Concept Mapping in Problem Based Learning
Concept Mapping in Problem Based Learning
Concept Mapping in Problem Based Learning
Abstract: Problem Based Learning (PBL) and Concept Mapping (CM) have parallel purposes,
both based on a constructivist view of learning. In a Faculty of Medicine, PBL and CM have been
applied together as the main learning modes. This provided an opportunity to test several
hypotheses about the interaction of CM and PBL. Among them were: (i) Students using CMs for
their study and revision would perform better on their assessment tasks, than those who did not.
This was supported, but not strongly. (ii) Students with good maps would do better than those
with poor maps. This was not supported. Many students with apparently poor maps treated
them as a sufficient set of keys to unlock very large databases and these students did well. Other
students with poor maps confessed to having a tenuous grip on their work and this accounted
for the quality of their maps. This raises problems about using maps for assessment purposes. It
may be that maps should be treated as very personal learning tools for the writers eyes only,
analogous to a personal diary which could be easily misunderstood by a reader. [Chem. Educ. Res.
Pract., 2006, 7 (2), 84-95]
Introduction
One important strand in the research at the Centre for Science Education has been to use an
Information Processing Model to explore how students lay down information in Long Term
Memory in a readily retrievable and useable form. Problem Based Learning is one method used
to facilitate this.
The term Problem Based Learning (PBL) has recently been appearing in Science Education
circles, in conferences and in the literature (Overton,, 2001; Belt et al., 2002). Even in casual
conversation the title PBL is being applied to what used to be called tutorials, problem solving
workshops and group exercises, and indeed they all involve some measure of PBL. Exercises in
chemistry designed to promote discussion and group problem solving have been around for a
long time (Percival, 1976, Johnstone, 1982, Wood, 1993, Schwartz et al., 1994). These have
tended to be addenda to a more conventional mode of teaching through lectures.
However, the use of PBL as the main medium for learning in a discipline, or cluster of
cognate disciplines, has been addressed by some of our medical colleagues. This is not a new
phenomenon and medical schools across the world have embraced PBL as their medium for
facilitating undergraduate learning (Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980; Schmidt, 1983; Barrows, 1986;
General Medical Council, 1993).
The substance of this paper arises from experiences with PBL in the medical school in the
University of Glasgow. Each university has its own version of PBL, but the common factors are
to facilitate students self-learning (as opposed to a didactic teaching and learning mode) and to
encourage learning in context. In Glasgow the learning takes place through a series of real-life
scenarios in which the students learn the various strands of medicine (chemistry, biochemistry,
anatomy, physiology, etc) in context. There is no formal teaching of these separate disciplines.
Each topic, each concept, each discipline is met many times and from different angles and with
increasing complexity. Gradually paper scenarios give way to clinical incidents as the students
progress. The overall aim is to facilitate integrated learning within concepts and between
concepts. The earliest scenarios draw upon the students pre-university knowledge and
understanding providing points of attachment for new learning in Long Term Memory (LTM). As
the knowledge and understanding base grows the frequent revisitation with more complex ideas
allows a flexible network of ideas to be established. One of the basic tools in this learning process
is the Concept Map. Students are encouraged to use the maps for three related purposes: to plan
their work, to make explicit their own mental network and to prepare materials for later formal
assessment. The maps are not themselves assessed, but they are aids for revision and inter-linking
of knowledge. Concept mapping is associated with the work of Buzan (Buzan, 1974) and later
with Novak and Gowin (Novak and Gowin, 1984). The suggested structure was to place a key
concept (or node) in the middle of a page and surround this with closely related concepts (or
nodes) linked by lines and some words to link them. The process was repeated with each of the
new nodes and so on until a picture of the knowledge and understanding structure was revealed.
Such maps have been used in a range of learning processes such as planning, study, note taking,
revision, problem solving and even for assessment.
Problem Based Learning and Concept Mapping can be seen as complementary (Table 1).
Table 1. The complementary nature of
Problem Based Learning
concept mapping and problem based learning.
Concept Mapping
Activate prior knowledge
Concept maps offer a method PBL activates prior
of visualising prior
knowledge by its application
knowledge in the form of
during the brainstorming
broad concepts and attaching
session. This process also
the specifics of new
highlights gaps in knowledge.
information.
Information supplied in the
The use of a real life problem PBL uses real life scenarios
frame of a real problem
to form the first node of the
for two reasons: to tie new
map promotes the integration information to the likely cues
of academic and social data
for recall and to increase
student interest by showing
the relevance of new
information to their work.
Elaboration on prior
Concept maps provide a
The focus of PBL is the
knowledge
structure on which new
elaboration of prior
information may be
knowledge. The students
assembled. The visualisation
begin the process with what
of this process allows its
they already know. They then
thoughtful integration into the generate questions based on
students expanding database. what they need to know to
understand the scenario.
To complete this scene-setting introduction, we need to look at a typical week in the life of a
PBL student.
Monday: PBL (2 hours). A group of eight students work with a facilitator. The first hour is
devoted to discussion of the outcomes of the previous Thursdays tasks. The second hour is for
the introduction and analysis of a new scenario and, during a brainstorming session; students
prepare a communal concept map, showing what they already know about the problems exposed
in the scenario, and setting out what they need to know to tackle the problem fully.
Tuesday and Wednesday: Students work independently on the tasks arising from Monday,
consulting books, computer data, research papers and any sources which might help them to meet
the problem set out in the scenario. There are also laboratory sessions and workshops available,
which are relevant to the problem.
Thursday: PBL (2 hours) as for Monday.
Friday and weekend: as for Tuesday and Wednesday.
Occasionally (not weekly) there is a lecture to integrate the work of the previous scenarios or
to prepare the context for forthcoming scenarios. Almost half of the week is earmarked for private
study, library work and report writing.
The facilitator (a member of staff drawn from medicine or science, trained to ask questions
rather than provide answers) meets with the group of eight students. One student is appointed as
chairperson and another as scribe. These posts are regularly rotated round the group. Each
student is presented with the scenario on about half a page of A4. This consists of a description of
a situation, part of which might be familiar from previous work. The facilitator explains any
unfamiliar terms and then the students, under the chairperson, have to decide on the main issues
about which they need knowledge. The scribe records the ideas on a board in the form of a
Concept Map to show linkages between the issues and to arrive at an agreed analysis of the
problems. The facilitator can help with emphases on main concerns and deflect students from
pursuing unprofitable lines. The students are then left with about six issues to be pursued. At the
next PBL session students report back to communicate their findings, compare and resolve any
conflicts and report on their information sources.
They are encouraged to produce their own Concept Map of the completed scenario and use it
for further study, but this is an optional extra.
An evaluation study of the outcomes of the PBL in Glasgow was reported elsewhere (Mackenzie
et al. 2003). This study ran alongside that of Mackenzie and her colleagues.
The Experiment
For administrative purposes the students in the first year PBL class were randomly assigned
to one of three groups - A, B and C. Our experimental group (C) consisted of 82 students while
the control was made up of groups A and B, totalling 160. The main thrust of the research was to
observe students at work in a PBL situation in which they were encouraged to use concept
mapping as a learning tool (Group C), but as this proceeded, several underlying behaviours
appeared which will form the basis of this paper.
The initial research hypotheses were:
(i) Students who individually used concept mapping for study, planning and revision would
have, on average, better scores in the battery of conventional assessment tests than those
who used only the group concept map arising from each scenario.
(ii) As student knowledge and understanding increased, the maps for successive scenarios
would contain more nodes and the inter-linkages would increase in number.
(iii)Students with the fullest (most complete) maps would be those who did best in their final
assessment.
Group C students were given instruction in how to construct and use concept maps and they
were strongly urged (but not obliged) to use them throughout their studies.
For each scenario, each student in group C was given four sheets stapled together. The top
sheet contained the instructions for the experiment (Figure 1), while the other three blank sheets
were non-carbon reproduction paper (NCR), a white, a yellow and a pink for ease of
administration.
At the end of each scenario, before they had consulted books or any other resources, the
students were asked to make a map of their present understanding of the scenario. This copied
through all three sheets. The bottom pink sheet was detached, placed in an envelope and returned
to the researchers.
After the students had consulted literature and other sources, they were asked to elaborate or
change their original map. This copied through both remaining sheets. The yellow sheet was
detached and returned to the researchers. The students retained the white NCR sheet as part of
their personal notes. They could elaborate this further as they progressed through other scenarios
and noticed linkages between scenarios when the same concepts were revisited.
Figure 1. Instructions for the conduct of the experiment to yield concept maps for each scenario
When you have finished answering your questions, put away your notes and books and follow
these instructions.
Turn the paper to landscape position and put your name and number in the top right hand corner.
Reread the scenario.
Use the name of the patient as the central node.
Expand the central node in concept map fashion.
Expansion should be done one level at a time.
Use all your previous knowledge (from primary school to last week) to explain the scenario.
Try to limit the concept nodes to a couple of words and/or symbols; but this is your map, and so
represent the ideas as you choose. If a list or a graph appeals to you, use it.
When your map is complete, tear off the bottom pink page and return it in the envelope
provided.
_____________
Now use your notes and books to make any additions or corrections to your map.
When you have finished, tear off the bottom yellow page and return it in the envelope provided.
_____________
The remaining map on the white page should be kept and added to your notes for this scenario.
After the students had consulted literature and other sources, they were
asked to elaborate or change their original map. This copied through both
remaining sheets. The yellow sheet was detached and returned to the
researchers. The students retained the white NCR sheet as part of their
personal notes. They could elaborate this further as they progressed through
other scenarios and noticed linkages between scenarios when the same
concepts were revisited.
Results
1. Concept map returns
The total number of maps returned from ten scenarios was 546 pairs out of a possible 820
pairs. The commonest reason for the incomplete return was that some students used felt-tipped
pens, which did not copy through to the lower sheets. Others used ball-point for some part of the
maps and coloured felt-tipped pens for other parts. Students sent apologies, but did not make time
to redraw the maps. Some students returned one sheet, but not the other, pleading forgetfulness.
Only a very few students were completely uncooperative.
2. Analysis of maps
These were scored by nodes, layers and linkages as suggested by Novak and Gowin (Novak
and Gowin, 1984).
Nodes were concepts, ideas, sketches, graphs. The central node was the name of the main
character in the scenario. The layer of nodes linked directly to the central node was layer 1. The
next array of nodes linked directly to nodes in layer 1, were layer 2 nodes and so on. A rich map
would contain many nodes validly linked to nodes in inner layers. There was a wide
variation in the number of nodes appearing in maps based on the same
scenario (table 2), and exemplified in the two maps shown in the Appendix.