Kinchin makes the point early on that if teaching relies on a linear, rote approach then the talked of experiential learning from life experience and the student's developing knowledge structures are rendered irrelevant (p.16 and figure 5).
Hodges' model is a metacognitive tool so any future research could call upon constructivist methodology. Kinchin describes Novak's (1993) summary of constructivist epistemology as "the belief that from birth to senescence or death, individuals continually construct and reconstruct the meaning of events and objects they observe." (p.16). There are three key assertions behind this:
- human beings are meaning-makers;
- the goal of education is the construction of shared meanings;
- and shared meanings may be facilitated by the active intervention of well-prepared teachers.
It is easy to see how this sequence can contribute to
active teaching and learning. This resonates with Hodges' model too (inevitably - yes really!). In the model's title:
Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model
The 'health career' is not career, as in jobs and work. 'Health career' is drawn from the idea of 'life chances'. In combination or isolation the knowledge (care) domains of Hodges' model can capture the potential range of concepts, events and objects that might be encountered by a student - lifelong learner. Hodges' model can even preempt birth if needed, incorporating epigenetic factors, the stress and trauma associated and
experienced with conflict, forced migration of mother's to-be; ethical, spiritual and religious matters also.
The student's network of concepts, for example, on a first clinical placement may be rudimentary, but informed by experience in the family of a particular illness perhaps. The concepts they grasp-for initially may be rather broad, lay-terms but this is were the well-prepared teachers and mentors come into play. Kinchin refers to epistemological resonance between the curriculum and the concept mapping tool.
Can Hodges' model
really facilitate both? That would be quite an educational coup surely?
A definition of 'concept' by Novak and Carnas (2007) is one to reference (pp.16-17). The definition is sufficiently broad so as to apply to all disciplines and subject areas.
In constructing concept maps Kinchin begins with a proto-map. These are produced through brainstorming to create what colleagues refer to as 'a parking lot of concepts'. From these concepts the most important concept is identified which leads to a focus question and root concept. This frames the resulting concept map. This reminds me of Tony Buzan's approach. There
are marked differences and there may be merit in further future reflection (study) as Kinchin also suggests through the steps described.
Chains of prepositions are also formulated with the links between concepts following depending on the context. For example, STUDENTS--;LECTURES could be linked meaning Students should attend Lectures. The meaning could be that Students are bored in Lectures (p.18). The examples of concept maps are clear, readily followed and relevant for all students, biology and nursing students especially. The importance of constructing the links between concepts is stressed: the need for the links to help the map move from the descriptive to the explanatory. Chapter 2 is devoted to applying concept mapping. In the past I recall researchers in cognitive linguistics, nlp - natural
language processing, expert systems, neural networks and artificial
intelligence research being described as either 'hard' or
'fuzzy'.
Sources are provided for the dynamic relationships "as those which establish implication, functional interdependence and covariation among the concepts" (p.19). In concept maps these imply "movement, action and change". The explanation of constructing maps and links hints at
the amount of mentalising involved. I will return to this mentalising in
a future (standalone) post. Kinchin's
glue is referenced through Miller
and Canas (2008) who differentiate between static, non-causative
dynamic and causative dynamic relationships with helpful examples
(p.20). I suspect that as a process
this is achieved in parallel. In developing the concept maps Kinchin points out how initially the process involves something akin to brainstorming (p.22). I realise in reading this that as presented here on #W2tQ I have sold Hodges' model short, as the links between concepts are missing.
I like the formality that is not just implied but is explicit in terms
of having metrics for assessment purposes, to measure the quality of
concepts maps. The closing section of chapter 2 (p.26) explains and illustrates map topography. The feature of dynamism in a concept map becomes a property that can be measured. How is the quality of a concept map determined? What
constitutes a good concept map, in contrast to poor? Chapter 2 points to the prospect of something tangible as Kinchin (2014) has sought to address weaknesses in the literature (pp.30-31). This is very good.
Good because these questions are applicable to Hodges' model also.
to be continued...
Novak, J.D. and Symington, D.J. (1982) Concept mapping for curriculum development.
Victoria Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 48: 3–11.
Kinchin, I., (2016)
Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
See also:
Intro post
Review One
Three
Four
Five
Six
Thanks to Brill for my review copy.
orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-8965