Concept Map Tutorial

A General Guide to Well-Constructed Concept Maps

The following is a brief illustration of what represents a reasonably well-constructed concept map versus a poorly constructed concept map. From the following explanation, you should be able to learn the basics of concept map design.

MAP #1: A reasonably well-constructed concept map
reasonably constructed concept map

MAP #2: A poorly constructed concept map

Explanation
General criteria for concept map construction are:

Is there an organized hierarchy of how concepts refer to larger and/or smaller concepts?
Are the concept words specific or diffuse?
Are the propositions (concept-linkingword-concept) correct?
Is there any cross-linking between different hierarchical structures?

With these four criteria, we can begin to evaluate the differences between MAP #1 and MAP #2 above.

	MAP #1	MAP #2
ORGANIZED HIERARCHY	Well-balanced. There is branching at most levels along the hierarchical trees.	Unbalanced. For instance, the MAP #2 phrase "will measure things including amounts" does not present a branching hierarchy of information.
CONCEPT WORDS	Uses specific terminology e.g. "typical value", "variation"	Vague e.g. "things", "in many ways"
PROPOSITIONS	Correct	Somewhat correct The vagueness of the words still impacts the amount of meaning that can be associated with the concept map.
CROSS-LINKING	There is cross-linking The "Typical Value" hierarchy cross-links with the "Spread" hierarchy at the word "outliers".	There is not any cross-linking The "things" hierarchy does not cross-link to the "in many ways" hierarchy.

Based on the table above, MAP #1 is a superior concept map to MAP #2.

For a more detailed explanation on concept maps and their construction, please visit Dr. Luckie's page on concept maps.

ctools version 0.5b

Technical Help