This paper describes a qualitative approach to analysing students' concept maps. The classification highlights three major patterns which are referred to as 'spoke', 'chain' and 'net' structures. Examples are given from Year 8 science classes. The patterns are interpreted as being indicators of progressive levels of understanding. It is proposed that identification of these differences may help the classroom teacher to focus teaching for more effective learning and may be used as a basis for structuring groups in collaborative settings. This approach to analysing concept maps is of value because it suggests teaching approaches that help students integrate new knowledge and build upon their existing naive concepts. We also refer to the teacher's scheme of work and to the National Curriculum for science in order to consider their influence in the construction of understanding. These ideas have been deliberately offered for early publication to encourage debate and generate feedback. Further work is in progress to better understand how students with different conceptual structures can be most appropriately helped to achieve learning development.

This article develops the concept‐mapping method as a tool for enhancing teaching quality in higher education. In particular, it describes how concept mapping can be used to transform abstract knowledge and understanding into concrete visual representations that are amenable to comparison and measurement. The article describes four important uses of the method: the identification of prior knowledge (and prior‐knowledge structure) among students; the presentation of new material in ways that facilitate meaningful learning; the sharing of ‘expert’ knowledge and understanding among teachers and learners; and the documentation of knowledge change to show integration of student prior knowledge and teaching. The authors discuss the implications of their approach in the broader context of university level teaching. It is not suggested that university teachers should abandon any of their tried and tested methods of teaching, but it is shown how the quality of what they do can be significantly enhanced by the use of concept mapping.

Concept mapping is an activity with numerous uses in the biology classroom. Its value in planning, teaching, revision, and assessment, and the attitudes of students and teachers towards its use, are discussed. Comments made are illustrated with excerpts from interviews with teachers and students who were involved in classroom concept mapping exercises. The use of expert maps for scoring is described, and some of the pitfalls are considered. Finally, the value of concept mapping as an aid to reflective practice is discussed.

This article aims to reexamine conclusions drawn by recent analyses of the literature on concept mapping as an educational tool by considering the wider literature on curriculum development. This is with the aim of enhancing the application of concept mapping to higher education. As part of an iterative review process, issues raised by previous analyses are reconsidered with reference to educational research papers that were not considered previously. A greater consideration of the context for learning provides alternatives to some of the assumptions that underpin the discipline-specific concept mapping literature. The methodological shortcomings in the literature on concept mapping revealed by earlier reviews are reevaluated to support reflection on how the tool may be profitably used and also how such reviews may be conducted to better inform practice. This article offers enhanced guidance on the contextualisation of concept mapping and recommendations for its future use in higher education.

In this paper the authors report the use of concept mapping as a means of summarizing interview transcripts in the study of the information-seeking behavior of employees in an organization. Concept mapping differs from traditional methods of textual coding for interview analysis by making underlying cognitive structures transparent and giving a focus to the sets of propositions by which individuals construct meaning. Concept map structure correlates with the perceived richness of interview data. They provide quick summaries of the interview quality and may help to identify topics for further probing to elicit new information. In this study rich interviews provide complex concept map structures, whereas less successful interviews provide simpler, spoke structures. Issues in using concept maps with research interviews are discussed, including use as a retrospective interview probe, as a check on evidence saturation, as a form of data display or as a form of creative coding.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explain and develop a classification of cognitive structures (or typologies of thought), previously designated as spoke, chain and network thinking by Kinchin et al.Design/methodology/approach: The paper shows how concept mapping can be used to reveal these conceptual typologies and endeavours to place the concept‐mapping method in the broader context of learning styles and learning theory.Findings: The findings suggest that spoke structures are indicative of a naïve epistemology, or of “learning‐readiness”; chain structures are indicators of “goal‐orientation” and networks are indicators of expertise. Furthermore, change that comprises simple elaboration of existing spokes or chains is likely to be the result of surface learning styles and the emergence of networks indicative of deep learning. The utility of these different cognitive approaches is discussed.Research limitations/implications: The work is limited by the general lack of empirical testing, but the approach is presented as an important source of hypotheses for future research.Practical implications: The practical implications of the research are considerable. First, concept mapping provides a framework for documenting and assessing understanding at “novice” and “expert” levels. Second, where definitive criteria can be developed from the learning styles literature, cognitive change in the course of learning can be evaluated to distinguish between deep versus surface or holist versus serialist approaches, for example.Originality/value: The papers original and comprises a synthetic approach to the study of learning style and learning theory through the use of the concept‐mapping method. It has both practical and theoretical value because it suggests a new approach and is an important source of testable hypotheses.