Concept Maps, Selectivity, and Learning Environments

Elahe Javadi, Jianwei Lai, and Ernest Arko

School of Information Technology

Our quest:

Use concept maps to

• Alleviate selectivity
• Encourage integration of topics

Selectivity

2

Selectivity in learning environments (McCroskey & Richardson 2006)

Concept maps

3

Concept maps for meaningful learning (Wei & Yue 2017)

integrative complexity:

• a critical ‘gluing’ mechanism for creating meaningful learning experiences within and beyond a given course.
• Can advance information processing and decision making which are essential for life-long independent learning.

Concept Maps

4

Programming activity

5

Exam questions

Examine the following four concepts; when you see fit and logical, add a link, label the link, and make sure (concept 1, link label, concept 2) reads a meaningful statements. Add only necessary links, additional & illogical links will negatively impact evaluation of your work.

​

6

VUE: Tufts University

Courtesy of Rebekka Darner, Director of CeMast

Exam questions

7

Identify one appropriate label for ideas/concepts/activities shown in the following pictures; then create a concept map of the three concepts, add links when needed, specify directions, and label the links so that the {concept 1, label, concept 2) reads a logical statement. The numbering is to separate the three pictures, the order of the numbers is arbitrary.

Feedback

8

Magnetic concepts & in-class discussions

Idea: Bekky Darner & Eric Walsh, School of Biological Sciences

​

Example

9

Learning

Integrative complexity

Selectivity

Concept maps

Discussion

Original post: read the two articles, identify a few major concept and model major relationships among the concepts using a concept map.

• List 8-10 concepts from the articles.
• Add & label links with logical representation of the relationships among said concepts.
• When connecting concepts & labeling links, make sure

{ Concept 1 + Link Label + Concept 2}

reads a logical statement that is consistent with what we have discussed in the course.

Comments: read your classmates’ post, read the concepts and relationships; provide a response by doing any or a combination of the following activities:

• Identify a missing key concept (s)
• Identify missing, wrong or mis-labeled relationships
• Offer corrections, additions, alternatives
• If you are adding a new key concept, provide at least one relationship with a meaningful label that connects the new concept to the current concepts

​

10

Future plans

• Reflections, programming, and exam questions have been tested.
• Activities were completed in groups.
• Students found the activities fun & helpful (post surveys)

​

11

Integrative complexity & measurement

• an individual’s tendency to perceive and process different dimensions of a given topic (Suedfeld et al. 1992)
• consists of the two phases of differentiation and integration (Suedfeld et al. 1992).
• we focus on state integrative complexity (as opposed to trait) which is prone to environmental mediators (Harvey et al. 1961; Streufert & Swezey, 1986)
• Measurement:
• Political Cognition Lab in the University of Montana (Conway et al 2014; Houck et al. 2014)
• Built upon a well-validated 1-7 measurement scale for integrative complexity (Baker-Brown et al. 1992
• Dialectical and elaborative integrative complexity will be measured using automated integrative complexity measurement tool
• We use the tool to evaluate a written 2-page course reflection document which will include all the areas covered in the control and treatment part of the course.

12

Bottlenecks ( Pace 2017)

1. particularly difficult for novice learners to comprehend
2. require extensive practice and guidance (decoding), as well as unraveling by the experts
3. areas in which a significant number of students are unable to perform essential learning activities, or succeed in assessments.

13

Question: can concept maps advance decoding of bottleneck areas?

References

• Baker-Brown, G., E.J.Ballard, S. Bluck, B. de Vries, P. Suedfeld, & P.E. Tetlock 1992. “The conceptual integrative complexity scoring manual”, In C.P. Smith, J.W. Atkinson, D.C. McClelland, & J. Veroff (Eds.), Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis, pp. 393-400, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY.
• Conway, L.G., III, & Gornick, L. J. 2011.  “Cognitive complexity”. In D. Christie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology, pp. 849-853 . Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Conway, L. G., III, Conway, K. R., Gornick, L. J., & Houck, S. C. 2014. “Automated integrative complexity”. Political Psychology, 35, pp. 603-624.
• Conway, L. G., III, Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. 2018.  “Integrative complexity in politics”.  In A. Mintz (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Political Science. Oxford, Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190634131.013.7
• Conway, L. G., Gornick, L. J., Houck, S. C., Anderson, C., Stockert, J., Sessoms, D. and McCue, K. 2015. “Are conservatives really more simple-minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking”. Political Psychology. doi: 10.1111/pops.12304 
• Conway, L. G., III, Houck, S. C., Gornick, L. J., Repke, M. R. 2017. “ Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left-Wing Authoritarianism in the United States”, Political Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12470
• Desanctis G., Gallupe R. B. 1987. “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems”, Management Science, 33(5), pp. 589-609.
• Gruenfeld, D.H., & A.B. Hollingshead 1993. “Sociocognition in Work Groups – The Evolution of Group Integrative Complexity and its Relations to Task-Performance”, Small Group Research, 24(3), pp. 383-405.
• Javadi E., Gebauer J., Novotny, N. L. 2019. “Informational Evaluation & Social Comparison: A Winning Pair for Course Discussion Design”, Information Systems Education Journal,   17 (1), pp. 18-27.
• Harvey, O., J., Hunt, & H.M. Schroder 1961. “Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization”, John Wiley, NY.
• Houck, S. C., Conway, L. G., III, & Gornick, L. J. 2014. “Automated integrative complexity: Current challenges and future directions”, Political Psychology, 35, pp. 647-659.
• Houck, S. C., Conway, L. G. III, Parrow, K., & Luce, A., & Salvati, J. 2018. “An integrative complexity analysis of religious and irreligious thinking”.  Sage Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018796302 

​

​

14

References

• McCroskey J. C., Richmond, V.P., and L. L. McCroskey 2006. “An Introduction to Communication in the Classroom: The Role of Communication in Teaching and Training”, Pearson, Washington, D.C. 2
• McCullough, H., & Conway, L. G., III.  2017. “And the Oscar goes to…” Integrative complexity’s predictive power in the film industry.  Psychology of Aesthetics”, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000149.
• Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. 1991. “A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning”. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), pp. 117-153.
• “Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, 2006 (Rev 01-2008). “The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them”, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2008, available at:http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/pdf/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
• Pace , D. 2017. “The Decoding of the Disciplines”. Indiana University Press.
• Pinsonneault, A., Barki, H., Gallupe, R. B., & Hoppen, N. 1999. “Electronic brainstorming: The illusion of productivity”, Information Systems Research, 10(2), pp. 110-133.
• Satzinger, J. W., Jackson, R. B., & Burd, S. D. 2016. “Systems analysis and design in a changing world”, Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.
• Shopkow L., Diaz A., Middendorf J. , and David Pace 2013. “From Bottlenecks to Epistemology: Changing the Conversation about History in Colleges and Universities”. In Changing the Conversation about Higher Education, ed. Robert J. Thompson, 15-37. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Streufert, S. & RW.Swezey 1986. “Complexity, Managers, and Organizations”, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
• Suedfeld, P., P.E. Tetlock, & S. Streufert 1992. “Conceptual/integrative complexity”. In C.P. J.W. Smith, D.C. Atkinson, C. McClelland & J. Veroff (Eds.), Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis (pp. 393-400), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY.
• Thoemmes, F.J. & L.G. Conway 2007. “Integrative Complexity of 41 US Presidents”, Political Psychology, 28(2): 193-226.
• Wei, W., &Yue, K. 2017. “Concept mapping in computer science education”, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 32(4), pp. 13-20.

​

15

Image Resources

• http://www.internetbillboards.net/2015/12/15/how-to-get-more-from-online-course-discussions/
• http://www.ellenhartson.com/do-you-have-an-agenda/
• http://info.growingyourleaders.com/blog/peer-led-learning-%E2%80%93-the-future
• http://healthymamamagazine.com/teal-tick/

​

​

​

16