Talk:Concept map/Archives/2013

Support
Support for the superiority of mind maps (only myth) http://www.mind-map.com/EN/index.html 1% mind useage myth

Buzan (1991) Split cortical skills myth (right=creativity, Left=maths etc)

Support for the use of concept maps http://www.columbia.k12.mo.us/she/cncptmap.html Cheers


 * I see the theory of, examples,  but unclear where the empirical support for is at this extensive site. I'd like to see a persuasive argument under "empirical evidence." Until the, I remain dubious about these. I am sure they are useful on occasion, but I don't understand their popularity in teaching. They can be misleading when they are obviously wrong and self evident in other cases... Eperotao 19:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, saying that mind mapping is superior to concept mapping, or vi subversa, is like saying that an orange is superior to a banana ;-) quercus robur 21:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

hello, i think a link to the 3d concept mapping tool - Nelements ( http://nelements.net ) should also be added to this page.

NPOV
First para needs a NPOV edit- it currently reads; ''Concept mapping is a technique to visualize the relations between concepts. A concept map is a diagram showing the relationships between concepts. Concepts, like "tree" or "plant", are connected with labelled arrows, for example ("is-a", "related-to" or "part of"). In contrast with Mind Mapping, which is restricted to radial hierarchies and webs (tree structures) and uses mind myths to market the product, concept maps allow any kind of connections between the concepts (true flexible graph structure) and are supported by solid scientific research. The addition of labeled and flexible links (attached during or after construction) has been found to significantly improve the level of meaningful learning and communication of the concept mapper.'' quercus robur 12:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've now removed the POV stuff, so have taken the tag off as well. quercus robur 12:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put the concept map within the context of cognitive map (cognition). I believe the concept map subsumes the cognitive map, albeit with a more practical purpose. All up for discussion though. D.Right 04:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Novak book
In the section "Empirical evidence", the book "Learning to learn" is mentioned. A quick search on amazon reveals the title of the book is really "Learning how to learn". --24.202.172.138 22:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC) [Pascal D.]

Links to software
I think that all the links to external software should be moved to list of concept mapping software to prevent redundancy, and confusion. Also I think it might be a good idea to merge this will the list of mind mapping programs. Alexwright 11:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Freely available software
Please correct this to be more English and include. Thank you.

Freely available software
There are several good freely available pieces of software that allow the creation of concept maps.
 * Belvedere. Observation: InstallAnywhere installer, which won't work on every GNU/Linux distribution; relation line overlap relation label; no Y-like relation.
 * CmapTools is a multiplatform freeware. Observation: InstallAnywhere installer, which won't work on every GNU/Linux distribution.
 * Compendium is a freeware concept mapper with database backend, written in Java. Observation: Icons and labels instead concept labels; no Y-like relation.
 * Conzilla is a GNU GPL-licenced concept mapper written in Java. Observation: lack of typical shapes for concept maps.
 * DeepaMehta. Observation: Icons and labels instead concept labels; relation line overlap relation label.
 * Dia is a general purpose diagramming software, but can be used to create, for example, CmapTools-like maps: Objects sheet -> Other sheets -> Flowchart -> Box; for concept change box propierts for rounded apexes, for relation change box propierts for white line and 0 width text margin; concept and relation boxes connect by stardard lines.
 * jSKImapper. Observation: Code last updated in 1999.
 * Visual Understanding Environment (VUE) is a desktop concept mapping tool developed under a grant from the Mellon Foundation. Written in Java, it runs on a variety of platforms. Observation: no Y-like relation.

Linkfarm
The lists of external links to software sites (Concept mapping software, Freely available software, & Proprietary software) should be removed per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. -- Ronz 19:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up by removing the following poor external links:
 * As it says, it's in Italian: *Italian Site on the Concept Mapping use in the school, by Marco Guastavigna
 * Despite being hosted on a university domain, this is poorly-organized site in poor English. It does not seem a worthy reference source for this Wikipedia article: *Concept Mapping Website
 * A page noted in its own heading as obsolete and unmodified since 1997: *Concept Mapping Homepage by Jan Lanzing
 * Commercial software promotion: * Free Concept Mapping Resources to help teachers introduce young children to the ideas of Concept Mapping.
 * Argey 09:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy?
Not sure they have to be hierarchical in nature. In fact I'd suggest that by their very nature they should not be organised in that fashion, as it supports just the kind of linearity of thinking that they try to get away from.
 * Broadly I'd agree, but a concept map is always about something and that's usually at the top and is broken down into associated or component concepts with linking phrases. After that it often gets more loose.  However, Novak himself says "Another characteristic of concept maps is that the concepts are represented in a hierarchical fashion with the most inclusive, most general concepts at the top of the map and the more specific, less general concepts arranged hierarchically below." but he goes on to say "Another important characteristic of concept maps is the inclusion of cross-links" (The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them, Novak & Cañas), showing that he did not expect to find a pure tree structure in a concept map.
 * Argey 10:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"References"
After just removing two references with the same author added as the sole contribution by an ip, I think the references section needs a cleanup. Any references added without a corresponding edits by the same editor should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Contrast with mind mapping
It seems to me that the following paragraph does not contribute to the issue of 'Contrast with mind mapping' and should be moved elsewhere in the article.

 There is research evidence that knowledge is stored in the brain in the form of productions that act on declarative memory content which is also referred to as chunks or propositions [4][5]. Because concept maps are constructed to reflect the organization of the declarative memory system, they facilitate sense-making and meaningful learning on the part of individuals who make concept maps and those who use them.

--Klimov (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Further reading section removed
I removed the following further reading section. Wikipedia is not a library catalogue. Listing like this are unacceptable. A selelection should have been made of 5 or 10 items. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Invented by whom?
If concept maps were "invented by" Novak, why is there a book called "Conceptual Structures" by J.F. Sowa, which describes concept maps? The Publication date is 1983. Who claims the "invented by"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.23.77 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For more background, you can refer to this paper which gives the background and states: "Concept maps were developed in 1972 in the course of Novak’s research program at Cornell where he sought to follow and understand changes in children’s knowledge of science (Novak & Musonda, 1991)." Argey (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Excised
[this is sooo boring I mean I need help with homework but this website does not have the answer!!!! I'm sooo mad]]:

You have my sympathy, it doesn't give me the reference I was after, either. But the start of an article isn't the best page to vent your frustration. 81.187.202.205 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)