Concept map (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Concept map" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
low place
low place
2nd place
2nd place
26th place
20th place
207th place
136th place
5th place
5th place
6th place
6th place
3,087th place
2,519th place
1st place
1st place
low place
low place

archive.org

doi.org

  • Lanzing, Jan (January 1998). "Concept mapping: tools for echoing the minds eye". Journal of Visual Literacy. 18 (1): 1–14 (4). doi:10.1080/23796529.1998.11674524. Although Novak originally started with the idea of hierarchical tree-shaped concept maps. This idea is not continued by the followers of Novak's technique or has either been dropped altogether. ... The difference between concept maps and mind maps is that a mind map has only one main concept, while a concept map may have several. This means that a mind map can be represented in a hierarchical tree structure.
  • Romance, Nancy R.; Vitale, Michael R. (Spring 1999). "Concept mapping as a tool for learning: broadening the framework for student-centered instruction". College Teaching. 47 (2): 74–79 (78). doi:10.1080/87567559909595789. JSTOR 27558942. Shavelson et al. (1994) identified a number of variations of the general technique presented here for developing concept maps. These include whether (1) the map is hierarchical or free-form in nature, (2) the concepts are provided with or determined by the learner, (3) the students are provided with or develop their own structure for the map, (4) there is a limit on the number of lines connecting concepts, and (5) the connecting links must result in the formation of a complete sentence between two nodes.

ihmc.us

cmap.ihmc.us

cmc.ihmc.us

ihmc.us

  • "Joseph D. Novak". Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC). Retrieved 2008-04-06.

jstor.org

  • Romance, Nancy R.; Vitale, Michael R. (Spring 1999). "Concept mapping as a tool for learning: broadening the framework for student-centered instruction". College Teaching. 47 (2): 74–79 (78). doi:10.1080/87567559909595789. JSTOR 27558942. Shavelson et al. (1994) identified a number of variations of the general technique presented here for developing concept maps. These include whether (1) the map is hierarchical or free-form in nature, (2) the concepts are provided with or determined by the learner, (3) the students are provided with or develop their own structure for the map, (4) there is a limit on the number of lines connecting concepts, and (5) the connecting links must result in the formation of a complete sentence between two nodes.

nagb.gov

psu.edu

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu

uiuc.edu

ecrp.uiuc.edu

web.archive.org

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org