In the Classroom edited by
Concept Maps
Boyd L. Earl University of Nevada–Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV 89154-4003
Concept Maps for General Chemistry
Boyd L. Earl Department of Chemistry, University of Nevada–Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4003;
[email protected] I have developed two diagrams that summarize the connections of the subject matter as usually presented in the first semester of a general chemistry course. Having taught this course many times, I was motivated by a belief that students often see it as a collection of miscellaneous, isolated topics. In general, it is easier to learn a set of related concepts than to learn a set of isolated concepts. The notion of “meaningful learning”, in which new knowledge is formed by integration with previously existing knowledge in the mind of the learner, was pioneered in the 1960s by Ausubel (1). One way in which the instructor may enhance this process is by the use of concept maps, introduced and popularized by Novak (2–4), building on Ausubel’s work. The diagrams presented here organize the course material into two overall “themes”: a structure and properties
theme and a quantitative chemical relationships theme. Inspired by a stoichiometry “flow chart” in an article in this Journal (5), I attempted to display the relationships of the course material according to these two themes in two diagrams. These were developed in PowerPoint (6) as organization charts and converted to pdf files that were made available to students as part of the material on the course Web page. While I did not solicit specific feedback from the students regarding these diagrams, I did refer to them regularly in class, hoping that this would assist the students in understanding the relationships of the various topics. These diagrams are similar in intent and design to published concept maps based on Novak’s ideas (2, 3), although they are less elaborate in that I have not labeled the connections, as that seemed superfluous. Concept maps relating to
Figure 1. Structure and properties concept map.
1788
Journal of Chemical Education
•
Vol. 84 No. 11 November 2007
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
In the Classroom
chemical knowledge that have been published in this Journal (3, 4, 7–11) have focused on smaller knowledge sets. In addition, many have been student-created maps used at least in part for assessment rather than instructional presentation (4, 7–11). The diagrams presented here are intended only to represent the ways in which various individual topics in the course connect to one another. The two diagrams are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The structure and properties diagram is quite “linear”, reflecting the direct connections from the quantum mechanical picture of the atom through to molecular structure and properties. The quantitative chemical relationships diagram is more complex, with four subsections that have numerous internal connections, and relate to each other via molar mass. Of course the largest piece of the quantitative theme is stoichiometry in all its aspects. Rather than attempt to represent all the stoichiometry on this diagram, I refer to the flow chart from ref 5, which is provided on the course Web page. As one of the reviewers of this manuscript pointed out, the two “themes” are not entirely independent; hence, these two diagrams are not entirely distinct. One obvious connection is through the chemical formula, which is the basis of one of the subsections of the quantitative relationships diagram, and also is encountered early in the structure and properties section, where the bonding behavior of atoms provides a basis for beginning to predict correct formulas. Thus the empirical approach to determining formulas and formula prediction based on electronic structure may be seen to reinforce each other. Using these diagrams, one can orient the class to how any given topic relates to the other material in the course, and where a given day’s class material fits into the big picture. Thus the students may be less likely to suffer from the proverbial forestfor-the-trees problem. The two diagrams in combination serve as a concise summary of the course content.
These concept maps will be used to start a JCE Online column devoted to concept maps for use in chemistry courses. Readers are invited to submit maps that they have developed, and ideas for using concept maps, for use by other instructors of chemistry. For those interested in creating concept maps, new technology for this purpose has been developed by the University of West Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (12, 13). This permits easier and better construction of concept maps. Literature Cited 1. Ausubel, David P. The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, 2000; Chapters 4 and 5. 2. Novak, Joseph D. Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept MapsTM as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 1998. 3. Novak, Joseph D. J. Chem. Educ. 1984, 61, 607–612. 4. Pendley, Bradford D.; Bretz, Richard L.; Novak, Joseph D. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 9–15. 5. Ault, Addison. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1347–1349. 6. PowerPoint, v. 2002. http://www.microsoft.com (accessed Jul 2007). 7. Stensvold, Mark; Wilson, John T. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 230–232. 8. Regis, Alberto; Albertazzi, Pier Giorgio; Roletto, Ezio. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 1084–1088. 9. Robinson, William R. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1179–1180. 10. Nicoll, Gayle; Francisco, Joseph S.; Nakhleh, Mary B. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1111–1117. 11. Francisco, Joseph S.; Nakhleh, Mary B.; Nurrenbern, Susan C.; Miller, Matthew L. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 248–257. 12. Cardellini, Liberato. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1303–1308. 13. Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Home Page. http://www.ihmc.us (accessed Jul 2007).
Figure 2. Quantitative chemical relationships concept map.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Vol. 84 No. 11 November 2007
•
Journal of Chemical Education
1789
