Uncovering Types of Knowledge in Concept Maps

Abstract

Concept maps have been shown to have a positive impact on the quality of student learning in a variety of disciplinary contexts and educational levels from primary school to university by helping students to connect ideas and develop a productive knowledge structure to support future learning. However, the evaluation of concept maps has always been a contentious issue. Some authors focus on the quantitative assessment of maps, while others prefer a more descriptive determination of map quality. To our knowledge, no previous consideration of concept maps has evaluated the different types of knowledge (e.g., procedural and conceptual) embedded within a concept map, or the ways in which they may interact. In this paper we consider maps using the lens provided by the Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) to analyze concept maps in terms of semantic gravity and semantic density. Weaving between these qualitatively, different knowledges are considered necessary to achieve professional knowledge or expert understanding. Exemplar maps are used as illustrations of the way in which students may navigate their learning towards expertise and how this is manifested in their concept maps. Implications for curriculum design and teaching evaluation are included.

Forma Mentis Networks Reconstruct How Italian High Schoolers and International STEM Experts Perceive Teachers, Students, Scientists, and School

“…In comparison to concept maps, which have been successfully used in Education Research as tools for representing knowledge dependencies between parts of a syllabus or learning expertise and identifying key concepts for achieving learning outcomes, cfr. [35,36,34,37,38,39,40,41], FMNs represent a different cognitive dimension, depending on how individuals' memory associates knowledge rather than just representing pre-requisites or conceptual dependencies between concepts. FMNs can therefore represent a wider range of knowledge structures, free from any definition and mixing semantic, syntactic, visual or even phonological associations between concepts [19].…”

Fundamental Issues of Concept Mapping Relevant to Discipline-Based Education: A Perspective of Manufacturing Engineering

“…This softness in expressing semantics leads to concept map-oriented content preparation. This means that for new-generation manufacturing, concept mapping [19][20][21]32] becomes a default choice, no matter the content type of contents (model, data, knowledge, and alike) [25][26]30,40]. Apart from the issue of concept map-based content preparation for new-generation manufacturing, it (new-generation manufacturing) entails some other fundamental issues because the systems involved in new-generation manufacturing are supposed to operate as open systems.…”

“…Explicit knowledge can be formally represented for reuse, whereas tacit knowledge cannot be represented explicitly, because it is in possession of an individual or a group of individuals working in an organization (e.g., the skill to operate a machine tool). Based on semantic gravidity, knowledge can be classified into four types, namely, novice knowledge, theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge, and professional knowledge [21]. However, the author believes that epistemology (the branch of philosophy that deals with the origin and nature of knowledge) [55] is perhaps the best inspiration for classifying knowledge.…”

“…Some authors have emphasized a particular type of knowledge structure and its transformation [61] for the sake of active learning and teaching. Some authors have emphasized concept map-based content preparation [25] for enhancing meaningful learning in manufacturing [16][17][18][19][20][21]. In addition, many concept maps carrying both theoretical and empirical knowledge of manufacturing can be found in [25,30,31,40].…”

“…Another important observation made by the learners is that some of the concepts are controversial, and, thereby, difficult to comprehend, even though excellent illustrations and references are embedded in the concept maps. As a result, the central theme of meaningful learning (avoiding memorization [16][17][18][19][20][21]) gets affected. The root cause of this is perhaps the presence of synthetic a posteriori knowledge, meaningful knowledge, and skeptic knowledge in the concept map.…”