top of page

Oz Collective Media Group

Public·10 members
Anisim Lukin
Anisim Lukin

Applied Concept Mapping : Capturing, Analyzing,...


Published in 2011, Applied Concept Mapping: Capturing, Analyzing and Organizing Knowledge (CRC Press) details the work of dozens of practitioners from around the world who have put concept mapping to use in applied settings.




Applied concept mapping : capturing, analyzing,...



CmapTools is concept mapping software developed by the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC).[1] It allows users to easily create graphical nodes representing concepts, and to connect nodes using lines and linking words to form a network of interrelated propositions that represent knowledge of a topic.[2] The software has been used in classrooms and research labs,[3][4] and in corporate training.[5][6]


In clinical practice, physicians need to acquire various pieces of information and integrate this new information with previous experience to provide proper patient care, thereby ultimately fulfilling the National Board of Medical Examiners competency domain 4 of evidence-based medicine ( =28). One way to aid medical students to achieve this competency is to practice integrating medical science with clinical practice concepts using concept mapping.3,6 The methodology of concept mapping has been used in medical education to promote both knowledge integration3,7-11 and assessment.10,12,13


Along with knowledge integration, another important aspect of modern health care is collaborative and team-based care. According to the American Medical Association, physician-led team-based care is the most effective way to maximize skill sets of health care professionals. The significance and the need for collaboration in a health care environment, as well as the importance of knowledge integration for clinical reasoning, were well highlighted by Torres et al.9 Here, the authors discussed how collaboration is important for improving learning outcomes and for fostering integration of knowledge. They further defined the use of group concept mapping as an active learning experience. Our goal was to implement a learning exercise that would actively engage first-year medical students working in small groups to promote critical thinking, knowledge integration, and professional collaboration within a single course. With this goal, the following 4 learning objectives were determined. Students should be able to


Concept mapping course evaluation analysis. (A) Course evaluation analysis of 2021 student cohort for survey question 1 (Q1) and question 2 (Q2) showing average Likert-type scale response. (B) Course evaluation analysis of 2022 student cohort for survey Q1 and Q2 showing average Likert-type scale response value. (C) Rubric score comparison of concept maps from first and last clinical case. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.


The creation of concept maps can range from complete freedom of map construction by providing no terms to more restrictive approaches by providing a skeleton concept map where students fill in terms or links.15,19,21 Our approach was intermediate to these methodologies. Within each clinical case, terms were provided and separated into 2 domains, medical science (basic science) and clinical medicine. The student groups had complete freedom to construct concept maps with the provided terms and were encouraged to add more terms and links as they desire. The clinical cases and provided terms were aligned with the didactic lecture curriculum. This approach allowed students to explore and visualize content material that was delivered separately and integrate the information prompted by the clinical case and using concept mapping. Although concept mapping has been used in problem-based medical curricula,8,11,13 this is the first report of this active learning method to be engaged and aligned with didactic lecture curriculum for first-year medical students.


A noteworthy difference between the concept map rubric developed and used here with other rubrics was the emphasis on both the development of web-like organizational structure of the map and increased complexity of descriptors that linked the terms. Concept map assessment rubrics have been developed to score maps with an emphasis on hierarchical structure5,10,22 or focusing on the number and accuracy of links.7,10 The rubric used in this study was modified from Jennings (2012) to assess overall map structure, number of connections, and accuracy of links.16 This challenges the learners not only to make as many connections as possible but also to deeply understand the mechanisms of how the concepts are connected with complex links. Concepts for each clinical case were intentionally chosen by faculty to allow for and promote multiple connections for learners to discover the numerous relationships and connections between basic and clinical science needed for medical practice. Through the process of concept map peer review, continual improvement of knowledge integration could be demonstrated along with weekly formative feedback from faculty (Figure 3C). Although the cohorts in this study had different average concept map scores for the first case, they both finished the course with essentially the same final average map scores, suggesting growth of knowledge integration occurred in both cohorts. All groups in both cohorts displayed improvements in concept map rubric scores throughout the term. The improvement of concept map construction was observed as the groups continued to work through the case-based concept mapping sessions. The 2021 cohort had 11 case-based concept mapping sessions, whereas the 2022 cohort worked through 8 cases during the term. The combination of continual use of concept mapping aligned to the curriculum along with the regular formative feedback by faculty and peer review feedback contributed greatly to group performance improvement.


I have just under 10 years' experience working with 'concept maps' for business analysis. Concept maps and concept models are roughly on the same level of abstraction. I am certain that the considerable benefits of business concept mapping will support the SBVR concept model and will make it even easier to get SBVR concept modeling into the value chain of many organizations.


The primary goal of business-side concept models is and must be readability (power of intuitive communication, which enforces sensemaking). In my opinion, business concept mapping leads the class, with Novak in second place and the concept model in third.


The concept model is somewhat more formal and complex. That raises the bar for the acceptance. However, the complexity is necessary down the line, once you start to construct solutions. That is why the term 'model' is appropriate. When to switch from business concept mapping to business concept modeling is a matter of circumstance (and of the audience, in most cases). Both approaches are based on visual thinking, which is the heart of the matter.


Business understanding is created via concept mapping. Then, from the business analysis point of view, the design-thinking people learn from, and are inspired by, that business understanding (expressed as concept maps). In that way, concept mapping is a prerequisite for the creation of new/changed business concepts (and processes). Concept maps trigger the ah-ha! moments that design-thinking people get excited by.


Concept mapping is the preferred tool because synthesis is much about writing narratives. Concept maps are great storytellers! They are designed for it. The process of developing concept maps in brainstorming sessions is highly supportive of creating understanding from different angles and perspectives. The ah-ha's are bound to appear sooner than later.


Based on my experiences from many projects (since 2004 and ongoing), there is strong confirmation of the applicability of concept mapping to business analysis. Many of these projects were data warehouse/business-intelligence-oriented business development projects; some of the projects were large analysis and specification projects in the public sector.


Client feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. The business people quickly recognized the added value of concept maps. The viability of 'meaningful learning' (which is the theoretical background of concept mapping) was solidly confirmed.


Time spent in the early days of the project on business concept mapping proved to be time well spent. There is actual gain at the end, and the whole of the project is more safe and manageable. This is because:


The design-thinking approach used with concept mapping has repeatedly produced valid designs of business information at the level of concepts and relationships. The acceptance by the business community has been much higher than anything else we have seen. And the effect of producing more valid business information structures has, of course, been a platform for more reliable business management.


How does this compare to Ron Ross and Gladys Lam's approach (in Building Business Solutions)? There is a lot of good synergy between the two approaches. The Business Concept Maps (that my approach produces) will not only strengthen the Business Model and Policy Charter approaches (the BBS approach) in the eyes of the business people, but business concept maps will also serve as a very good forerunner for concept (fact) modeling. I think there are a number of situations where a lighter, quicker, and easier approach is appropriate. Concept mapping can then elegantly catch the ball from there, a bit later on.


Thomas Frisendal is an experienced consultant with more than 30 years on the IT vendor side and as an independent consultant. Since 1995 he has primarily been working with data warehouse projects. His area of excellence lies within the art of turning data into information and knowledge. Since 2005 he has specialized in business analysis, concept "harvesting" and mapping, and the modeling of information and data, as well as the design of business intelligence solutions. In 2012 he published his first book, "Design Thinking Business Analysis: Business Concept Mapping Applied."Thomas Frisendal is a member of The Data Warehouse Institute Denmark (member of the board), The IIBA, The Danish IT Society, The Danish Management Board, The International Association for Information and Data Quality (IAIDQ), and The Cognitive Society. 041b061a72


bottom of page