Abstract
The article presents empirical evidence for the effectiveness and efficiency of a modified version of Trochim's (1989a, b) concept mapping approach to define the characteristics of an adaptive learning environment. The effectiveness and the efficiency of the method are attributed to the support that it provides in terms of elicitation, sharing, reflection and representation of knowledge. It produced valuable results in a very short time as compared to classical techniques such as questionnaires and interviews. The interpretation of data suggests some theoretical considerations and practical solutions for the design and development of an adaptive e-learning environment. The research also points to a number of ways to improve the technique in terms of time for discussing ideas, visualization, and explicit support for generating unconventional ideas.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Active learning for adaptive Internet (ALFANET) project. (2002).Users requirements (Project deliverable report). European Communities, Fifth Framework Information Society Technology program (IST-2001-33288).
Arlow, J., & Neustadt, I. (2001).UML and the unified process: Practical object-oriented analysis and design. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
Ayersman, D., & Von Midden, A. (1995). Individual differences, computers, and instruction.Computers in Human Behavior, 11(3–4), 371–390.
Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bastiaens, Th. J., Nijhof, W. J., Streumer, J. N., & Abma, H. J. (1997a). Working and learning with electronic performance support systems: An effectiveness study.Training for Quality, 5(1), 10–18.
Bastiaens, Th. J., Nijhof, W. J., Streumer, J. N., & Abma, H. J. (1997b). Electronic performance support systems for telephone operators. In H. Preskill. & R. L. Dilworth, (Eds.),Human resource development in transition. Defining the cutting edge (pp. 75–86). Washington: ISPI/AHRD.
Brandon-Hall.com. (2002).Learning management system 2002. Retrieved June 17, 2002, from: http://www. brandonhall.com./public/publications/LMS2002/
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1996).The mind map book. New York: Plume.
Carroll, J. (2000).Making use: Scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Clark, R. (1993). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.
Clegg, B., & Birch, P. (1999).Instant creativity. London, UK:Kogan Page.
Concept System (Demo version) [Computer software]. (2002). Ithaca, New York: Concept System Inc.
Constantine, L. (2001).The peopleware papers: Notes on the human side of software. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Constantine, L., & Lockwood, L. (1999).Software for use: A practical guide to the models and methods of usagecentered design (ACM Press Series). Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
Cross, N. (2000).Engineering design methods. Strategy for product design (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Decision Explorer® [Computer software]. (2003). Kendal, Cumbria, UK: Banxia Software.
Eden, C., Ackermann, F., & Cropper, S. (1997).Getting started with cognitive mapping. Glasgow, UK: Banxia Software.
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2002).Making strategy. The journey of strategic management. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. (2000).Cognitive psychology. London, UK: LEA.
Gery, G. (1995). Attributes and behaviors of performance-centered systems.Performance Improvement Quarterly 8(1), 47–93.
Hodgson, A. M. (1999).Hexagons for system thinking. Retrieved March 16, 1999 from: http://www.idongroup.com/assoc/hexsys/hesys.htm
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992).The manual of learning styles Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey.
Inspiration® [Computer software]. (2002). Beaverton Hillsdale, Portland: Inspiration Software, Inc.
Jackson, K., & Trochim, W. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of openended survey responses.Organizational Research Methods, 5 (4), 307–336.
Jonassen, D., & Grabowski, B. (1993).Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Jonassen, D. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environment. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.),Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89–117). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1998).Please understand me. Character and temperament types. DelMar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis.
Kessels, J. (1999). A relational approach to curriculum design. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plompt (Eds.),Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 59–70). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merriënboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.
Kirton, M. (1994).Adaptors and innovators. Styles of creativity and problem solving. London, UK: International Thomson Press.
Kolb, D. (1998).Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Krathwohl, D. (1993).Methods of educational and social science research. New York: Longman.
Kruskal, J., & Wish, M. (1978).Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Larman, C. (2001).Applying UML and patterns: An introduction to object-oriented analysis and design and the unified process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mager, R. (1997).Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: The Center for Effective Performance.
Michalko, M. (1998).Cracking creativity. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Mind Manager® [Computer software]. (2002). Mindjet: Larkspur, CA.
Novak, J. (1998).Learning, creating and using knowledge. Concept mapsä as facilitative tools in schools and corporation. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Patton, M. (1990).Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Raybould, B. (2000). Building performance-centered web-based systems, information systems, and knowledge management systems in the 21st century.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 39(6), 32–39.
Richey, R., & Nelson, W. (1996). Development research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communication and technology (pp. 1213–1245). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Riding, R., & Rayners, S. (1998).Cognitive styles and learning strategies. Understanding style differences in learning and behavior. London, UK: David Fulton Publishers.
Salomon, G. (1979).Interaction of media, cognition and learning. Mahwah, NJ: LEA
Schön, D. (1996).The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London, UK: Arena.
SenGupta, S. (1996, November).Concept mapping and pattern matching in integrated mental health service delivery. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Evaluation Association. Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved May 25, 2000 from http://www.conceptsystems.com/papers/paperu sr/sengupta/aea96.htm
Stoyanov, S. (2001).Mapping in the educational and training design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
SPSS® [Computer software]. (2002). SPSS, Inc. Chicago, Illinois.
Straker, D. (1997).Rapid problem solving with Post-itO notes. Tucson, Arizona: Fisher Books.
Trochim, W. (Ed.). (1989a). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation.Evaluation and Program Planning [Special issue]. 12, 1–16.
Trochim, W. (Ed.). (1989b). Concept mapping: Soft science or hard art?Evaluation and Program Planning [Special issue]. 12, 87–110.
Trochim, W. (1993, November).Reliability of concept mapping. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Evaluation Association. Dallas, Texas.
Trochim, W. (1996, November).An Internet-based concept mapping of accreditation standards for evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Evaluation Association: Atlanta, Georgia.
Trochim, W. (1999a, November).Measuring organizational performance as a result of installing a new information system: Using concept mapping as the basis for performance measurement. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association. Orlando, Florida.
Trochim, W. (1999b, October).The evaluator as cartographer: Technology for mapping where we're going and where we've been. Paper presented at the conference of the Oregon Program Evaluators Network “Evaluation and Technology: Tools for the 21st Century” Portland, Oregon.
van der Heijden, K (1996).Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Chichetser, UK: Wiley.
van der Heijden, K., & Eden, C. (1998). The theory and praxis of reflective learning in strategic making. In C. Eden & J-C. Spender (Eds.),Managerial and organisational cognition. Theory, method and research (pp. 58–75). London, UK: Sage Publications.
VanGundy, A. (1997).Techniques of structured problem solving. New York: Van Nostrand.
van Merriënboer, J. (1997).Training complex cognitive skills. A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
van Merriënboer, J., Clark, R., & de Croock, M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID model.Educational Technology, Research & Development, 50(2), 39–64.
Vennix, J.A.M. (1997).Group model building. Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Visscher-Voerman, I., Gustafson, K., & Plomp, T. (1999). Educational design and development. An overview of paradigms. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plompt (Eds.),Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 15–28). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Voss, J., Lawrence, J., & Engle, R. (1992). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R. Sternberg & P. Frensch (Eds.),Complex problem solving (pp. 119–183). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yin, R. (1994).Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This small-scale study was conducted in the framework of ALFANET project (2002). ALFANET (Active Learning for Adaptive Internet) is a Fifth Framework Information Society Technology (IST) project funded by European Commission (European Communities, IST 2001-33288, 2002). Within the ALFANET project (2002), Working package 1 “User Requirements and Specifications” is dedicated to the study and analysis of users' needs in relation with adaptive e-learning in organizations. One of the primary outcomes of the project will be a working prototype of a learning management system (LMS) with intelligent personalization capabilities.
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9491-0.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stoyanov, S., Kirchner, P. Expert concept mapping method for defining the characteristics of adaptive E-learning: ALFANET project case. ETR&D 52, 41–54 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504838
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504838