Concept Mapping as a Tool for Higher Order Thinking Skills

Certificate: View Certificate

Published Paper PDF: View PDF

Roshni Gaur

Independent Researcher

Rajasthan, India

Abstract

Concept mapping—graphically organizing concepts and the links between them—has emerged as a powerful pedagogical strategy to stimulate analysis, evaluation, and creation, the upper tiers of higher order thinking skills (HOTS). This manuscript examines how concept mapping fosters deep learning by making students externalize mental models, visualize relationships, and iteratively refine understanding. Drawing on constructivist and metacognitive perspectives, the study integrates a literature-based rationale with an empirical survey conducted on 100 students and teachers from higher education institutions. The survey investigates perceptions of concept mapping’s effectiveness in promoting critical thinking, problem solving, and transfer of knowledge across contexts. A mixed-methods methodology—questionnaire, rubric-based evaluation of maps, and semi-structured interviews—was adopted to triangulate findings. Results indicate that 81% of participants perceived significant gains in clarity of ideas, 76% reported improved ability to question assumptions, and 69% demonstrated measurable improvement in rubric-assessed HOTS indicators after sustained engagement with concept mapping tasks. Nonetheless, constraints such as time demands, initial cognitive load, and inconsistent facilitation practices were noted. The paper concludes that concept mapping, when scaffolded with explicit criteria and iterative feedback, is a scalable and adaptable tool for cultivating HOTS across disciplines. Implications include embedding mapping tasks into assessment regimes, training faculty in map-based feedback, and leveraging digital mapping platforms for collaborative thinking. Limitations concern sample representativeness, self-report bias, and the short intervention window. The study recommends longitudinal, discipline-specific investigations and integration with other active learning strategies to fully exploit concept mapping’s potential in higher education.

Keywords

Concept mapping; Higher Order Thinking Skills; Critical thinking; Constructivism; Metacognition; Active learning; Mixed-methods survey; Higher education

References

• https://cwl140130.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/necklace-concept-map1.jpg
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229049197/figure/fig1/AS:300721124724736@1448708911206/A-flow-chart-of-a-typical-active-learning-strategy.png
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
• Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. Academic Press.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
• Kinchin, I. M. (2010). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 44(2), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2010.9656191
• Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). Cambridge University Press.
• Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003413
• Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377984
• Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press.
• Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295
• Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking.
• Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Wheeldon, J., & Faubert, J. (2009). Framing experience: Concept maps, mind maps, and data collection in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800307
• Zhao, N., Wardeska, J. G., McGuire, S. Y., & Cook, E. (2014). Metacognition: An effective tool to promote success in college science learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(4), 48–54.