Concept Maps: An Instructional Tool to Facilitate Meaningful Learning

Year 2012, , 55 - 64, 15.01.2012

Muhammad Safdar Azhar Hussain İqbal Shah Qudsia Rifat

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.1.1.55

Abstract

This paper describes the procedure of developing an instructional tool, ‘concept mapping’ and its effectiveness in making the material meaningful to the students. In Pakistan, the traditional way of teaching science subjects at all levels at school relies heavily on memorization. The up-to-date data obtained from qualitative and quantitative research strongly supports the value of concept mapping as an instructional tool both for cognitive and affective gains. This study seeks to contribute to this development by considering how the insights of Ausubel can be converted into an effective and efficient instructional method. It was found that concept maps help improving achievement of the students and make learning more meaningful so that retrieval is possible.

Keywords

Concept maps, meaningful learning, teaching science

References

• Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grane and Stratton. Ausubel, D P. (1966). Meaningful Reception Learning and Acquisition of Concepts in Analysis of Concept Learning. New York: Academic Press.
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives--The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: David Mc Kay
• Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., and Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: John Wiley.
• Collettee A. T. & Chiappetta E. L. (1989). Science Instruction in the Middle and Secondary Schools (6th ed). Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.
• Cross, A. (1992). Pictorial concept maps-putting us in the picture. Primary Science Review, 21, 26-28. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist. Milton Keynes: U.K opens University Press.
• Ebenezer, J. V. & Connor, S. (1998). Learning to teach science: A model for the 21st Century. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK).
• Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching; a changing response to a changing demand. Journal of Chemistry Education, 70(9), 701-05.
• Kilshaw, M. (1990). Using concept maps. Primary Science Review. 12, 34-36.
• Lambiotte and Dansereau (1991). Concept Mapping: a learning theory-based instructional tool: specif- ic uses of concept mapping in science education, [e-mail] (June 08, 1996)
• Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Novak, J. D. (1991). Clarify with concept maps. The science teacher. 45- 49.
• Osborne, C. (1986). International Year Book of Educational and Instructional Technology. Kogan Page / eichols.
• Pines, A. L. (1985). Towards a taxonomy of conceptual relations and the implications for the evaluation of cognitive structures. In L.H.T.West & A.L. Pines (Eds.), cognitive structure and conceptual change. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. 101-116.
• Safdar, M. (2010). A comparative study of Ausubelian and Traditional methods of teaching physics at secondary school level in Pakistan. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. Islamabad. National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad. pp. 66-70.