As this course has progressed my views and loyalties have to. Although I had a quick look at digital concept mapping in the first week of this course, I have since gone back for a more thorough and comprehensive analyses. Although I knew the undeniable link between how we learn and how schemas are structured and the alignment of this with concept mapping, I did not value this tool in the context of my grade three children. My views have since changed and therefore earned a second post to my blog.
Concept mapping has been a subject of investigation for some time now, giving rise to a new interest since computer based tools have rendered the easy creation and modification of concept maps. In education, it is a tool for research, a communication tool and an efficient means of teaching and learning, notably as a process of establishing relationship between concepts.
Concept maps are important when a constructivist view of learning is employed. The theory behind it is that each individual develops mental schema or “mind maps” which then inform future thinking or action. These schemas are fundamental to the way we understand all experience.
We know that learning involves creating new representations and modifying existing ones (Snowman, 2009). Although an important question is how to account for the students' representations at any given stage in learning. Concept maps seem to offer a tool for doing this. They are indeed a very useful way to gain access to the representations of learners, and to assess whether their learning is influenced by prior knowledge. For that purpose, concept maps are an ideal solution.
Anderson-Inman et al (1998) observe that concept mapping is rarely used spontaneously by pupils, because it is difficult and that the process of map modification is messy and time consuming. So, if we agree with the fact that modifying maps is essential because it allows learning to occur and conceptual understanding to grow, we have to offer learners more support in constructing a "modify friendly' solution. Computer Based Concept Mapping (CBCM) tools can have a determinant role for that purpose, since revisions are much easier than on paper.
Anderson-Inman et al (1998) describe the benefits of concept mapping using computer software over traditional pencil and paper. They found that classroom use of Inspiration (one of the most well-known CBCM) encourages users to revise or change the maps. They manipulate concepts and revise conceptual relationships. ‘The practical advantages of constructing concept maps electronically are similar to those of using a word processing program to write. There is an ease of construction, an ease of revision, and the ability to customise maps in ways that are not possible when using paper and pencil’ (Anderson-Inman et al, 1998).
Since my new-found acknowledgment of digital concept mapping and the advantages they bring to my classroom, I have created two whole-class digital concept maps with my grade three children. The first was a more basic structure, just to get the children used to using a concept map. I used it when introducing biographies. I had the children make links between information reports (which they already knew) and the new genre of biographies. The children had heaps of fun constructing these, with minimal help from me, using the bubbl.us program. We have since used it to take a look at various visual artists in our current unit and the similarities and differences between their art. I am looking forward to using this great tool in more complex and in-depth learning as my and the children's experience with this tool develops.
Anderson-Inman, L., Ditson, L., & Ditson, M. (1998). Computer-Based Concept Mapping :
Promoting meaningful learning in science for students with disabilities. Information Technologies and Disabilities Journal, 12(2).
Snowman, J., Dabozy, E., Scevak, J., Bryer, F., & Barlett, B. (2009). Psychology applied to teaching. Milton, QLD: Wiley & Sons Australia.
image retrieved from www.flickr/search/conceptmap
No comments:
Post a Comment