CONCEPT MAPS AND THE SYSTEMATIZATION OF

KNOWLEDGE

Prof. Dr. Patrícia Lupion TorresPontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUCPr), Curitiba, BrazilProf. Dr. Marcus Vinicius Santos Kucharski Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPr), Curitiba, BrazilProf. MEd. Rita de Cássia Veiga MarriottFederal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPr), Curitiba, Brazil

ABSTRACTThe act of doing research, reviewing recent literature, checking data, articulating results and meanings are important but not enough when working with scientific publications in graduate schools. A vital part of the work is authoring an informative text that can be clear enough as to communicate findings of the study and, at the same time, reinforce chosen arguments. This chapter focuses on an experiment at a renowned Brazilian graduate school of Education which uses Concept Mapping and collective assessment of such maps as fundamental pre-writing stages to guide the authorship of well-thought, well-knit scientific / argumentative texts. Results indicate that the experiment was successful in making students negotiate meanings, clarify ideas and purposes and write in an academically acceptable style. All this was conducted from a methodological standpoint that makes meaningful knowledge, collective construction and the reflective, critical work of the author from the first draft to the final collectively written version the foundations to perform a better job at communicating the processes and results of the investigative work.

INTRODUCTIONThere are many challenges in the construction of knowledge. Some are more theoretical or rhetorical,

such as the definition of what knowledge effectively means; others are from a more practical view

point, such as its representation in diverse forms: written, graphical, multimedia, etc. From all of the

possible challenges, it is on the systematisation of knowledge in the preparation phase that we will

concentrate our attention in this chapter.

The main reason for focusing our attention on this area is the constant complaint from

teachers, at all levels in the profession, that students do not have a demonstrable ability/capacity to

organise and articulate knowledge in a cohesive, coherent and contributive form. Apart from noticing

a near incapacity to understand relations and levels of articulation about which they learn, we perceive

a much bigger problem than a simple difficulty with the representation of proper knowledge - although

it encompasses it – which is the issue of attributing questions to the diverse niches of educational

investigation: from teaching theories to learning process, from methodology to didactics, from

educational biology / psychology / sociology / anthropology / philosophy / history to educational

technology, nearly claiming that a metatheory to propose solutions to the problem that affects all

levels of schooling be created.

However, the creation of this metatheory is not a task exclusive to Education or to any one of

the contributing sciences and it needs to be undertaken in the confrontation and negotiation of the

concepts developed by the diverse areas of educational research, each one applying its speciality to

weave the network in its entirety. To be able to properly contribute to the overall discussion, it is

necessary to define from where we speak stating clearly what should or should not be considered and

to be careful not to exhaust the subject but to explore its facets. In the case of this article, the

contribution will come from the exploration of the systematisation of knowledge, which occurs after

the end of the exploratory stage and immediately before the creation of the summary of what has been

learned, not taking into account the type of document/article/paper it becomes. This is a moment of

reflection and individual or group summary, revision, negotiation and planning in the sense of

knowledge exchange. In this area of action and reflection, concept maps can fulfil a privileged role in

the reduction or elimination of the difficulties of critical and informed systematisation of knowledge,

as we have systematically seen in our students. For this, we need to establish a path that clarifies the

presuppositions of our stance; this path needs to start from the definition of the main object of the

educational process.

THE NATURE OF MEANINGFUL KNOWLEDGEThe understanding of knowledge that underpins our proposal is the one put forward by Ausubel

(1963), according to which it is meaningful knowledge that effectively contributes to the personal /

social development of the individual. Broadly speaking, in this type of knowledge, new knowledge is

incorporated via the assimilation of new concepts and, fundamentally, of new meaningful conceptual

relations established with our previous knowledge repertoire. This incorporation – meaningful

knowledge as such – happens by the mediation of languagei, provided three basic conditions are met:

(1) The material to be learned must be conceptually clear and presented with

language and example relatable to the learner’s prior knowledge. (2) The

learner must possess relevant prior knowledge. (3) The learner must choose

to learn meaningfully (Moreira, 2007, p. 2; Novak & Cañas, 2007, p. 30,

italics from original).

In the conditions presented above there are two important implications to clarify: the first one

is that the learner’s “relevant previous knowledge” forms a network of inter-related concepts and

2

mental models that can be recovered and put into action at the very moment something new needs to

be understood or solved. This network system is open, i.e., it is always ready to receive additions that

modify it (we do not want to say “better it” as we do not mean that every addition to the system

“improves it”); what is important is to see it as a system which is open to modifications and that these

will be more meaningful and lasting as more conceptual connexions are established with those pre-

existing ones. It is unlikely – although it is not impossible! – that this network of concepts and models

be formed based on information assimilated by mechanically memorised concepts, such as ill

contextualised formulas that are “learnt” for taking tests, for example. Relevant previous knowledge

is meaningful exactly for being able to adjust itself and survive life’s continuous/ongoing daily tests

and troubles, overcoming the limits of utilitarianism due to its reapplicability and adaptability to

situations that are similar – or not – involving more than skills but concepts and more abstract and

encompassing principles.

The second implication that needs clarification is that ‘the learner has to choose to learn

meaningfully’. Learning meaningfully is not a passive process; it demands an active attitude from the

learner in order to focus and apprehend new relevant concepts/meanings. The possibility of learning

meaningfully by insight cannot be discarded but even so it will only be meaningful if the learner is

open to the transformative influence of the recently acquired concept on the pre-existing meaningful

structure. Moreira (2007) contributes with our understanding when he introduces his “critical

(subversive, anthropologic) vision of learning”, according to which

(...) in today’s society it is not enough to acquire new knowledge in a meaningful way, it is necessary to acquire it in a critical way too. At the same time that we need to live and integrate in this society, it is also necessary to be its critic. (p. 11)

Because

(...) meaning is in people, not in words. The learning-teaching process involves presenting, receiving, negotiating and meaning sharing, in which language is essential and, being so, it is necessary to be always aware that meanings are contextually bound, they are arbitrarily given to objects and events by people who also give idiosyncratic meaning to the world’s state of things. Meaningful learning requires sharing of meanings, but it also implies personal meanings. (p. 13)

Therefore, there is a balance between social forces (interaction and meaning negotiation) and

personal disposition for meaningful learning to take place, in a dialectic process of giving meaning to

the world (=apprehend). The essence of moto perpetuo in the dialectic process, and its greatest beauty,

is the balance which, far from favoring acritical crystallizations of knowledge, it values its

multifaceted state: there can be as many understandings and forms of learning as there are learners.

Paulo Freire (2002) always insisted that the meaningful learning-teaching process puts “(...) to

the teacher or, more broadly, to the school, the duty not only to respect the learners’ knowledge (...)

and how they acquired it (...), but also, as I have been suggesting for more than 30 years, discuss with

them the reason why some of them have the knowledge they have, if we consider the content that has

3

been taught” (p. 15). According to Freire, actual knowledge construction is only possible if the

content, which is achieved socially, is already internalised by the students in a tangible way (i.e.,

meaningfully).

Freire also asserted – following this line of thought - that the pedagogical work must be

dialogical and critical, and that this criticism arises from the possibilities of exploring the subject

matter with a rigorousness that arises from the exercise of sharing democratically, overcoming and

rebuilding the vision that one has of it.

To me, there is no breach but an overcoming in the difference and distance between naïveness and criticism, between knowledge by experience and knowledge by rigorous methods. The overcoming, and not the breach, occurs when naive curiosity becomes a critical statement. When it becomes critical, it becomes, and I repeat, epistemological curiosity, methodologically rigorous when approaching the subject matter, giving greater precision to the findings (Freire, 2002, p. 16, own translation).

In concept mapping, tangible systematization of pre-existing knowledge, as well as its critical

reconstruction and complement, is a valuable resource for its construction. This quality of the pre-

existing knowledge occurs not only for its path and possibilities to be drawn more clearly before the

author, but also in order to promote even more the clarification of the concepts being used, possibly

leading, as Paulo Freire would have said, to “(...) a critical consciousness and, finally, (...) [to] a

transforming action” (Loyola & Borges, 2010, p. 316).

Moreover, there is also the easiness of construction sharing, the (re)negotiation of meanings

and the pursuit of a creative consensus in an experience of collective intelligence (Lévy, 2012).

THE SYSTEMATISATION OF KNOWLEDGE WITH CONCEPT MAPSNovak and Cañas (2007, p. 33) claim that there is a growing consensus amongst philosophers and

epistemologists that the construction of new knowledge occurs in a constructive process that involves

previous knowledge and the drive to create new meanings. As a process of social construction, it finds

support in Vygotsky’s socio-interactionist theory that was adopted specially by Novak and Gowin

(1996) in meaningful learning.

As a process of negotiation of senses, meaningful learning cannot do without ways of

representing knowledge, as they regulate both restatement and positive redundancy (positive only used

for redundancy, not for both redundancy and restatement) of what has been learnt up to the

argumentative / persuasive level: well-represented knowledge can be better understood in its relations

and implications and thus be considered relevant by those who are in contact, as well as its

representations.

The representation of knowledge can come in various ways such as text, image, documents, or

digital material, taking into account where it is going to be used and the objectives that one wants to

reach when discussing knowledge.

4

In academia, written scientific and argumentative pieces of text are historically the most

valued form of knowledge representation and, for too many different reasons to be able to discuss at

the moment, they are the most difficult ones for students to construct – and not say, for many teachers

as well!. We highlight a couple of reasons for this occurrence: a) a consolidation of linguistic patterns

that do not match current genre and text types in the current process of knowledge construction (which

includes various forms of graphic representation and writing styles and structures such as the ones

used in blogs, discussion lists, wikis, short papers for publication on the Internet – except publications

in highly controlled environments such as journals); b) and a historical difficulty, possibly inherited

from our education system as a whole, to construct textual knowledge representations which fully

respect the minimum criteria of textuality.

As much as they are continually developing, scientific writing cannot be purely abandoned in

the name of new genre and text types that still lack the representational and argumentative rigour that

can be reached by professional writing. Because of this, the main problem to tackle is the preparation

for academic writing; being more specific, what needs to be done is to prepare the student for critical

writing – and, for this, concept maps represent an unparallel opportunity for visualisation and

(re)organisation of concepts from the reconstruction of relationships that occur at the ideological-

semantic level. Richter (2000) says: “There would be a lot to gain in activities of text production if

they involved the manipulation of the parts in relationship to meanings to express or textual coherence

to keep” (p. 87, own translation).

When planning the writing of a text by concept mapping, the student/author can visualise and

enrich both sequence and text coherence in such a way as to produce a much more elaborate piece of

text as regards the criteria applied to scientific text production. Based on Beaugrande and Dressler,

Koch (2001) discusses textual criteria, listing the following ones: informativity (what does the text

complement to the reader’s own knowledge?ii), situationality (is the chosen genre and text type the

best for the communicative situation?) intertextuality (which connections does the text make with

other similar pieces of text, in terms of theme/subject, and what does this demand from the reader’s

knowledge repertoire?), intentionality (is the informative/argumentative intention clear in the text?

Does it respect its objectives without committing unwanted ambiguities?iii), acceptability (is the text

written in a way as to facilitate understanding by the reader?iv).

Koch and Travaglia (1999) add other four categories that, although they may seem partially

redundant as regards the previous ones, they bring some new perspectives: contextualization (does the

text reveal its content without treating knowledge as a collection of isolated data?), focalization (does

the text present its content in such a way as to create a common ground for dialogue with the reader?v),

consistency (is textual construction consistent, with a clear meaning, when considered as a whole in its

arguments and images?) and relevancy (is there a relevant central subject guiding text construction?)

(pp. 76-101, own translation).

5

It is not difficult to conclude that the above principles can guide the construction of any

knowledge representation, even if it is only imaginary – such as a work of art – for image is language

and if it is used to represent formal knowledge it cannot leave behind any of them. There are principles

which focus on the reader’s perception, others which focus on the objective of text creation and those

which concentrate their interest in intra-textual processes and structures, combining the classic form

and content: what?, for whom?, how? This is valid for all knowledge representation, however, our

focus will be on the preparation for textual representation.

The process of pre-writing usually concentrates on summaries, topic structure, free association

and flowcharts, and each one of them, irrespective of their intrinsic value, presents one or another trap

that catches those who are not very careful.

Summaries, even if well-made, are not innovative scientific productions. Starting from

summaries help beginners in scientific writing organise content, but it does not prioritise topic

discussion, needed for the construction of new knowledge.

Topical structures and flowcharts, although they are a good guide for writing texts, they do not

ensure fluency between one topic and another, exactly where the author’s contribution can be

observed best. When the contribution occurs in the articulation of concepts generated from a central

concept, the fluency of the articulations or linkages reflect the author’s mastery of the subject and

concepts, and not only that s/he is well informed about them (Novak & Cañas, 2007, p. 31).

Free-association is maybe the most dangerous of all the forms of preparation for writing. As

the result of a brainstorming activity, they are usually a disorganised list of “n” terms that are related

to each other such as water, sun, food, rest, feelings and growth, and all have some relationship to the

umbrella concept of “life”. The same way as putting them all together in the same text would hardly

result in an objective, coherent and comprehensive production, the same can happen as the result of a

flowchart exercise on any other concept; if we do not proceed to level the conceptual field as to

establish focus (clear intentionality), we cannot guarantee that the resulting text will be sufficiently

contributive, meaningful.

A contributive scientific text works with the articulation of concepts, not only with the mere

listing of data – even if it is a detailed listing – suggesting new interpretations and new possibilities

that may broaden our understanding about them (informativity). In this chapter, we understand

‘concept’ as Novak and Cañas’s (2007) intend it to mean: “concepts are general linguistic terms that

articulate to explain, to a greater or lesser degree of detail, the facts from the world around us” (p. 30).

These articulations suffer daily update throughout life, as an open system that is usually linguistically

constructed, becoming more abstract and reflecting relations such as cause and effect, dependency, co-

existence and exclusion. The more meaningful articulations a concept takes part in, the more relevant

the concept will be, especially to form new concepts.

Concept maps are a way of representing, in a graphic and summarised way, the inter-

relationships amongst the several concepts and the propositions they form within a specific area of

6

knowledge. Working on the level of concept articulation, concept mapping is more than just a list of

topics or suggestions of key words – it is a valuable way of systematization of previous knowledge in

formal writing. Developed by Novak’s research group at Cornell University in 1972, concept maps

were originally used as a visual representation of children’s level of knowledge as they deepen their

understanding about a particular science topic over a specific period of time. The constant

reconstruction of the maps revealed the progress of the conceptual relations and the richness of their

experience on the subject matter with the passing of time, proving to be much more effective than the

long subjective interviews with participants who found it difficult to express themselves properly and

lacked a complete grasp of a more complex verbal explanation.

Generally speaking, concept maps are built from a more abstract and general concept (the

theme or subject discussed in general terms) placed at the top of the page which is then, in turn, linked

up to other more specific concepts making propositions. Figure 1 illustrates a concept map about

Assessment demonstrating the fluidity of a well-built concept map.

(insert image 1 here)

Figure 1: Concept Map about Assessment(created by Rita Marriott - © 2013. Used with permission.)

The map in Figure 1, which establishes several relationships amongst diagnostic and formative

assessment concepts, can be considered both a good systematic initial study of these types of

assessment and a starting-point of discussion on what these types of assessment entail.

After careful observation, it is possible to see that the map could have been expanded nearly

indefinitely; one could add, for instance, historical data about the development of these types of

assessments, as well as their uses and potential in all education sectors. However, this

“incompleteness” of the map is directly related to the purpose of its construction: to present, with a

good level of detail, what these two types of assessment involve. To achieve this, relevant concepts

were chosen considering its goal and audience. The expansion of any of the concepts used would

make this into a new map, forming a new network of meaning, illustrating what we mean by

meaningful learning.

Considering the concept of a network of meanings, more sophisticated concept mapping

software allow the possibility of synchronous and asynchronous collaborative work. There is an

important gain in the development of critical thought which stems from the different possibilities of

understanding and participants’ contribution in the various research channels and discussion threads.

Exploring the development of critical thinking and the efficacy of collaborative online groups created

for solving complex problems, Mason and Watts (2012) observe that these work groups had a

7

significantly higher performance on problem solving than independent researchers; they have also

noted that exploitation usually leads to some level of individual success, but is anticorrelated with

collective success. These findings are extremely interesting to pedagogy, particularly to those

interested in forming knowledgeable teachers with critical thinking who are ready for a transformative

action originated from a collectively solved problem.

As the relationships between concepts on a map are shown in relation to (1) a more

encompassing concept; (2) the mapper or mappers’ knowledge on the subject; and (3) the purpose of

its construction, there will not be two identical concept maps about a specific subject, even if they

originate from the same piece of text. The reason for this is, as we said before, that there are no two

identical individual or group understandings about a specific subject, because different people and

groups assign different values to similar concepts, and these suffer modification with time and the

mapper’s (mappers’) experience. This is what we have repeatedly experienced with our students and

in our research into the process of learning/teaching with critical thinking.

PEDAGOGICAL EXPERIMENTS WITH CONCEPT MAPPING AT PUCPRSince 2006 we have been actively developing teaching/learning and research activities at the Graduate

School of Education (at Ed.MA, Ed.D and Ed.PhD levels) at the Catholic University of Parana

(PUCPR) using concept mapping as a pre-writing knowledge systematization procedure, investigating

the influence such activity would present over the final writings produced once the maps had been

drawn and peer-reviewed.

Our investigations present even greater significance for taking place in an environment

specifically dedicated to teacher development. Most Graduate Schools of Education throughout

Brazil, and at PUCPR in particular, have been known to be guided by critical discussion and

questioning activities about both theoretical and methodological aspects of teacher development.

An essential part of these programs, attended by both pedagogy students and lecturers from a

wide range of courses, is the scientific writing of pieces of text which are submitted to the rigorous

scrutiny of the academic community. However, difficulties related to formal written production are

not exclusively to Brazilian scholars and other professionals. We believed, from the beginning of our

research efforts, that the possibility of bringing the support of a new technology (a concept mapping

software) into a collaborative knowledge systematization and (re)building process could significantly

lessen the discomforts caused by the pressure of planning a coherent, cohesive and contributive

scientific text in a way that would diminish foreseeable mistakes and inconsistencies brought to light

by a metaphoric representation of conceptual interrelations and dependences (Kagan & Kagan, 2008).

Moreover, we cherished the possibility of bringing written scientific production even closer to the

influence of a critical epistemology of practice – as addressed by Nóvoa (1995), one in which careful

reflection stems from and is pointed towards practical events which elicit an environment of

8

collaborative, democratic and dynamic development: “The exchange of experiences and the sharing of

knowledge consolidate mutual formative spaces in which every participant is required to play,

simultaneously, the roles of teacher and student” (Nóvoa, 1995, p. 26). As for the dynamics of forming

more competent, reflective and critical teachers, Évelyne Charlier (Charlier, 2001) characterizes the

teaching profession as one that combines, develops and activates, whenever necessary, schemes that

allow them to “Reflect and Perform during Action”:

(...) we define (Donnay and Charlier, 1990) the professional teacher as an educator who, in light of an explicit formative project:

deliberately takes into account the greatest number of possible parameters of a given formative scenario;

articulates them in a critical manner (with the help of personally or collectively accepted theories);

ponders over one or various possibilities of conduct and makes planning decisions regarding his/her actions;

puts his/her decisions into practice in concrete situations, resourcing to routines that can assure the efficacy of his actions;

adjusts his/her actions immediately whenever s/he perceives it as necessary (reflection in action);

learns from his practice (reflection about action).

(...) This definition combines two approaches. It defines planning as the stage of decision-making and rational treatment of information, whereas the interactive phase is understood as the consequence of the triggering of action and reflection in action schemes. (Charlier, 2001, pp. 88-89, italics in original)

i The term language is used in its broad sense, i.e., indicating human competence to abstract and translate symbolic concepts and their relationship with the world around us. Even if for the majority of people this process is mediated by spoken and written language, it surpasses this variety, including, for example, imaging and synesthetic representations.ii A piece of text whose content is not very informative (i.e., which adds little or nothing to what the reader already knows about the theme/subject) can easily become a boring reading activity and end up being abandoned by the reader. On the other hand, when nearly all the text brings new content to the reader, reading can become inaccessible and can be either underutilised or even abandoned by the reader for the opposite reason: the reader is simply not able to assimilate the conceptual relations introduced because s/he lacks a previous framework with openings ready for additions supplied by the new textiii The author leaves “purposeful” ambiguities and gaps in the text in order to raise feelings such as curiosity, indignation, discovery and reflexion in the reader.iv Does the author make use of suitable audience-oriented linguistic and stylistic resources, improving the possibility of productive dialogue via the text?v “According to Grosz, speaker and listener, in a dialogue, focus their attention on a small part of what they know and believe, and emphasise it. Therefore, some entities (objects and relations) are central to the dialogue and not only this, they are also used and seen through perspectives that affect what the speaker says as much as how the listener interprets it.” (own translation, KOCH and TRAVAGLIA, 1999, p.82) The text and its construction, especially if we consider its construction and the author’s intention, are the materialization of the critical reconstruction of a dialogical and dialectical knowledge.

9

Our research project stood, according to the paraphrases made by Marcelo-García (Marcelo-

Garcia, 2005, pp. 19-20) on Debesse’s work, in the threshold between hetero and inter-formation. It is

hetero-formative because its main objectives, contents and pedagogical sequence were inspired,

developed and offered from phenomena external to the setting which congregated its participants –

problems that arise daily during teaching practice in the most diverse levels. It is inter-formative in the

sense that its explanatory theoretical-methodological bases propose and value collaboration as the

most valuable tool for symbolic exchanges that enable constant (re)building of knowledge and

competences. The working conditions of PUCPR’s Graduate School of Education, where we worked

and researched, combined with a collaborative, autonomous, critical and reflective pedagogical

approach (which is facilitated by the use of concept maps) created a positive environment where the

voices of teachers in continuous formation programs could take precedence over those or their

advisors, allowing different views of the study topics to arise under considerably less practical and

ideological pressures which are so commonplace in the more pre-structured and submissive ones of

the schools where they worked individually (Schön, 1983).

Let us, now, proceed to the description of the working steps we proposed to our students.

There was a pre-research interview in which the participants’ basic personal computing skills

(especially in dealing with text processing and presentation building software) were questioned. All

respondents assured us that they felt comfortable with such tools. As for the utilization of the internet

for professional and personal interests, all respondents said that they accessed the internet on a daily

basis. Therefore, we could affirm that the data we planned to collect would come from a satisfactorily

homogeneous population in terms of professional profile and level of technological literacy.

The participants were then introduced to concept maps and soon after that to concept mapping

with the use of the CMapTools softwarevi. It was asked that all readings requested for the modules

“Theory and Practice in Distance Education” and “Thesis Seminar I” (this one exclusive for doctoral

students) were systematized as concept maps, first individually and then in groups, representing

conceptual relations present in those articles. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate some examples of individual

concept maps created by two students in the group.

(insert image 2 here)

Figure 2: Concept Map about Meaningful Learning(created by Marcus Kucharski. - © 2013. Used with permission.)

vi Freeware developed by Novak and Cañas’ team, to facilitate building concept maps that can combine text, image, audio or any other kind of relevant documentation – individually or in groups, synchronically or not. Available at http://cmap.ihmc.us

10

(insert image 3 here)

Figure 3: Concept Map about Concept Maps(created by Lilia Siqueira - © 2013. Used with permission.)

Later on, the collectively created concept maps were exchanged with other groups for peer-

review and for an exercise of exchange and negotiation of ideas for implementation (or not) of the

map. The newly implemented map would be a new more encompassing collective, critical concept

map which would warrant the building of competing concept maps that would enrich further

discussions.

The next step was to ask students to transform both individually (first phase) and collectively

(last phase) built concept maps into written texts of scientific orientation (especially essays), which

were submitted to their lecturers as part of their ongoing evaluation process.

The collectively built pieces of text were also e-mailed to all participants of the other groups

and published in the online portfolio of PUCPR’s virtual learning environment (Eureka). This virtual

portfolio granted free access to everyone’s work and promoted the possibility of direct and critical

comparative analyses of the progress made, reflecting changes in their perception and knowledge

throughout the course, as can be seen in Figures 4 & 5 below.

(insert image 4 here)

Figure 4: The Virtual Portfolio in the Eureka VLE, screen 1

(insert image 5 here)

Figure 5: The Virtual Portfolio in the Eureka VLE, screen 2

Concerning this, Leite and Fernandes (2002) define the construction of portfolios as a

pedagogical tool that favors active learning and the development of cognitive, social and affective

competences, highlighting students’ awareness of their responsibilities over their own learning process

as well as over those of their peers – bringing about conscious, contextualized, critical and socially-

aware learning.

Stemming from the analysis of our students’ portfolios, they were interviewed (in writing) about

their perceptions of the relations between the maps they built and the final texts they constructed. A self-

11

evaluation exercise was carried out in which they were asked to consider the process they had just

undergone in terms of the contributions it might have made (or not) towards their scientific, critical

reading and writing competences, as well as to comment on any difficulties they might have experienced

during the process. Some of the students’ thoughts are expressed next.

In relationship to the use of Concept Maps as an evaluation tool in the course, students highlighted

the easiness to summarize and systematise content, as can be observed in the following comments:

“It is an intelligent way to summarise content, organise ideas and construct knowledge”

“By using Concept Maps we can organize the way we study, systematizing content in a

clear and precise way.

Students also acknowledge that the Concept Maps aid in the production of texts:

“Concept Maps help in the summary of the content covered in the course, moreover, it

helps in the production of texts.”

“It was much easier to write the text after we have built the maps”

“The maps not only helped me to revise the texts discussed in the course but also made it

easier to assimilate the authors’ ideas and to write my own text”

They also noted how positively the maps contributed to the course:

“It is a very interesting tool. It helped summarizing content and enhanced content

assimilation in the long-term memory which was very useful. I have already used it

with my undergraduate students.”

I loved working with Concept Maps! I thought it was great how I was able to

assimilate content better with the use of this tool. I could summarize what was studied

in a dynamic way, highlighting the most relevant aspects and making connections.”

As regards the downside of using Concept Maps in these courses, students did not signal that

they have encountered any disadvantage with this technique, although some of them have mentioned

some initial difficulty to use CMapTools. They said that:

“I do not see any disadvantage. I had the experience to use them with my students in

the university where I work and I can say that it really works.”

“There are disadvantages only while we are learning how to use the tool, after we

start mastering CMapTools the relationship between concepts and the synthesis

become clearer.”

Students reported that they felt an improvement in their learning-teaching process with

Concept Mapping, as can be read below:

The choosing of the linking word and the concepts demand sharpness and

objectiveness. An extraordinary summary exercise. The act of “thinking” has

improved.”

12

“There was an improvement in my learning-teaching process, mainly when

hierarchizing the content.”

“I felt my learning has improved. The maps enhance comprehension and autonomy in

relation to the content covered; it also helps with self-discipline.”

“The use of Concept Maps enhanced my learning when I realized I could structure

content in a meaningful and summarized way. With a single key word it was possible

to pinpoint what was the most relevant in the text discussed.”

Students who believed that the methodology used produced better knowledge acquisition

thought that this happened due to research and knowledge production:

“It encouraged us to do research and take a critical stand as regards the literature

read.”

“It made us research more in order to exchange ideas with our colleagues, mainly

during collaborative work, more interaction and knowledge dissemination.”

“The development of research and the building of maps to underpin discussions in

class and text production has undoubtedly given us a deeper level of knowledge.”

“We’ve built knowledge together and this enabled us, as a group, to reach a critical

stand as regards the themes discussed.”

Their answers to the questionnaire clearly confirmed a positive evaluation of the process,

especially as it was said to have stimulated greater commitment to the collaborative proposal

developed in the participating courses. According to the students, peer interaction and collaboration

facilitated learning and developed concurring skills and competences such as accountability and

autonomy. Interaction also seemed to provide for better performance in research, analytical work,

symbolic exchange and negotiation as well as in scientific writing and knowledge production. Students

also assured that the use of concept maps as tools for meaningful learning demanded maturing

awareness of their roles in the teaching/learning process. The fact of working as actual researchers and

becoming authors of their own knowledge as well as important part-takers in similar processes of their

peers was also positively observed by the students.

Most respondents considered that the use of concept maps aided their comprehension of the

texts whose reading was requested by their lecturers or by their own peers, as well as improved their

skills and competences for organizing ideas, structuring analytical assessments, systematizing

concepts, organizing their study habits and, especially, prepared them to be authors (both in the sense

of becoming responsible for their own learning and as feeling more confident as writers). For them,

the concept maps made the whole process more dynamic, creative and interactive, facilitating learning,

concentration, motivation and the assessment of their own performances.

13

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE RESEARCHOur research demonstrated the relevance of the utilization of concept maps as a tool to assist in the

identification, systematization and distribution of concepts pertaining to the content covered in the two

post-graduate courses, as well as for the improvement of students’ written scientific production

competences.

The research also attended to the assimilation of what was discussed in a meaningful way,

having led, on the one hand, the group of teachers in continuing professional development to critical

reflection and analysis, and on the other hand, having successfully assisted us in our theoretical-

methodological choices for teacher development in our institution.

Our research does not come to an end here, but it will continue in new settings, incorporating

different proposals and developments, seeking further validation of our findings and exploring other

possibilities of including concept mapping activities into other areas of professional development.

REFERENCES

ADDITIONAL READING SECTION

Cañas. Alberto J. et al. (2003). A summary of literature pertaining to the use of concept mapping

techniques and technologies for education and performance support. The Institute for Human and

Machine Cognition, July 2003. Available at:

http://www.ihmc.us/users/acanas/Publications/ConceptMapLitReview/IHMC%20Literature

%20Review%20on%20Concept%20Mapping.pdf. Access on 06 Apr 2010.

Kucharski, M.V.S. (2013). Concept maps as pre-writing, argument-building systematization tools: an

experiment with undergraduate students. In: M. Carmo (Ed.) International Conference on Education

and New Developments – END 2013 (pp.209-213)

Marriott, R. de C. V. Torres, P. L. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of research on collaborative learning

using concept mapping. Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing.

Novak, J.D. (2013). Meaningful learning is the foundation for creativity. In: Qurriculum: revista de

teoría, investigación y práctica educativa. n.26. Universidad de La Laguna. Santa Cruz de Tenerife,

Canárias, España. (pp.27-38) Available at http://publica.webs.ull.es/upload/REV

14

%20QURRICULUM/26%20-%202013/Qurriculum%2026-2013(1).pdf#page=28. Access on 03 Nov

2013.

Novak, J.D.; Cañas, A. (2007) Theoretical origins of concept maps, how to construct them, and uses in

Education. In: Reflecting education. v.3, n.1, Nov. 2007 (pp.29-42). Available at

http://www.reflectingeducation.net/index.php/reflecting/article/view/41/43. Access on 03 Nov 2013.

Torres, P.L.; Kucharski, M.V.S. (2012). The utilization of concept maps as knowledge-systematization

and text-authoring tools in collaboration-based educational processes: the LOLA experiment. In H.

Hao-Yang; S.C. Yuen. Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in virtual worlds and

environments. Vol. I. Hershey (PA), IGI Global Publishing. (pp.570-586)

Tripto, J.; Assaraf, O.B.; Amit, Miriam. (2013). Mapping what they know: concept maps as an

effective tool for assessing students’ systems thinking. In: American Journal of Operations Research.

n.3. January 2013. Available at www.scirp.org/journal/ajor. Access on 03 Nov 2013.

KEY TERMS & DEFINITIONS

Metatheory - A broader, interdisciplinary theory devised to analyze and discuss implications of other

individual theories and their complementary sub-theories.

Mental models - Already incorporated schema that explain and articulate the meanings of our own worldly experiences.

Dialectic process - An un-ending process in which concepts battle opposing points of view and, from

this struggle, new syntheses are constructed – which, in their turn, will face opposing views and bring

about new syntheses.

Dialogical - Based on dialogue, the free exchange of ideas – a fundamental part of the dialectic process.

Epistemologists - Those who dedicate themselves to the study of the nature, extent and validity of knowledge.

Vygotsky´s socio-interactionist theory - Theoretical proposition that states that learning and

development come from the interaction with more experienced peers, broadening both our scope and

potential to develop new meaningful knowledge.

15

Genre - A specific category of artistic creations whence its products share common style, form or

content.

Intra-textual processes - Meanings and arguments that are created within the boundaries of the written

text.

16