A Qualitative Analysis of Student-constructed Concept Maps in a
Foundational Undergraduate Engineering Course
Ning Fang
Department of Engineering Education, Utah State University, Logan, UT, U.S.A.
Keywords: Concept Maps, Qualitative Analysis, Learning Purposes, Undergraduate Engineering Course.
Abstract: This work-in-progress report (Position Paper) presents a qualitative analysis of student-constructed concept
maps in engineering dynamics – a high-enrollment, high-impact, foundational undergraduate engineering
course. Using a computer software program called IHMC Cmap Tools, the students who participated in the
present study constructed their own concept maps to demonstrate their understanding of a variety of
concepts they had learned. The present study investigates students’ purposes when they construct their own
concept maps to learn. The results show that students construct their concept maps for five primary
purposes: to describe the relationships among relevant concepts, to connect important equations, to illustrate
the evolution of concepts, to incorporate figures into concept maps, and to integrate problem-solving
procedures into concepts. These research findings help develop a better understanding of how students
learn, and therefore may help instructors develop or adopt the most appropriate instructional strategies to
improve student learning outcomes.
1 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. National Research Council report “How
People Learn” (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking,
2000) emphasizes that “to develop competence in an
area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep
foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand
facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual
framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that
facilitate retrieval and application.” To meet these
requirements, a variety of innovative and active
teaching and learning strategies, such as problem-
based learning, project-based learning, collaborative
learning, and cooperative learning have been
developed and implemented in various educational
settings.
Concept mapping is a graphical tool for
knowledge organization, representation, and
elicitation (Atapattu, Falkner, and Falkner, 2014;
Castles and Lohani, 2010; Novak, 1984). It has been
proven effective in helping students develop a better
understanding of various concepts (Darmofal,
Soderhoml, and Brodeur, 2002; Ellis, Rudnitsky,
and Silverstein, 2004; Horton, McConney, Gallo,
Woods, Senn, and Hamelin, 1993; Moore, Pierce,
and Williams, 2012; Nesbit and Adesope, 2006;
Sedig, Rowhani, and Liang, 2005).
For example, Nesbit and Adesope (2006)
conducted a meta-analysis of 55 experimental and
quasi-experimental studies on concept mapping,
involving 5,818 students from Grade 4 to
postsecondary in science, psychology, statistics, and
nursing. They found that in comparison with
traditional learning activities (e.g. reading text
documents and participating in class discussions),
concept mapping engaged students more in the
learning process, and was more effective in
achieving knowledge retention and transfer.
Engineering dynamics is a high-enrollment, high-
impact, foundational undergraduate engineering
course that nearly all students in mechanical,
aerospace, civil, environmental, biological, and
biomedical engineering programs are required to
take. This sophomore-level foundational course
covers a broad spectrum of foundational concepts,
such as force, velocity, acceleration, work, energy,
impulse, momentum, and vibration (Bedford and
Fowler, 2009; Beer, Johnston, Clausen, Eisenberg,
and Cornwell, 2009; Hibbeler, 2012). Many
dynamics principles and laws (also called concepts),
such as the Principle of Work and Energy and the
Principle of Linear Impulse and Momentum, are
built upon these foundational concepts.
However, dynamics is widely regarded as one of
the most difficult courses to succeed in. Many
181
Fang N..
A Qualitative Analysis of Student-constructed Concept Maps in a Foundational Undergraduate Engineering Course.
DOI: 10.5220/0005363501810186
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 181-186
ISBN: 978-989-758-108-3
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
students lack a solid understanding of dynamics
concepts; thus they perform poorly in this course
(Gray, Costanzo, Evans, Cornwell, Self, and Lane,
2005). It is reported that on the standard
Fundamentals of Engineering examination in the
U.S. in 2009, the national average score on the
dynamics portion was only 53% (Barrett, LeFevre,
Steadman, Tietjen, White, and Whitman, 2010).
In this study, concept mapping was employed to
help students develop a better understanding of
foundational concepts in engineering dynamics. To
promote active learning, students (rather than the
instructor) constructed their own concept maps after
they had learned relevant concepts.
Prior to this study, extensive literature review
was performed using a variety of popular databases
such as the Education Resources Information Center,
Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation
Index, Engineering Citation Index, Academic Search
Premier, and the American Society of Engineering
Education (ASEE) annual conference proceedings
(1995-2014). The Proceedings of the International
Conference on Computer Supported Education were
also examined. The results show that the vast
majority of relevant literature focuses on the
importance and effectiveness of concept maps (e.g.,
Ellis et al., 2004; Nesbit and Adesope, 2006),
instructor- or expert-developed concept maps (e.g.,
Darmofal et al., 2012; Moore et al., 2012), and the
scoring and evaluation of concept maps (e.g.,
Besterfield-Sacre, Gerchak, Lyons, Shuman, and
Wolfe, 2004; Richard, Defranco, and Jablokow,
2014; Stoddart, Abrams, Gasper, and Canaday,
2000; Walker and King, 2003).
The present study investigates students’ purposes
when they construct their own concept maps to
learn. The research findings from the present study
help develop a better understanding of how students
learn, and therefore help instructors develop or adopt
the most appropriate instructional strategies to
improve student learning outcomes.
In the remaining sections of the paper, a
computer software program that students employed
to construct their own concept maps is briefly
introduced. Then, the research question and the data
collection method are described, followed by the
description of representative results as well as
discussions. Next, a limitation of the present study
is presented. Finally, conclusions are made at the
end of this paper.
2 COMPUTER SOFTWARE
PROGRAM THAT STUDENTS
EMPLOYED TO CONSTRUCT
THEIR CONCEPT MAPS
The students who participated in the present study
employed a free computer software program called
IHMC Cmap Tools (downloaded at
http://cmap.ihmc.us). With a user-friendly interface,
this computer software program is specially
developed for constructing concept maps (Novak
and Cañas, 2008). In general, students can self-teach
themselves how to use this computer software
program within 10-30 minutes. Figure 1 shows the
user interface of this computer software program.
Students can edit and modify their concept maps
very easily.
Figure 1: The user interface of IHMC Cmap Tools.
3 RESARCH QUESTION AND
DATA COLLECTION
The research question of the present study is: For
what purposes did students construct their own
concept maps to learn?
A total of 71 undergraduate students who
recently took an engineering dynamics course from
the author of this paper participated in the present
study. The 71 students, including 64 males and 7
females, were primarily from three departments:
mechanical and aerospace engineering, civil and
environmental engineering, and biological
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
182
engineering. Table 1 shows student demographics.
As seen from Table 1, the majority of students were
from either the mechanical and aerospace
department (47.9%) or the civil and environmental
engineering department (29.6%).
Table 1: Student demographics.
Total Mech.
Aerospa.
Engng.
Civil
Environme.
Engng.
Bio.
Engng.
Other
71 34 21 11 5
Prior to the present study, all student participants
signed a Letter of Informed Consent approved by an
Institutional Review Board. As many students did
not have previous experience in constructing a
concept map, the following instruction was provided
to them on how to construct a concept map.
First, students needed to write down as many of
the concepts they had learned as possible. Then,
students needed to figure out logical connections and
relationships between those concepts, and
accordingly place the concepts in their reasonable
positions on a concept map. Students were asked to
use the free IHMC Cmap Tools to generate a
concept map after they had learned each learning
topic, i.e., each chapter of a dynamics textbook
(Hibbeler, 2012). With IHMC Cmap Tools, students
could easily move a concept from one place to
another and edit the entire concept map. Finally,
students submitted their concept maps to the
instructor to conduct a qualitative analysis.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Figures 2-11 show 10 representative concept maps
generated by 10 different students. The results show
that students constructed their concept maps for five
learning purposes. In the following paragraphs, each
purpose is described using two examples.
Purpose 1: Describe the relationships among
relevant concepts (Figures 2 and 3). Figure 2
describes the relationship between work and energy
and how the two concepts combine to form a new
concept: the Principle of Work and Energy. Figure 3
describes the parallel relationships among three
coordinate systems: cylindrical, normal and
tangential, and rectangular coordinates.
Purpose 2: Connect important equations (Figures
4 and 5). Figure 4 shows how equations for
calculating the work done by a constant force and by
a variable force are connected. Figure 5 shows how
equations for determining displacement, velocity,
and acceleration are connected.
Purpose 3: Illustrate the evolution of concepts
(Figures 6 and 7). Figure 6 shows how displacement,
velocity, and acceleration are evolved. Figure 7
shows Newton’s Second Law is evolved to form the
Principle of Linear Impulse and Momentum as well
as the Conservation of Linear Momentum.
Purpose 4: Incorporate figures into concept maps
(Figures 8 and 9). Figure 8 incorporates into the map
two figures, one for normal and tangential
coordinates and the other for cylindrical coordinates.
Figure 9 integrates into the map a figure showing
oblique impact.
Purpose 5: Integrate problem-solving procedures
into concept maps (Figures 10 and 11). Figure 10
shows that a free-body diagram and a kinetic
diagram must be drawn before applying Newton’s
Second Law. Figure 11 shows a procedure to apply
the Principle of Angular Impulse and Momentum.
Figure 2: Describe the relationships among relevant
concepts: Example 1.
Figure 3: Describe the relationships among relevant
concepts: Example 2.
AQualitativeAnalysisofStudent-constructedConceptMapsinaFoundationalUndergraduateEngineeringCourse
183
Figure 4: Connect important equations: Example 1.
Figure 5: Connect important equations: Example 2.
Figure 6: Illustrate the evolution of concepts: Example 1.
Figure 7: Illustrate the evolution of concepts: Example 2.
Figure 8: Incorporate figures into concept maps: Example
1.
Figure 9: Incorporate figures into concept maps: Example
2.
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
184
Figure 10: Integrate problem-solving procedures into concept maps: Example 1.
Figure 11: Integrate problem-solving procedures into concept maps: Example 2.
A traditional concept map does not include
mathematical equations, figures, or problem-solving
procedures because these are not typically regarded
as concepts (Novak and Gowin, 1984). However, the
present study shows that students were creative
when they constructed their own concept maps.
Nearly all of the concept maps that students
constructed in the present study included
mathematical equations. Some concept maps were
full of mathematical equations. This phenomenon
confirms the statement by Cornwell (2000) that “in
many students’ minds, the [dynamics] course
seemed to be a collection of mathematical
manipulations or ‘finding the right equation’”.
5 LIMITATION OF THE
PRESENT STUDY
The primary limitation of the present work-in-
progress study is that all student participants were
from one public research institution only. Because
students at different institutions may have different
backgrounds and experience, the concept maps may
vary from institution to institution. Therefore, there
might be other learning purposes for which students
construct their concept maps. Students at other
institutions would be included in the future study.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Concept mapping is a powerful graphical tool for
knowledge organization, representation, and
elicitation. The results of an extensive literature
review using a variety of popular databases reveals
that the present work-in-progress study is the first
one that investigates the learning purposes for which
students construct their own concept maps.
The present study has involved 71 engineering
students. A qualitative analysis shows that students
constructed their own concept maps for five learning
purposes: 1) to describe the relationships among
relevant concepts, 2) to connect important equations,
3) to illustrate the evolution of concepts, 4) to
incorporate figures into concept maps, and 5) to inte
grate problem-solving procedures into concept
maps. These research findings help develop a better
understanding of how students learn, and therefore
help instructors develop or adopt the most
appropriate instructional strategies to improve
student learning outcomes.
AQualitativeAnalysisofStudent-constructedConceptMapsinaFoundationalUndergraduateEngineeringCourse
185
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the
U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No.
1244700.
REFERENCES
Atapattu, T., Falkner, K., and Falkner, N., 2014.
Evaluation of concept importance in concept maps
mined from lecture notes. In Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Computer Supported
Education, Barcelona, Spain.
Barrett, S. F., LeFevre, E. W., Steadman, J. W., Tietjen, J.
S., White, K. R., and Whitman, D. L., 2010. Using the
Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination as an
outcomes assessment tool. National Council of
Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, Seneca,
SC.
Bedford, A., Fowler, W., 2009. Engineering mechanics
dynamics, Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 5th
edition.
Beer, F. P. Jr., Johnston, E. R., Clausen, W., Eisenberg, E.,
and Cornwell, P., 2009. Vector mechanics for
engineers: dynamics, McGraw-Hill. Columbus, OH.
Besterfield-Sacre, M., Gerchak, J., Lyons, M. R., Shuman,
L. J., and Wolfe, H., 2004. Scoring concept maps: an
integrated rubric for assessing engineering education.
Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 105-115.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R.,
(editors), 2000. How people learn, brain, mind,
experience, and school, National Research Council,
National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
Castles, R., Lohani, V., 2010. Utilizing software-generated
concept maps based on customized concept
inventories to illustrate student learning and
knowledge gaps. In Proceedings of the 2010 ASEE
Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY.
Cornwell, P. J., 2000. Dynamics evolution – change or
design. In Proceedings of the 2000 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, St. Louis, MO.
Darmofal, D. L., Soderhoml, D. H., and Brodeur, D. R.,
2002. Enhancing conceptual understanding with
concept maps and concept questions. In Proceedings
of the 2002 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ellis, G. W., Rudnitsky, A., and Silverstein, B., 2004.
Using concept maps to enhance understanding in
engineering education. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 20(6), 1012-1021.
Gray, L. G., Costanzo, F., Evans, D., Cornwell, P., Self,
B., and Lane, J. L., 2005. The dynamics concept
inventory assessment test: a progress report and some
results. In Proceedings of the 2005 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, Portland, OR.
Hibbeler, R. C., 2012. Engineering mechanics dynamics,
Pearson Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 13th
edition.
Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L.,
Senn, G. L., and Hamelin, D., 1993. An investigation
of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an
instructional tool. Science Education, 77 (1), 95-111.
Moore, J. P., Pierce, R. S., and Williams, C. B., 2012.
Towards an “adaptive concept map”: creating an
expert-generated concept map of an engineering statics
curriculum. In Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX.
Nesbit, J. C., Adesope, O. O., 2006. Learning with concept
and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 76, 413-448.
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., 1984. Learning how to learn,
Cambridge University Press. New York, NY.
Novak, J. D., Cañas, A. J., 2008. The theory underlying
concept maps and how to construct and use them.
Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Technical Report, IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev
2008-01.
Richard, S. S., Defranco, J. F., and Jablokow, K., 2014. A
set of guidelines for the consistent assessment of
concept maps. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 30, 1072-1082.
Sedig, K., Rowhani, S., and Liang, H. N., 2005. Designing
interfaces that support formation of cognitive maps of
transitional processes: an empirical study. Interacting
with Computers, 17(4), 419-452.
Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., and Canaday, D.,
2000. Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry
learning – a report of methodology. International
Journal of Science Education, 22 (12), 1221-1246.
Walker, J. M., King, P. H., 2003. Concept mapping as a
form of student assessment and instruction in the
domain of bioengineering. Journal of Engineering
Education, 92, 167-178.
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
186
