instructional Science 19: 29-52 (1990) 29 © Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht — Printed in the Netherlands
Concept maps and Vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning
JOSEPH D. NOVAK Department of Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Abstract. This paper describes two metacognitive tools, concept mapping and Vee diagramming, and
reports on research utilizing these tools from grades one through university instruction. The psycho logical and epistemological foundations underlying these tools is presented briefly. The issues of the
dominantly rote-mode nature of much school learning and the resistance of students (and teachers) to move to meaningful learning strategies fostered by concept mapping and Vee diagramming are dis cussed. The data available to date from a variety of qualitative and quantitative research studies
strongly support the value of these metacognitive tools both for cognitive and affective gains.
Introduction
In the past decade, there has been a rapid increase in instruction that helps students
"learn how to learn". This activity derived in part from advances in cognitive
learning psychology (see Mayer, 1981) and the increase in cognitive learning research in school settings. Flavell (1985) defines metacognition as "cognition about cognition" (p. 104). Metacognitive learning occurs whenever a person
acquires some general strategy that facilitates learning or understanding of know
ledge. Weinstein (1987) has described strategies that can be used for reading comprehension. Ideally, the most powerful metacognitive learning would be
acquisition of strategies that apply at any grade level and to any subject matter. The intelligent construction and use of concept maps and Vee diagrams are two
widely applicable metacognitive strategies we have developed at Cornell
University, and world-wide use of these strategies is being reported increasingly in the literature since publication of Learning how to learn, (Novak and Gowin, 1984; 1988).
Concept maps as we have have developed them are a representation of mean
ing or ideational frameworks specific to a domain of knowledge, for a given con
text of meaning. We define concept as a perceived regularity in events or objects, or records of events or objects, designated by a label. Most of the labels we use
are words, but signs such as +, -, X and so forth may also be used. Two or more
concepts can be linked together with words to form propositions and we see prop ositions as the units of psychological meaning. The meaning of any concept for a
person would be represented by all of the prepositional linkages the person could
construct that include that concept. Since individuals have unique sequences of
experiences leading to unique total sets of propositions, all concept meanings are
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30
Figure 1. A concept map showing key concepts and propositions involved in concept mapping. Linking words together with concepts forms propositions and these are shown in a hierarchical
structure.
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
31
to some extent idiosyncratic. However, in a given culture, there is sufficient
commonality in experience that persons in that culture share sufficient common
meanings for their concepts that they can communicate ideas to one another using
language or other symbols. For most of us, we only have to look at a blackboard
filled with mathematical relationships expressed in symbols to realize that this
represents a "different world", a world for which we have no meanings. Figure 1
shows a concept map on concept maps. Over the past dozen years, our graduate students and other colleagues have
found that all domains of knowledge can be represented by concept maps (con
cept/propositional structures). Figure 2 shows representations of knowledge struc
tures in basketball. There is no domain of knowledge (or "skills") for which
concept maps cannot be used as a representational tool, in our experience. Vee diagrams (see Figure 3) are a heuristic tool developed by my colleague,
Bob Gowin, to represent the structure of knowledge and the epistemological ele
ments that are involved in new knowledge construction. Epistemology is that
branch of philosophy that deals with the nature and structure of knowledge.
Epistemological elements are those units that together from the structure of some
segment of knowledge and are required to construct a new piece of knowledge. The Vee heuristic is based on a constructivist epistemology, as contrasted to the
empiricist or positivist epistemology that has characterized popular views of
"knowledge discovery" in most elementary textbooks of science and social sci
ences. Kuhn (1962), Toulmin (1972), Brown (1979), Popper (1982) and others
have shown the inadequacies of positivistic (truth-falsity proving) epistemologies and most leading contemporary philosophers concerned with the nature of knowl
edge and knowledge construction are agreed upon some form of constructivist
epistemology. Constructivist epistemology sees production of new knowledge as
a human construction, with all the power and weaknesses associated with the
ideational frameworks, instrumentation used, and emotional vagaries of human
beings. The Vee heuristic represents a constructivist view of knowledge and illus
trates the dozen or so epistemological elements that interact in the process of new
knowledge construction. The Vee heuristic can also be used to dissect an existing domain of knowledge and to see its structural elements. Figure 4 shows a repre sentation of this for one area of biology.
My work and the work of my students has been based upon Ausubel's assimi
lation theory (1963, 1968) of cognitive learning for the past quarter century. In
his epigraph to his 1968 book, Ausubel asserts: "If I had to reduce all of educa
tional psychology to just one principle, I would say this: The most important sin
gle factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this
and teach him accordingly." It is this fundamental principle that led our research
group to search for better ways to represent "what the learner already knows" and
to develop the tool of concept mapping in 1972. Although we developed this for
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32
research purposes to represent student's knowledge structures before and after
instruction, we soon learned that concept maps could be a useful tool to help stu
dents move from learning by rote to learning meaningfully. We now see meaning
ful learning as the fundamental process that underlies useful knowledge
acquisition and also new knowledge construction. I have argued that meaningful
learning is the foundation for human constructivism which is both a psychological and an epistemological phenomenon. Figure 5 shows a concept map representa tion of this union of psychological and epistemological meaning making (from Novak, 1987). This representation of meaning making draws upon and incorpo rates ideas from many contemporary psychologists and philosophers including the work of Ausubel et al. (1978); Donaldson (1978); Flavell (1985); Gowin
(1981); Johnson-Laird (1983); Kelley (1955); Kuhn (1962); Mathews (1980);
Mayer (1981, 1983); MacNamara (1982); Piaget (numerous writings); Popper (1982); Steinberg (1985); Toulmin (1972); Vygotsky (1962) and many others.
into/
(Help-sidle.
Below uweN^ j Wrrjui/| K*. otc- A I jshf bttjl W3/ /
(C£^Pu/w<?
2f1 (into H\ihQ»ftto/A IrWf hl6
tnfoiu Iine\v° o»e.s+ea \mi
tUMUj'
\?ro»\
"JV '
"Tfc^i 'MlUl wi
1fiO»t ddiZMSZ
Figure 2. Two concept maps prepared by a basketball player, one (above) early in training and the
other (right) late in the season. Note the increased complexity and integration of concepts of team defense and communication, emphasized in coaching, which was accompanied by much-improved
player performance. (From Novak and Gowin, 1984, p. 44)
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
33
lin**
o icrar« -Teuro .
Qms-^ioe TECH- /
VÏSf-i
ßAU-il O/W. 14
PR 1(1 M/fr LlNG „
U>H JCMfO
pîiîé)
/öw É/iAAp (öer< ecAr
\CHA*üeJ
/AVWI-\ wue l
'erOsriH-,
Figure 2. (continued)
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34
CONCEPTUAL/THEORETICAL METHODOLOGICAL
(THINKING) (DOING)
FOCUS QUESTION(S)
Questions that serve to
focus the inquiry about events and/or objects studied.
Value claims: Statements based on
knowledge claims that declare fie worth or
value of the inquiry.
Concepts: Perceived regularity in events or
objects (or records of events or
objects) designated by a label.
World view:
The general belief system motivating and guiding the inquiry.
Philosophy: The beliefs about the nature
of knowledge and knowing
guiding the inquiry.
Theory: The general principles guiding the inquiry that
explain why events or objects exhbit what is observed.
Knowledge claims:
Statements that answer the focus questions and
are reasonable
interpretations of the
records (or data) obtained.
Principles: Statements of relationships between concepts that explain how events or objects can be
expected to appear or behave.
Transformations:
Tables, graphs, concept maps, statistics, or other forms of
organization of records made.
Records The observations made and
recorded from the events/objects studied.
Events and/or objects:
Description of the event(s) and/or object(s) to be studied in order to answer the focus questions.
Figure 3. Gowin's Vee heurestic invented to illustrate the conceptual and methodological elements
that interact in the process of knowledge construction or in the analysis of lectures or documents
presenting knowledge.
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
35
FOCUS QUESTION: Can we design an experiment to study some aspect of orientation behavior in an organism-its response to a particular stimuli, the classification of that response, and the possble adaptive benefit of that behavior?
Theory: Orientation behavior- stimulus-response. Adaptation and evolution of behavior.
Principles: 1). Orientation behavior is the act of turning or moving in a predictable way with respect to an external stimulus. 2). Orient, behavior can be classified as a kinesis (the speed or turning rale changes with no orientation of the body with respect to the stimulus) or a taxis (the body is directly orientated toward, away from, or at an angle to the stimulus). 3). Orient, behavior can be named based on three things: a. positive or negative (attracted or repulsed by the stimulus), b. stimulus type (chemo-, photo-, thermo-, etc), c. response of body - kinesis (turning is klino-, speed is ortho-), or taxis (receptors used, at fixed angle to, memory based, etc). 4). Experiments to study orientation behavior should control for variables, include replicates, and provide quantifiable data.
Concepts Orientation behavior, taxis, kinesis, stimulus, response, receptor, adaptation, orthokinesis, klinokinesis, humidity, schooling behavior, bilateral sense receptor, circus movements.
I I
I Value claims: I 1). Designing and conducting a study gives I students experience with scientific knowledge I construction. 2). This lab is valuable for providing | experience with orientation behaviors and their
| adaptive significance.
J Knowledge claims: j 1). Isopods exhfoit a positive hygrokinesis and a | negative phototaxis. 2). Blowfly larvae usually | show a negative photoklinotaxis. 3). Daphnia
usually have a negative phototaxis and a positive geotaxis. 4). Fish species vary in the strength of their schooling behavior. Most tend to spend more time with conspecifics and with the larger group of
conspecifics. This behavior is considered to be a telotaxis.
Transformation*: Total, average and graph data. Compare observed turning or movement rates and time spent with various stimuli to definition of kinesis and taxis in order to decide on classification of observed behavior.
Records: Measurement of times spent near various stimuli. Counts of turns or numbers of organisms at specific time intervals. Measurement of distance traveled and time evolved.
Objects: Isopods, petri dish experimental apparatus, desiccant, paper towels, black paper, lights, marking pens, map measurer, blowfly larvae, Daphnia, graduated cylinders, ring stands, black plastic, several species of fish, test fish tank, jars. Events: Design a study using one of the experimental organisms to determine the type of orientation behavior used in response to a particular stimulus. Gather data, transform data, and present results. Consider adaptive significance of the observed behavior.
Figure 4. A Vee diagram produced by a student for laboratory work in a study by Robertson-Taylor
(1985). A PC software program was used for the construction.
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36
Figure 5. A concept map showing key concepts and propositions involved in "human constructivism",
uniting meanings from psychology and epistemology.
Classroom research using concept maps and vee diagrams
As noted above, the development of concept mapping derived from our research
program wherein we sought to represent science concept meanings possessed by students before and after instruction. We were engaged in a twelve-year study of
concept development and needed a tool to show simply but also explicitly the
concept meanings a student possessed as indicated in modified Piagetian clinical
interviews (see Pines et al, 1978). Figures 6 and 7 shows a representation of the
concept/propositional framework held by a student in grade two and later in grade twelve. These maps were drawn from clinical interviews (see Novak and Gowin, 1984 and notedly Chapter 7) with the student They show growth in the number
and relationships of concept meanings for this student over the ten-year span of
schooling.
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
37
Our first use of concept maps to help students learn subject matter meaning
fully were in the areas of mathematics and science at the college level.
Cardemone (1975) found that preparation of a "master" concept map for the topic of "ratio and proportion" helped him to plan instruction on this topic. Copies of
his map were distributed to students but only a minority of students reported in
their questionnaire responses that Cardemone's concept maps were helpful to
them for learning of this topic. Similarly, Bogden (1977) found that concept maps
prepared by him and a professor for each lecture in a genetics course were
reported to be of value in learning genetics by a small minority of students. Some
students indicated they were confused by concept maps prepared for them.
Concept maps proved useful, however, in designing and interpreting answers for
course examinations. The concept maps used by Cardemone and Bogden did not
have words on the linking lines between concepts. From the Cardemone and Bogden studies, we learned that the primary benefit
of concept maps accrues to the person who constructs the maps. It was of little
value to distribute teacher-prepared concept maps to students when the latter were
not involved in constructing their own concept maps. In more recent work, we
have found concept maps prepared by a teacher to be helpful to students, but only
after they had practice in constructing their own concept maps. Also, we find that
it is very important to have "linking words" on the lines connecting concepts in
order to form explicit propositional statements. As concept maps begin to appear more widely in textbooks, it will be unfortunate if students are not instructed in
preparation of concept maps and required to prepare some of their own maps. It
will be even more unfortunate if teachers require students to memorize and dupli cate exactly concept maps prepared by others.
During the period 1975 to 1977,1 tried teaching upper elementary and secon
dary school children concept mapping in classroom settings. In general, students
from grades four onward were successful in constructing concept maps and both
students and teachers were enthusiastic about the value of concept mapping. In
1980, David Symington (in Melbourne, Australia) and I began using concept
maps with children in grades one through six, again with success and enthusiasm
expressed by students and their teachers. These early efforts were directed toward
tryout of concept mapping strategies with various classes and in various subject matter areas, primarily to assess student and teacher reactions to the technique and to work out techniques for introducing concept mapping in a variety a class
room settings. As strategies to introduce concept mapping to students were
refined, most students at all grade levels demonstrated success in constructing
concept maps. These strategies were later described in Learning how to learn
(Novak and Gowin, 1984, chapter 2). These early efforts with concept mapping in
school settings made no attempt to evaluate the influence of concept mapping on
student achievement
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38
CD W
if w -E
- co E
Cvj
1X1 Q < CC CD _i ID < CL
,g " _ CO
to !*
£l !
— -C o
k J
/ >
C ® - os g> o w
V ^
'ca
^ V
b? —52 — ffl ®
> -£
) V J
Figure 6. A concept map prepared from a clinical interview with Paul, a second grade student, repre
senting his knowledge of the "particulate structure of matter".
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
39
Figure 7. A concept map prepared from a clinical interview with Paul in twelfth grade. Note the extent
of additional new concepts and propositional meanings compared with his knowledge in grade two
(Figure 6).
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40
A similar tryout of the Vee heuristic occurred during 1975 to 1977, although we did not attempt to introduce this tool below grade four. Later work has shown
that the Vee can be used successfully with primary grade children.
Moreira (1977) used concept maps with university students in physics.
Concept maps were used together with topical reorganization in "experimental" classes and traditional subject matter organization (Halliday and Resnick, 1966) was used in control classes and no concept maps were used. Moreira found that
students in the experimental classes performed significantly better on tests requir
ing graphical structuring of physics concepts; this difference increased over the
semester course of study (Table 1). No significant differences between the groups was found on traditional course exams or on word association tests. Although the
use of concept maps was confounded with content sequence reorganization, stu
dents were increasingly positive about the value of concept maps as the semester
progressed; this may have been a significant contribution to gains in mean scores.
Another finding illustrated in Moreira's data is a pattern of achievement that
we have subsequently seen repeated often when instructional strategies are used
that require meaningful learning. For two to four weeks we generally see an aver
age decline in performance on standard course exams and then score averages
move up, usually finishing significantly higher for students using tools like
concept mapping and learning more meaningfully. This is shown in data from
Table 1. Average concept map test scores and I values for experimental and control groups on three
tests given during the semester, on the basis of three criteria (general, specific and intermediate
concepts indicated).
Test One Test Two Test Three
N Mean t N Mean 1 N Mean (
Identification of General Concepts
37 1.11 35 2.11
35 1.23 -1.23 34 1.53 4.41"
35 2.46
33 1.48 7.15**
Identification of Intermediate Concepts
37 1.03 35 1.60
35 1.06 -.63 34 1.18 3.67**
35 1.89
33 1.30 4.18**
Identification of Most Specific Concepts
37 1.11 - 35 1.83
35 1.20 -.95 34 1.44 2.53*
35 1.97
33 1.52 2.81**
+ (Score range was 0 to 3) (From Moreira, 1977, pp. 110-112) * P<.05 **P<.01
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
41
Moreira's study in Table 1. Student attitudes also tend to shift from generally neg ative toward the meaningful learning required to positive and sometimes highly
positive attitudes both toward the instructional approach and toward the subject studied. These patterns account for the commonly observed significantly lower
average performance among "experimental" students exposed to a new strategy for only two to four weeks and "no significant differences" in mean scores
achieved over 10 or 12 weeks when compared over-all with students in "control" or traditional instruction that usually rewards rote-mode learning. In addition, of
course, a study using metacognitive or other strategies to encourage meaningful
learning is not likely to show significant advantages over "control" methods when
the evaluation instruments do not require meaningful learning and transfer of
knowledge to novel contexts, and rote learning can suffice to achieve high scores.
Our first comprehensive study utilizing concept maps and Vee diagrams was
conducted with junior high school students (Novak et al., 1983). Our principal focus in that study was also on methodological issues related to implementation of these strategies in school settings, including the issue of whether or not seventh
and eighth grade students, taught by their teachers, would be successful in acquir
ing skill in use of the strategies. This study led to the following major findings:
1. Concept mapping and Vee diagramming skills continued to improve over the
span of a school year.
2. Seventh grade students outperformed eighth grade students in use of the
strategies, probably as a result of more practice and experience.
3. There was little correlation between success in acquisition of skill in using
concept mapping and ability or achievement test scores (see Table 2).
4. Students using the strategies outperformed their counterparts on a test of novel problem solving by a wide margin (see Novak et al., 1983, p. 643).
The study led to the following conclusions:
1. Classroom teachers motivated to use new metacognitive learning strategies can be successful in employing concept mapping and Vee diagramming tools with junior high school science students.
2. Skill in use of these tools takes time, perhaps one to two years if used only in
a single course.
3. Conventional measures of student ability/achievement are poor indicators of
success with use of these strategies.
4. Novel problem solving success is significantly correlated with success in
concept mapping scores.
5. Junior high school students have become adapted to primarily rote-mode
learning and it is not easy to move them to meaningful learning strategies. This is an inference arising out of the data, but it has been corroborated by other studies we have done.
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42
Concept mapping when used in conjunction with other educational strategies has led to superior achievement Basconas and Novak (1985) found that mean
scores on problem solving test in high school physics were two to three standard deviations higher for students preparing concept maps and following a revised
sequence of topics to enhance building new learning on prior learning, when com
pared with students following a traditional physics program and not using concept
maps. The concept mapping group excelled at all ability levels (based on Raven's
Progressive Matrices test) and there was no significant interaction between treat
ment and ability (See Table 3).
By 1981, when the above study was nearing completion, we were keenly aware of the difficulties of moving both teachers and learners away from rote
mode learning and toward meaningful mode learning. Published textbook/ worksheet/test packages used in most science classes push teachers in the direc tion of "covering the material". These materials take essentially no account of the
conceptual difficulty of the topics presented and treat all information similarly, presenting key vocabulary words (concept labels) or problem solving algorithms
Table 2. Correlation matrix for variables in a study with junior high school science students. Top number is the correlation coefficient; the middle number represents the significance level; the bottom
number (in parentheses) represents the size of the sample for analysis. "Winebottle" problem was a
novel transfer of knowledge open response question.
Identifying,
defining and
examples on
the Vee
Total correct
relationships -
"Winebottle"
SAT reading
percentile
SAT math
percentile
Final course
examination
grade
Total score
on concept
map
Identifying,
defining and
examples of
the Vee
example
Total number SAT - SAT -
of correct reading math
relationships - percentile percentile "Winebottle"
0.36
0.0001
(149)
0.40
0.001
(43)
-0.02
0.815
(146)
0.02
0.784
(146)
0.02
0.796
(156)
0.09
0.572
(46)
0.30
0.0003
(147)
0.30
0.0001
(147)
0.24
0.002
(158)
0.43
0.0001
(80)
0.39
0.0003
(80)
0.31
0.035
(46)
0.77
0.0001
(200)
0.74
0.0001
(155)
0.70
0.0001
(155)
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
43
at about the same rate with little regard for the pupil's understanding. Students memorize word definitions or formulas usually with little or no understanding of
the concept meanings represented by the words or symbols and with litüe or no
relationship to prior learning, or anticipation of future, related conceptual learn
ing. Topical sequence is of little importance since new conceptual understanding is not being built on prior conceptual learning. Extended absences, or new stu
dents moving into the school are a minimum difficulty when rote learning of new
topics is the predominant practice. On the other hand, when instruction is focused
on meaningful learning, prior course woik, absences, and/or the sequence of topics in a course becomes very important. We had grossly underestimated the logistic, curricular and pedagogical practices that needed to be modified if maximum ben
efit was to accrue from the use of metacognitive tools and a focus on meaningful
learning. In about half of the cases, teachers reverted to traditional instructional
practices within weeks, or a year or two after introduction of concept mapping and/or use of the Vee heuristic. Only those teachers who refused to accept pre
dominantly rote learning and associated satisfactory short-term test performance as standard practice have persisted in the use of these tools. This has been true, in
our experience, at all educational levels from primary grades through adult educa tion programs.
We were not alone on our failure to recognize the pervasive, pernicious charac
ter of rote learning and associated pedagogical strategies; however, most reports on the use of metacognitive strategies make no mention of this as a potential or real problem. We now see this as a major (if not the major) concern to be addressed when moving to include metacognitive strategies into real school set
tings. Of course, for short-term, isolated efforts with metacognitive tools, Hawthorn and other novelty effects may continue to show positive results for
almost any reasonable metacognitive approach.
Table 3. Analysis of variance in problem-solving lest scores for concept mapping and traditional
groups.
Mean Mean
Source df Square F Probability
Method 1 6836.19 480.49 0.00
Ability group** 2 36.97 2.60 0.08
Method x Ability 3 15.11 1.06 0.35
Error 70 14.23
** Based on Raven test scores
From Bascones and Novak (1985)
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44
Recognizing the problem of student adherence to rote-mode learning patterns,
we turned some of our attention to research on how students think they learn.
Edmondson (1985) attempted to instruct Cornell University freshman in strate
gies to "learn how to learn". Seventy-two freshman who were selected from a
new program providing financial aid to promising students were invited by letters
to participate in the program. Twenty-one attended an orientation/introduction
meeting, but only one remained in the program through a series of tutorial ses
sions. Most of the others said they "didn't have time" for the program, and some
recognized that strategies for meaningful learning were not consistent with the
way they study nor what they believed was required to pass courses. Piqued by this rejection of free tutorial help to "leam how to learn", Edmondson interviewed
fifteen students in a college psychology course and found that only three (20%) were clearly committed to learning for meaning, and this in general has been a
pattern observed in our studies on how school/university students learn.
From 1975 to date, I have taught a course at Cornell University on "Learning to Learn". Although this course (Education 312) carried a number that suggests
sophomore, junior and senior enrolment, in fact the course enrols almost exclu
sively juniors and seniors. Occasional freshmen who have enrolled (with my
blessing) have dropped out early in the semester. It seems that the sophomore
year is often a year of reckoning for students at Cornell University when many find that their straight "A" averages in high school have dropped to B's, C's, or
worse as they enter more advanced courses. Students begin to recognize that
either they are just poorly endowed with intelligence, or they must be doing
something wrong in the way in which they study. Some tum to "how to study" courses to get new ideas on "time management" or "confidence building" etc., while others recognize that something more basic is wrong with their learning/
study approaches. Some of the latter enrol in "Learning to Learn", and the over
whelming majority of these discover that indeed they are not stupid; they simply have been using weak learning strategies; they have been engaged in rote rather
than meaningful learning. Some of these students comment that they never knew
there was another way to learn other than to memorize definitions or "facts" and
review answers to old exam questions. They also recognize that, except for an
occasional course or studies related to their hobbies, they have rarely been mean
ingful learners. It should be noted that Cornell University students are on average the "best" of our high school graduates with SAT scores averaging in the 600's or
better for most fields of study.
My experiences with Ed 312, Edmondson's work, and research we were doing on metacognitive learning all led to the same conclusion; the predominantly rote
mode learning practices encouraged (or required) in so much of school/university
learning had put "braces on the brains" of many students, especially female stu
dents who tend to play the "school game" more conscientiously than males, (see
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
45
Best, 1983; Belenky et al., 1985), accounting perhaps for some of the underrepre sentation of women in science, mathematics and engineering (Ridley and Novak,
1984). Could these patterns of learning be reversed? Experiences with Ed 312 stu
dents, math students, graduate students in our programs, anecdotal comments
from students in our junior high school study, and other "success stories" sug
gested the answer was clearly yes. In a study with college students in introductory
biology, Robertson-Taylor (1985) utilized concept maps and Vee diagrams in a
study to see if students could be helped to acquire a meaningful understanding of
biology laboratory work. Her earlier research (Taylor, 1984) showed that the
large majority of students had little or no understanding of how or why the results
they observed in laboratory work could be explained. Most students moved
through laboratory work "procedurally", doing the things prescribed in the labora
tory guide, but with little or no understanding of why they were doing what they were doing, or the meaning of the data or observations they were recording.
Surely, most of the readers of this paper will recollect science laboratory experi ences where this was also true. Taylor sought to make biology laboratory
experience meaningful, rewarding, and emotionally satisfying. She taught two
laboratory sections (N=30) where students were instructed briefly in concept
mapping and Vee diagramming techniques, and Taylor required each student to
prepare either concept maps or Vee diagrams prior to each laboratory session.
She had no control over and no influence upon the lectures given in the course by the professor. These were conducted in the usual "here are the facts you need to
learn" manner and course examinations were the usual machine-scored multiple choice, "What is the right answer" type.
What Taylor found was that on the objective course examinations, her students
scored somewhat better, as was also true in previous semesters. Where the truly
significant differences occurred were in the students' feelings and attitudes
regarding biology and biology laboratory studies. Typical of the student com
ments were these given by students before their first lab and after their last ses
sion (from Taylor, 1985, p. 108).
PRE -1 really dislike biology lab and wish I didn't. I guess I don't see the pur
poses behind the labs or the studies do not really interest me.
POST - Better this semester than last; concept maps a definite help! I like it
more because I'm understanding more. Much more organized than last
semester.
PRE - Unfortunately, after coming out of a terrible lab last semester, I am very
wary of biology lab and its actual meaning, even though it was one of my favorite courses throughout my secondary schools.
POST - My attitude toward bio lab is really positive now, especially compared to last semester. I prepare for class, try to be more attentive, and like it a lot
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46
PRE - Last semester it was a chore and I dreaded coming because it was usu
ally boring.
POST - This semester my attitude toward lab has greatly improved - I even
look forward to going to lab. It seems much more worthwhile and I enjoy it
most of the time.
In our more recent research, we have been interviewing Cornell University stu
dents to ascertain their learning approaches. Overwhelmingly, we have found that
our students are engaged in essentially rote-mode learning. They recognize that
"memorizing notes" has little long-term value, but they also find that this is the
most expedient way to earn high grades. Many of them also recognize that this
kind of learning has little lasting value and is one of the reasons why they have
negative feelings about the subject matter. Typical of quotes from these students
are those cited in Edmondson (1985, p. 72-73), in response to her question, "Can
you describe a meaningful learning experience you have had?"
Male Student: Everyone was developing questions... we participated. You
know, what you put into it is what you get out of it. And then, it wasn't like the
student talking to the professor, it wasn't like one on one, it was like everyone was talking among themselves, and I don't believe the professor - it was like
the professor was participating, but he wasn't trying to keep discussion going
by asking questions; a lot of the students would do that themselves, by "Well, if that's this, then what happens when it does that? You know? Things like
that...
Investigator: Is that different from the other classes that you have had here?
Male Student: Yeah. Well, see, that happened only once. It wasn't a structured
class. It stands out because usually you're just listening. You're just watching and listening.
Female Student: When I felt like I was really learning... Um, I'm trying to
think. I can think of so many examples when I wasn't learning... (laughs) It's
far rarer when you find that where you do.
Working with college chemistry students, Feldsine (1987) found a resistance on
the part of the majority of his students to prepare concept maps for topics (text
chapters) studied. However, as the course progressed and "reluctant mappers"
began to see that difficult topics became conceptually clear using concept maps, all members of his class moved toward preparation of good to excellent maps. Moreover, Feldsine found in case after case in his qualitative analysis that
important misconceptions regarding chemistry were recognized by students and
subsequently altered, with stable, valid conceptions resulting. Given the wide
recognition (see Helm and Novak, 1983; Novak, 1987) of the intractability of
student misconceptions to conventional instruction, Feldsine's findings have
important implications for improved pedagogy.
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
47
Most of the studies done by my students at Cornell University have focused in
recent years on qualitative, rather than quantitative, analysis of cognitive develop ment In part, this qualitative emphasis has been necessary to search for better
understanding of the interplay of cognitive and affective factors in facilitation of
meaningful learning and pedagogical strategies effective in encouraging students to move toward meaningful learning practices. Unfortunately, qualitative studies
producing qualitative data are not easily reported in the form of short journal arti
cles. Fortunately, other researchers have begun to report quantitative studies on
the effect of concept mapping and Vee diagramming strategies. Sherris and Kahle (1984) used concept maps with 282 high school biology stu
dents in a five-week unit of instruction, comparing achievement with 259 students
receiving instruction in the same content but without utilization of concept maps.
They also administered the Norvicki-Strickland locus of control scale. Using three
forms of a 25-item multiple choice test and 5 short answer items requiring appli cation of concepts and principles, they found no significant differences on post test scores, nor on 6-week retention test scores, between the two treatment groups. However, there was a difference (Pc.Ol) favoring internal locus of control students
and a significant interaction effect (P<.03) on the retention test between treatment
and locus of control, with "external" students benefiting more from the concept
map aided instruction. Their study shows a five-week study unit may have only minimal effect on student learning patterns and achievement scores, although there may be some benefit on affective dimensions (e.g., locus of control).
Lehman, Carter and Kahle (1985) used concept maps and Vee diagrams with
119 inner-city black students and text outlining with 124 students in an 8-week
biology unit They found no significant differences in achievement scores between the groups. The fact that text outlining was a familiar strategy to these
students and that the concept mapping/Vee diagramming group had to learn new
strategies was suggested by the authors as a reason why only small, non
significantly higher mean scores were observed for the mapping group. Moreover, teachers were previously unfamiliar with concept mapping and Vee
diagramming strategies and experienced some difficulties using these strategies. In a similar study with 103 ninth grade general science students, Pankratius
and Keith (1987) compared concept mapping and text outlining and found 10 per cent higher mean scores for the concept mapping group over an 18 week period. No tests of significance was reported for this group. For a group of 139 twelfth
grade physics students, Pankratius and Keith reported significantly higher
(P <.05) mean achievement scores for students who prepared concept maps prior to and after a unit of study, as compared with a group who prepared maps only after they studied the unit Both groups had practice with concept mapping for
four preceding physics topics. The authors also noted that test items requiring
"higher order thinking" showed wider differences, with 19 out of 23 correct
answers to one item given by the concept mappers.
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48
Working with college students in a course on human anatomy and physiology, Cliburn (1987) found that students using concept maps during a three-week unit
on the skeletal systems showed significantly higher (P <.03) performance on a
retention posttest but not on an immediate posttest when other covariates were
held constant. He also found that students using concept maps gave few verbatim
textbook answers to essay questions in another unit of study. Alvarez and Risko (1987) used Vee diagrams with 28 third grade students
studying seed germination. They found all students were successful in construct
ing Vee diagrams. Scoring the Vee diagrams (interrater reliability r =.96) showed
no significant mean differences between groups with high Stanford Achievement
Test (SAT) scores and those with low scores, which raises the question of the
SAT as an indicator of ability. In another study with 25 first grade students, Alvarez and Risko (1987) found that all were successful in preparing concept
maps and Vee diagrams. No statistical comparisons were made, but anecdotal
reports showed that students at all stanine levels on the SAT performed well in
construction of maps and diagrams and in classroom discussions on four different
topics. In a recent study by Okebukola (in press, a), concept maps were used with 138
high school biology students in Lagos, Nigeria. He found that the concept map
ping group (N = 63) scored significantly higher than a non-mapping group (N =
75) on a genetics unit. Mean scores were 28.12 for the mapping group and 17.23 for the non-mapping group, yielding a t value of 16.01 (P c.001). For a study unit
on ecology, mean scores were 25.98 for the concept mapping group and 19.11 for
the non-mappers, with t = 12.27 (P c.001). In a related study, Okebukola (in press, b) administered the Fraser, Nash and
Fisher (1983) Science Anxiety Scale to the same groups of students noted above.
This instrument gives a measure of the student's anxiety toward the study of
selected concepts in science. Two versions were administered, one dealing with
genetics concepts and another with ecology concepts. On both of the scales, Okebukola found highly significant differences in mean anxiety scores (P c.001)
favoring the concept mapping students. Both test results and anecdotal comments
showed that when meaningful learning was facilitated using concept maps, stu
dent anxiety levels toward study of the subject decrease and attitudes toward the
study of biology became increasingly positive.
Summary and conclusions
Concept maps and Vee diagrams can be useful heuristics for planning instruction
and textbooks. Our first major effort in curriculum design using concept maps was in the area of waste management where we developed a 21-module program for instruction in land application of wastes (Loehr et al., 1979). We have found
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
49
concept mapping and Vee diagrams useful in redesign of laboratory work in
college physics (Chen, 1980; Buchweitz, 1981; Lavendowski, 1981). Other
colleagues are using concept mapping in planning earth science courses (Ault, 1985), microbiology (Barenholz and Tamir, 1987) and other fields. The BSCS
group in Colorado Springs is employing concept mapping to plan new elementary school and high school science programs. Several publishers now include concept mapping as a learning tool. It is likely that the majority of science books published in the future will include concept mapping, and perhaps also Vee diagramming, as metacognitive tools to help teachers and learners. Hoz (1987) and his
colleagues at Beer-Sheva University are using these tools in teacher education
programs and in medical education. We are exploring ways to use these tools in
our new MAT program for science and mathematics teachers at Cornell
University. It is likely that concept mapping, and perhaps Vee diagramming, will become
widely used metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education, as well
as for education in other fields of study. No educational tool is so robust, so
infallible that it cannot be abused. What could be worse than instruction where
students are required to memorize exactly the structure of complex concept maps in their syllabus or textbook? I would not be surprised to learn that this is already
happening somewhere in the world. On balance, however, I believe the growing
body of research evidence will point toward a wider and better utilization of these
metacognitive tools. As Italian, Spanish and Thai versions of Learning how to
learn now in press become available, hopefully world-wide experimentation, research and critical appraisal of these tools will increase substantially.
Acknowledgements
The Novak et al., 1983 study was supported by NSF Grant (SED-78-116761).
References
Alvarez, M. C. and Risco, V. J. (1987a). Vee diagrams: helping students understand the structure of
knowledge. Washington, DC.: Paper presented at meetings of the American Educational Research
Association.
Alvarez, M. C. and Risco, V. J. (1987b). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: a visual representation of
children's thinking. Washington, DC.: Paper presented at AERA meeting.
Ault, C. R., Jr. (1985). Concept mapping as a study strategy in earth science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 15 (Sept/Oct), 38-44.
Ault, C. R., Jr., Novak, J. D. and Gowin, D. B. (1984). Constructing Vee maps for clinical interviews
on molecule concepts. Science Education, 68(4), 441-462.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Gnme and Stratton.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. and Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: a cognitive view
(Second Edition). New York: Holt, Rinehait, and Winston.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. and Hanesian, H. (1986). Educational psychology: a cognitive view
(Second Edition). New York: Warbel and Peck (reprinted). Bar-Lavie, B. (1987). Enhancing meaningful learning in an environmental education program: a case
study of a class empowered through the use of Novak's and Gowin's principles of learning how to
leam, concept mapping, interviewing and educating. Ithaca, NY.: Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation,
Department of Education, Cornell University. Barenholz, H. and Tamir, P. (1987). The design, implementation and evaluation of a microbiology
course with special reference to misconceptions and concept maps. In J. D. Novak (Ed.),
Proceedings of the second international seminar on misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics (Vol. I: 32-45). Ithaca, NY.: Department of Education, Cornell
University.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N. R. and Tarule, J. M. (1986). Woman's ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.
Best, R. (1983). We all got scares. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Bogden, C. A. (1977). The use of concept mapping as a possible strategy for instructional design and evaluation in college genetics. Ithaca, NY: Unpublished MS Thesis, Department of Education, Cornell University.
Brown, H. I. (1978). perception, theory and commitment: the new philosophy of science. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Buchweitz, B. (1981). An epistemological analysis of curriculum and an assessment of concept learn
ing in physics laboratory. Ithaca, NY: Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Education, Cornell University.
Cardemone, P. F. (1975). Concept mapping: a technique of analyzing a discipline and its use in the
curriculum and instruction in a portion of a college level mathematics skills course. Ithaca, NY.:
Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Education, Cornell University. Chen, H. H. (1980). Relevance of Gowin's structure of knowledge and Ausubel's learning theory to a
method for improving physics laboratory instructions. Ithaca, NY.: Unpublished M.S. Thesis,
Department of Education, Cornell University. Clibum, J. W. (1987). Systematic expository science teaching with concept maps. Cincinnati, OH.:
Paper presented at meetings of the National Association of Biology Teachers.
Donaldson, M. (1978). Children's minds. New York: W. W. Norton Publishing. Edmondson, K. M. (1985). College students' conceptions of their responsibilities for learning. Ithaca,
NY.: Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Education, Cornell University. Feldsine, J. E. Jr. (1987). the construction of concept maps facilitates the learning of general college
chemistry: a case study. Ithaca, NY.: Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Education, Cornell University.
Fisher, K. M. (1986). Elaboration of cognitive knowledge of biology from childhood to adulthood
(monograph). San Diego: San Diego State University. Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development (Second Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. General Accounting Office (1984). New directions for federal programs to aid mathematics and
science teaching. Washington, DC.: General Accounting Office (PEMO 84-85). Gowin, D. B. (1981). Educating. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Halliday, D. and Resnick, R. (1966). Physics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Helm, H. and Novak, J. D. (1983). Proceedings of the international seminar on misconceptions in
science and mathematics conference. Ithaca, NY.: Department of Education, Cornell University. Hoz, R. (1987). Dimensions of teachers' knowledge structures and their identification by concept
mapping. Washington, DC.: Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Education
Research Association.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kelley, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Vol. 1 and 2. New York: W.W. Norton.
Kitchener, R. F. (1986). Piagel's theory of knowledge. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
51
Lehman, J. D., Carter, C. and Kahle, J. B. (1985). Concept mapping, Vee mapping, and achievement:
results of a field study with black high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
22(7), 663-673.
Levandowski, C. E. (1981). Epistemology of a physics laboratory on electricity and magnetism. Ithaca, NY.: Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Education, Cornell University.
Loehr, R. C., Jewell, W. J., Novak, J. D., Clark son, W. W. and Friedman, G. S. (1979). Land applica tion of wastes. Volumes I and II. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Macnamara, J. (1982). Names for things: a study of human learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Matthews, G. B. (1980). Philosophy and the young child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (1981). The promise of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Mayer, R. E. (1983a). What have we learned about increasing the meaningfulness of science prose? Science Education, 67(2), 223-237.
Mayer, R. E. (1983b). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Moreira, M. (1977). An Ausubelian approach to physics instruction: an experiment in an introductory
college course in electromagnetism. Ithaca, NY.: Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Education, Cornell University.
Novak, J. D. (1977). A theory of education. Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press.
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B. and Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge Vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625-645.
Novak, I. D. and Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D. (1987). Human constructivism: toward a unity of psychological and epistemological
meaning making. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international seminar on mis
conceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics, Vol. 1, 349-360. Ithaca, NY.:
Department of Education, Cornell University.
Novak, J. D. (Ed.) (1987). Proceedings of the second international seminar on misconceptions and
educational strategies in science and mathematics. Ithaca, NY.: Department of Education, Cornell
University.
Okebukola, P. A. Students' anxiety toward and perception of difficulty of some biological concepts under the concept mapping heuristic. European Journal of Research in Science Teaching (in
press, a).
Okebukola, P. A. Attaining meaningful learning of concepts in genetics and ecology: an examination
of the potency of the concept mapping technique. Journal of Research in Science Teaching (in
press, b).
Pankratius, W. J. and Keith, T.M. (1987). Building an organized knowledge base: concept mapping in
secondary school science. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the National Science
Teachers Association, Washington, DC.
Piaget, J. (1965). The child's concept of number. New York: W.W. Norton.
Piaget, J. (1971). Psychology and epistemology. New York: Viking Press.
Piaget, J. (1974). Understanding causality. New York: W.W. Norton.
Piaget, J. (1976). To understand is to invent. New York: Penguin.
Pines, A. L., Novak, J. D., Posner, G. J. and VanKirk, J. (1978). The clinical interview: a method for
evaluating cognitive structure. Research Report #6, Department of Education, Cornell University.
Popper, K. (1982). Unended quest: an intellectual autobiography. London: Open Court.
Ridley, D. R. and Novak, J. D. (1983). Sex-related differences in high school science and mathematics
enrolments: do they give males a critical headstart toward science- and math-related careers? The
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 29(4), 308-318.
Robertson, M. (1984). Use of videotape-stimulated recall interviews to study the thoughts and feelings in an introductory biology laboratoiy course. Ithaca, NY.: Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Education, Cornell University.
Robertson-Taylor, M. (1985). Changing the meaning of experience: empowering learners through the
use of concept maps, vee diagrams, and principles of educating in a biology lab course. Ithaca,
NY.: Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Education, Cornell University.
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52
Shenis, J. D. and Kahle, J. B. (1984). The effects of instructional organization and locus of control
orientation on meaningful learning in high school biology students. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 27(1), 83-94.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: a triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Symington, D. and Novak, J. D. (1982). Teaching children how to learn. The Educational Magazine,
39(5), 13-16.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding. Volume 1: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press (edited and translated by
Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar).
Weinstein, C. E. (1987) Fostering learning autonomy through the use of learning strategies. Journal of
Reading 20(7), 590-595, (April).
This content downloaded from 149.175.1.33 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:27:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions