Deep Foundations of Concept Mapping (pdf)

2,910 views
2,707 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,910
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
91
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Deep Foundations of Concept Mapping (pdf)

  1. 1. Information structures: the essential deep foundation of concept mapping Argument mapping Info-structure mapping Syntactic mapping Association mapping Grammar mapping (pseudo) Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://lawriehunter.com
  2. 2. No need to take notes (:^0) All materials can be downloaded from Hunter’s websites http://lawriehunter/ http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/ or http://slideshare.net/rolenzo/
  3. 3. Wordle for today wordle.net
  4. 4. Mapping: abstract ideals vs. doable realities Keywords: mapping, concept mapping, structures
  5. 5. language < information important
  6. 6. English < information important
  7. 7. English < information important
  8. 8. Uses of mapping uses of mapping mindless witting
  9. 9. Uses of mapping uses of mapping mindless witting principles of map use?
  10. 10. Uses of mapping uses of mapping witting Information principles of types map use? Language patterns
  11. 11. Part 1: the main styles of mapping Part 2: matching mapping styles to instructional purposes (1) Novakian mapping, using Cmap tools (2) Hunter's infostructure mapping, using PowerPoint. Part 3: deciding mode: electronic vs. hand made Part 4: using mapping to push the learner to the use of specific language forms and patterns
  12. 12. Part 1: the main styles of mapping Grammar maps (not maps) Association maps Syntactic maps Information structure maps Argument maps Rhetorical structure maps
  13. 13. Part 1: the main styles of mapping Grammar maps (not maps) Argument mapping Association maps Info-structure mapping Syntactic maps Syntactic mapping Information structure maps Argument maps Association mapping Rhetorical structure maps Grammar mapping (pseudo)
  14. 14. Functions of ‘concept maps’ made with CmapTools
  15. 15. Wealth of tools: the age of GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS http://www.visual-literacy.org/periodic_table/periodic_table.html
  16. 16. Wealth of tools: the age of GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS http://www.eduplace.com/graphicorganizer/
  17. 17. Distinguishing maps: Levels of abstraction Argument mapping Info-structure mapping Syntactic mapping Association mapping Grammar mapping (pseudo) Figure: quantum levels of abstraction. From Hunter (2007)
  18. 18. Mind mapping The links are all lines. The links are all associations.
  19. 19. What are associations? Example: we associate with eating. We associate A with B. What do you associate with ? What do you associate with ?
  20. 20. Let’s make a mind map! What do you associate with ? A baseball reminds me of _______.
  21. 21. Get a free account from http://www.mindmeister.com/ Make maps like this, online.
  22. 22. Horn’s argument mapping http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/index.html http://www.macrovu.com/
  23. 23. AusThink argument mapping http://www.austhink.com/
  24. 24. Rationale argument mapping http://www.austhink.com/
  25. 25. RST mapping Bill Mann’s Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) uses various sorts of "building blocks" to describe texts. The principal block type deals with "nuclearity" and "relations" (often called coherence relations in the linguistic literature.) www.sil.org/~mannb/rst/ RST links are rhetorical devices.
  26. 26. Beyond assocation: Novakian “The basic Novakian concept map... usually starts with a general concept at the top of the map, and then works its way down ... to more specific concepts. Concepts are placed in [boxes]... Lines are drawn from a concept to a linking word to a concept. Sequences of concepts and linking words do not always form grammatically correct sentences.” Abrams, R. An Overview of Concept Mapping. In Meaningful Learning: A Collaborative Literature Review of Concept Mapping. Retrieved March 18, 2008 at http://www2.ucsc.edu/mlrg/clr-conceptmapping.html
  27. 27. Default Novakian: Cmaps http://cmap.ihmc.us/
  28. 28. Novakian maps (Novak & Cañas, 2006) can be used at any level of abstraction. Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping Figure: quantum levels of abstraction. From Hunter (2007)
  29. 29. Hunter’s ISmaps have graphical links ISmaps ISmaps correspond to information structure elements syntactic semantic transcend mapping mapping pragmatic barriers pragmatics’ miniworld < broad ISmaps’ range
  30. 30. Hunter’s ISmaps* Description Classification Degree Attribute comparison comparison < big Contrast ! Sequence Cause-effect *information structure maps
  31. 31. Hunter’s ISmaps* DESCRIPTION My friend Canadian 57 English teacher
  32. 32. Hunter’s ISmaps* CLASSIFICATION Cars station sedans coupes wagons
  33. 33. Hunter’s ISmaps* COMPARISON (relative) Calcutta < Tokyo big old
  34. 34. Hunter’s ISmaps* COMPARISON (by attribute) new 3 years old M’s car K’s car white red
  35. 35. Hunter’s ISmaps* SEQUENCE find a put in your follow the bank bank card directions machine
  36. 36. Hunter’s ISmaps* SEQUENCE structure signals First Then and find a put in your follow the bank bank card directions machine
  37. 37. Hunter’s ISmaps* SEQUENCE First Then and toast two tear slice a slices of some tomato bread lettuce
  38. 38. Hunter’s ISmaps* CAUSE-EFFECT heavy bus was I...late rain cancelled for school
  39. 39. Use the ISmap links to map text. Description Classification Degree Attribute comparison comparison < big Contrast ! Sequence Cause-effect
  40. 40. Power generating systems General Boil a Make Rotate Generate process: liquid steam turbines electricity seawater fossil or heat boil boil N-heat NH3 ! H2O OTEC older type steam steam plants 20C ! 500C plants low high power ! power zero high energy cost energy cost hunter systems
  41. 41. Comparison of Novakian and information structure mapping Novakian mapping, Hunter's ISmapping, using Cmap tools, vs. using PowerPoint a free and very usable software or other graphical software. with web sharing built in. Make a Cmap and an ISmap of this text: Yon sama, a Korean actor, is younger and more handsome than Tokoro Joji, a Japanese TV personality.
  42. 42. an ISmap of the text: actor TV personality Korean Japanese Tokoro Yon sama Joji > young handsome huntersystems
  43. 43. a Cmap of the text:
  44. 44. Part 2: matching mapping styles to instructional purposes Representations of the information structures underlying the witting use of maps: Writers work with Rhetorical structure Argument structure Information structure Text structure Paragraph structure Sentence structure
  45. 45. Part 2: matching mapping styles to instructional purposes Representations of the information structures underlying the witting use of maps: Writers work with Mappers make Rhetorical structure Rhetorical structure maps Argument structure Argument maps Information structure Information structure maps Text structure mystery Association maps Paragraph structure zone Syntactic maps Sentence structure Grammar maps (not maps)
  46. 46. Mapping decision matrix Software vs. tangibles Training ________________________ Mapping type Training Constraint -extensive contained warmups -for Teacher's observation -L's need support? -L's need constraint? -for peer commenting -look quickly at shapes only -look carefully at node content and links
  47. 47. Mapping decision matrix Software vs. tangibles Training mind maps Mapping type relation maps ________________________ Constraint structure maps Mapping type -mind maps -relation maps (Novakian) -structure maps
  48. 48. Mapping decision matrix Software vs. tangibles Training mind maps Mapping type relation maps ________________________ Constraint structure maps Mapping type 1. Mind maps -for amassing 'thoughts' -relations only by association -for rearranging, clustering, prioritizing (software good for this)
  49. 49. Mapping decision matrix Software vs. tangibles Training mind maps ________________________ Mapping type relation maps Mapping type Constraint structure maps 2. Relation maps (Novakian maps) -for relating concepts in articulately related pairs -CMC debate going on now:declarative reading or not?
  50. 50. Mapping decision matrix Software vs. tangibles Training mind maps ________________________ Mapping type relation maps Mapping type Constraint structure maps 3. Structure maps (e.g. ISmaps) -for representation of syntactic structures at the level of -sentence -paragraph -short technical summary articles -not necessarily one unified map -background information may be -a separate map -a layer (font color, sidebar, etc.) -persuasion may be 'picture frames' or title bars or submaps
  51. 51. Mapping decision matrix Software vs. tangibles Training mind maps ________________________ Mapping type relation maps Mapping type Constraint structure maps 3. Structure maps (e.g. ISmaps) -for representation of syntactic structures at the level of -sentence -paragraph -short technical summary articles -not necessarily one unified map -background information may be -a separate map -a layer (font color, sidebar, etc.) -persuasion may be 'picture frames' or title bars or submaps
  52. 52. Mapping decision matrix Software vs. tangibles Training ________________________ Mapping type structural Constraint Constraint rhetorical relational 1. Architectural constraint - by size - by content 2. Rhetorical constraint -by rhetorical device limitations 3. Relational constraint -by Novakianism
  53. 53. Part 3: Software vs. tangibles Training deciding mode: Mapping type electronic vs. hand made Constraint Software vs. tangibles -tangibles first -because quick -to encourage revisions (paper is cheap) -software for presentation, sharing, editing, beauty
  54. 54. Part 4: using mapping to push the learner to the use of specific language forms and patterns Using four types of task constraint which reduce to easily manageable task design elements: architectural constraint (number of nodes, etc.) rhetorical constraint (type of links) relational constraint (nature of links) degree of abstraction (rhetorical distance) (not today)
  55. 55. Pushing the learner Software vs. tangibles Training ________________________ Mapping type architectural Constraint Constraint rhetorical relational 1. Architectural constraint - by size (number of nodes) - by content (e.g. only noun phrases)
  56. 56. Pushing the learner Software vs. tangibles Training ________________________ Mapping type architectural Constraint Constraint rhetorical relational 2. Rhetorical constraint -by rhetorical device limitations -e.g. in a rhetorical structure map, only allow argument moves as link content
  57. 57. Pushing the learner Software vs. tangibles Training ________________________ Mapping type architectural Constraint Constraint rhetorical relational 3. Relational constraint: -by Novakianism i.e. restrict linking phrase content e.g. only verbs e.g. only action verbs e.g. only information structure signals (classification, comparison, sequence, cause-effect)
  58. 58. Hunter’s framework Key content Background Persuasion Rhetorical structure Information organization Information structures
  59. 59. Hunter’s framework Key content Background Persuasion Rhetorical structure Information organization Information structures
  60. 60. Thank you for your kind attention, and thank you in advance for your feedback and suggestions. Lawrie Hunter downloads from http://lawriehunter.com view and download at http://slideshare.net/rolenzo
  61. 61. Information structures: The essential deep foundation of concept mapping Abstract ideals vs. do-able realities Selected domain for this paper: mapping/concept mapping/argument mapping Concept mapping and concept mapping software have taken solid hold in many realms of education in many countries, primarily for use in representing learner and instructor perceptions of the interrelations between concepts. However, it is not so easy to design effective and motivating mapping tasks, or to choose the appropriate type of mapping for a task/project/curriculum. This paper sets out a set of conceptual tools for the witting use of mapping in curriculum and materials design. These central questions are addressed: (1) Which kind of mapping to use for different instructional purposes; (2) When to do mapping electronically and when by hand; and (3) How to create curriculum and materials that go beyond "I do mapping in my class" to lead the learner to the use of the specific language forms and patterns appropriate to each type of information. This paper identifies mapping types and information structures underlying the witting use of maps: rhetorical structure, text structure, paragraph structure and sentence structure. Without incorporating these structures in the framing of task design, the instructor/designer will not be able to control the form of learner output. This is followed by an analysis of the information-related character of two salient styles of mapping: (1) Novakian mapping, which is the most commonly used mapping in science education today; and (2) Hunter's infostructure mapping, which is a very limited (and thus effective) mapping style for second language learning technical-oriented tasks. The conclusion includes a description of four types of task constraint which the author has developed for mapping in the teaching of entry and upper advanced EFL technical writing. These constraint types, which reduce to easily manageable task design elements, are: map size; allowable links; rhetorical devices; and degree of abstraction. Biodata: Lawrie Hunter is a professor at Kochi University of Technology. His infostructure maps provide the underlying structure of "Critical Thinking" (Greene & Hunter, Asahi Press 2002) and "Thinking in English" (Hunter, Cengage 2008). http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/
  62. 62. The age of GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS Suggested Reading About Visual Thinking and Learning Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Buzan, T. & Buzan, B. (1993). The mind map book: How to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain's untapped potential. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc. Buzan, T. (1983). Use both sides of your brain: New techniques to help you read efficiently, study effectively, solve problems, remember more, think clearly. New York: E.P. Dutton. Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press. Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept map® as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. http://www.inspiration.com/Parents/Visual-Thinking-and-Learning

×