Flexible Concept Mapping 3rd CMC Tallinn - Helsinki 22-25 Sept. 2008 Alfredo Tifi Antonietta Lombardi Txomin Villarroel   ...
Which are the (unnecessary) criteria to flexibilize? <ul><ul><li>Propositions must be ternary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>C...
Combining elemental propositions =
Extending propositions < Two chained, but  independent propositions Single extended proposition More meaningful
Generalized definition of  Proposition <ul><li>“ Propositions contain two   or more   concepts connected using linking wor...
Flexibilize propositions to elicit key relationships
Constructing concepts (and relations) <ul><li>I </li></ul><ul><li>Concepts are pre-existing&quot; in the content and can b...
Glossary (temporary) <ul><li>Node : as in a fishing net, it is a confluence point among three or more connections in the s...
Complex content domains: objective: point out key relations How did opium became a forbidden drug in China? Why some poor ...
Complex content domains: objective: point out key relations The reading paths in red are not meaningful
Not all nouns are concepts (concepts need to be constructed)
Flexibilize linking phrases with concepts: why not?
Propositions in a  S O V  (Subject Object Verb) language: the Basque
The Basque is an  agglutinative  language There is one and only one solution: they can make C-maps in any language they wa...
Propositions in a  S O V  (Subject Object Verb) agglutinative language:the Basque
The 'transformation' role of Concept mapping <ul><li>Natural text-content and/or thinking perceived as </li></ul><ul><li>f...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Flexible Concept Mapping

1,627 views

Published on

the why and the how cmaps should be flexiblized

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,627
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • In this presentation I want to talk with you about some reflections, that synthetize the contents of the corresponding paper, &amp;quot;flexible concept mapping&amp;quot;, that everybody can access from the proceedings. The issue of flexible concept mapping was born in the context of mediating learning in my chemistry high school classes, where my wish of introducing concept mapping as a practice to reach a deep understanding of new contents, clashed with the difficulties of students over the problem to face a new set of rules and conventions, that sometimes were perceived as being more difficult to apply than was the understanding of the content to be mapped. In other words, once you have proposed concept maps, if a student keep himself being rote-memorizing, this couldn&apos;t be only a matter of previous habits, but even a consequence of the bewildering caused by an excess of puzzling situations arising from coding well understood ideas into concept maps, as a constraining effect of the demanded C-M rules and conventions. I had many meaningful learner-students that rejected concept mapping too! The usefulness of C maps is even harder to understand for them! So I and Antonietta initiated an analysis of the origins and a research of the reasons of the so called &amp;quot;rules for good concept mapping&amp;quot; and asked ourselves why in primary school there aren&apos;t the same difficulties. We discovered that we are often using several not-written and maybe not-necessary criteria, consciously or not (as the preference for single word linking phrases, the mandatory use of verbs in linking phrases, and the prohibition for nouns, adverbs, prepositions and adversative conjunctions  in liking phrases, and overall the strict use of ternary propositions to form units of meaning).     The basics and unchangeable criteria are the structure based on explicit and inclusive propositions, the search for cross links, the answering to a well posed focus question and, above all the deconstruction and reorganization of the knowledge domain to form a new arrangement that makes the key relations stand out. These are the criteria strictly related to the Ausubel theory of meaningful learning and necessary to the communication and metacognition involved in the mediating pedagogical relation. Once satisfied such general criteria, we can quietly accept the subtitle of this presentation. Finally, thanks to Txomin from Bilbao, we have searched for an application of our more tolerant rules to the Basque agglutinative language, in which the verb goes to the end of a phrase and all the flexions are merged to the noun&apos;s keyword, making it very difficult to use the same concept term as a cross node between two different propositions.  
  • Flexible Concept Mapping

    1. 1. Flexible Concept Mapping 3rd CMC Tallinn - Helsinki 22-25 Sept. 2008 Alfredo Tifi Antonietta Lombardi Txomin Villarroel   presenter: Alfredo Tifi &quot;If a C-map is the result of a mediation process, it is always a good one&quot;
    2. 2. Which are the (unnecessary) criteria to flexibilize? <ul><ul><li>Propositions must be ternary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concept labels shouldn't have more than two or three words  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>a concept cannot be repeated in a concept map </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Single word linking phrases are preferred </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pronouns and nouns should not be part of linking phrases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concepts are forbidden in linking phrases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conjunctions, prepositions and questions are not valid as linking words </li></ul></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Combining elemental propositions =
    4. 4. Extending propositions < Two chained, but  independent propositions Single extended proposition More meaningful
    5. 5. Generalized definition of Proposition <ul><li>“ Propositions contain two or more concepts connected using linking words or phrases to form a meaningful statement ” </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>(Novak & Canas 2008) </li></ul>
    6. 6. Flexibilize propositions to elicit key relationships
    7. 7. Constructing concepts (and relations) <ul><li>I </li></ul><ul><li>Concepts are pre-existing&quot; in the content and can be &quot;picked out&quot; to be put in the Cmap, respecting a rank order. </li></ul>Linking words have  a secondary role, to make propositions sintactically correct. Main relations can  be dispersed or fragmented in a &quot;atomized&quot; structure. II Statements are picked out from the content as chains (extended propositions) reflecting ideas or claims in textual form. Branching is made possible by renouncing to a perfect network structure. However this permits the key relations to stand out someway. III Restructuring of concepts is made by grouping of terms, generalizating, nominalizating and quantificating them, trying to make evident the few essential relations in the content domain.
    8. 8. Glossary (temporary) <ul><li>Node : as in a fishing net, it is a confluence point among three or more connections in the structure. In C-maps, as we know them, both linking phrases and concepts may occupy nodal positions. </li></ul><ul><li>Linking Phrase : one or more words (signs) that specify and complete the relation among two given concepts. </li></ul><ul><li>Relation : is the meaning of a complete proposition that clarify the influence or dependence existing between two concepts. </li></ul><ul><li>The meaning of a concept gets complete in the relation with other concepts. As well as the meaning of a linking phrase, needs the two concepts to be completely defined.  </li></ul>
    9. 9. Complex content domains: objective: point out key relations How did opium became a forbidden drug in China? Why some poor healer women were charged with the guilt for the disease ergotism in Middle Age?
    10. 10. Complex content domains: objective: point out key relations The reading paths in red are not meaningful
    11. 11. Not all nouns are concepts (concepts need to be constructed)
    12. 12. Flexibilize linking phrases with concepts: why not?
    13. 13. Propositions in a S O V (Subject Object Verb) language: the Basque
    14. 14. The Basque is an agglutinative language There is one and only one solution: they can make C-maps in any language they want, but not in the Basque one .
    15. 15. Propositions in a S O V (Subject Object Verb) agglutinative language:the Basque
    16. 16. The 'transformation' role of Concept mapping <ul><li>Natural text-content and/or thinking perceived as </li></ul><ul><li>fragmented and unranked </li></ul>Dynamic and flexible concept  mapping (at different levels) <ul><li>Evolved cognition, useful to perform in natural language: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognition of key concepts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ranking of concepts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Narrative sequences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ordered descriptions and classifications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognition of relations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Answer to focus questions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generalization to new highly inclusive concepts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Synthesis as creative abstraction of a few and relevant key relations </li></ul></ul>

    ×