Using Concept Maps to Organize Reviews of Literature

For CAUSE Research Clusters

Hollylynne LeeApril 6, 2010

Goals of a Literature Review

• Getting familiar with research and best practices in area of interest

• Extracting salient findings that seem interesting/important to the area of interest.

• Synthesizing salient findings • Constructing a written document that presents

the synthesis to provide:– relevant background for those interested– an argument for a proposed research study (gaps in

research, research methods, populations of interest)

What is a “concept” map?

• A diagram to represent relationships among concepts or topics. – Concept map —structure of how different ideas

are related through linking phrases.– Topic map– structure of how different topics are

related and indicates how/where/when those topics occur

– Mind map- radial hierarchical or tree branch organization to help understand one central idea.

Concept Map showing linking phrases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_mapping

Topic map showing associations and occurrences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_map

Mind map showing branches from central idea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MindMapGuidlines.JPG

Creating a Map of Literature

• NOT creating a mapping of the relationship among certain statistical concepts.

INSTEAD…..• Extracting salient findings or “big ideas” from

individual articles• Thinking about how those big ideas or findings

are related• Documenting how certain articles contribute

to the big ideas

Green- main topicsPink- Empirically based studies (qualitative, teaching experiments, interviews, etc)Blue- Quantitative studiesYellow- Theoretical studies/Literature reviews

• Numbers represent a label for individual articles

Influenced byInfluenced by

Fidelity of Implementation· Arbaugh, et al. (2006)· Baker, et al. (2004)· Brandon, et al. (2008)· Brown, et al. (2009)· Chard, et al. (2008)· Dane & Schneider (1998)· Datnow & Castellano (2000)· Drake (2006)· Floden, et al. (1981)· Herbel-Eisenmann, et al. (2006)· Hornbacher, et al. (2008)· Lloyd (1999)· McCaffrey, et al. (2001)· McNaught (2009)· McNaught, et al. (2008)· O'Donnell (2008)· Porter (2002)· Remillard (1992)· Remillard (1999)· Remillard & Bryans (2004)· Schneider, et al. (2005)· Smith Senger (1998)· Tarr, et al. (2005)· Tarr, et al. (2008)· Thompson & Senk (2001)· Ysseldyke, et al. (2003)

Specifically looked at

Curriculum Implementation· Ball & Cohen (1996)· Chard, et al. (2008)· Drake (2006)· Goodlad (1966)· Herbel-Eisenmann, et al. (2006)· Huntley, et al. (2000)· Lloyd (1999)· Lloyd & Wilson (1998)· McCaffrey, et al. (2001)· McNaught (2009)· McNaught, et al. (2008)· Porter (2002)· Remillard (1992)· Remillard (1999)· Remillard (2000)· Remillard (2005)· Remillard & Bryans (2004)· Schoen, et al. (2003)· Tarr, et al. (2005)· Tarr, et al. (2008)· Thompson & Senk (2001)

Other Treatment· Allinder, et al. (2000)· Baker, et al. (2004)· Berman & McLaughlin (1976)· Datnow & Castellano (2000)· Heath (1964)· Hornbacher, et al. (2008)· Schneider, et al. (2005)· Scriven (1966)· Sherin (2002)· Smith (1996)· Smith Senger (1998)· Thompson (2009)· Ysseldyke, et al. (2003)

Curriculum Evaluation· Goodlad (1966)· Herbel-Eisenmann, et al. (2006)· Huntley, et al. (2000)· McCaffrey, et al. (2001)· Schwab (1969)· Scriven (1966)· Tyson & Woodward (1989)

Example

Student Achievement· Allinder, et al. (2000)· Baker, et al. (2004)· Carpenter, et al. (1989)· Chard, et al. (2008)· Datnow & Castellano (2000)· Hornbacher, et al. (2008)· Huntley, et al. (2000)· McCaffrey, et al. (2001)· Palardy (1969)· Remillard & Bryans (2004)· Schoen, et al. (2003)· Thompson (2009)· Thompson & Senk (2001)· Ysseldyke, et al. (2003)

Teacher Growth/Learning· Ball & Cohen (1996)· Kazemi & Franke (2004)· Lloyd (2005)· Remillard (2000)· Remillard & Bryans (2004)· Schneider, et al. (2005)· Sherin (2002)· Shulman (1986)· Smith Senger (1998)

Instructional Change· Allinder, et al. (2000)· Baker, et al. (2004)· Ball & Cohen (1996)· Carpenter, et al. (1989)· Herbel-Eisenmann, et al. (2006)· Kazemi & Franke (2004)· Lloyd (2005)· Remillard (1992)· Smith (1996)

Textbook Use· Brown, et al. (2009)· McNaught (2009)· McNaught, et al. (2008)· Remillard (1999)· Remillard (2005)· Tarr, et al. (2005)· Ysseldyke, et al. (2003)

Other· Baker, et al. (2004)· Chard, et al. (2008)· Datnow & Castellano (2000)· Drake (2006)· Floden, et al. (1981)· Heath (1964)· Herbel-Eisenmann, et al. (2006)· Hornbacher, et al. (2008)· Kazemi & Franke (2004)· Lloyd (2005)· Lloyd & Wilson (1998)· Remillard (2000)· Remillard & Bryans (2004)· Schneider, et al. (2005)· Schoen, et al. (2003)· Sherin (2002)· Shulman (1986)· Smith (1996)· Smith Senger (1998)· Thompson (1984)· Thompson (2009)

Core-Plus· Arbaugh, et al. (2006)· Herbel-Eisenmann, et al. (2006)· Huntley, et al. (2000)· Lloyd (1999)· McNaught (2009)· Schoen, et al. (2003)

Curriculum-Teacher Interactions

· Ball & Cohen (1996)· Brown, et al. (2009)· Porter (2002)

Further examined

Influenced by

Professional Development· Arbaugh, et al. (2006)· Baker, et al. (2004)· Carpenter, et al. (1989)· McCaffrey, et al. (2001)· Schneider, et al. (2005)· Schoen, et al. (2003)

Beliefs· Arbaugh, et al. (2006)· Brandon, et al. (2008)· Datnow & Castellano (2000)· Hornbacher, et al. (2008)· Lloyd (1999)· Lloyd (2005)· McNaught (2009)· Palardy (1969)· Remillard (1992)· Schoen, et al. (2003)· Sherin (2002)· Smith (1996)· Smith Senger (1998)· Thompson (1984)

For the purpose of

Example

Further Examined

Influences

Influences

Easy-to-Use Mapping Tools• Free

– Cmap http://cmap.ihmc.us/conceptmap.html – Xmind http://www.xmind.net/ – Vue http://vue.tufts.edu/index.cfm

• Cheap– Inspiration—used in K-12 education. Free 30 day trial

http://www.inspiration.com/Freetrial • Collaborative Mapping

– Draw tools in Google Docs—allow for multiple simultaneous editors

– Browser-based Mind42 http://www.mind42.com – Webspiration Beta http://www.mywebspiration.com