This article discusses how mapping techniques were used in university teaching in a humanities subject. The use of concept mapping was expanded as a pedagogical tool, with a focus on reflective learning processes. Data were collected through a longitudinal study of concept mapping in a university-level Classics course. This was used to explore how mapping can be applied in the discursive context of the humanities in relation to teaching, learning and assessment. A theory was developed of how to facilitate the externalization of the relationship between public and personal reflection through combining social and psychological aspects of learning. The article concludes with suggestions for how this can be applied as a learning and assessment tool to assist the writing and reflection process in the humanities. This situates broader developments in educational theory and research in the unique character of learning and teaching in Classics.
AusubelDP (1963) The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning, New York: Grune and Stratton.
2.
AusubelDP (1968) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
3.
Bakhtin M (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. Bakhtin, ed. M Holquist, trans. C Emerson and M Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
4.
Bakhtin M (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. C Emerson and M Holquist, trans. VW McGee and C Emerson. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
5.
BarnettR (1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business, Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
6.
BecherTTrowlerPR (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines, 2nd edn. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
7.
BiggsJB (1985) The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology55: 185–212.
8.
BiggsJB (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
9.
BoudDKeoghRWalkerD(1985) What is reflection in learning? In: BoudDKeoghRWalkerD (eds) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, London: Kogan Page, pp. 7–17.
10.
BrockbankAMcGillI (1998) Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education, Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
11.
BuzanTBuzanB (2000) The Mind Map Book, London: BBC Worldwide.
12.
ChecklandP (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Chichester: John Wiley.
13.
CremeP(2000) The ‘personal’ in university writing: Uses of reflective learning journals. In: LeaMRStiererB (eds) Student Writing in Higher Education, Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, pp. 97–111.
14.
CremePHuntC (2002) Creative participation in the essay writing process. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education1(2): 145–66.
15.
DaleyBJ (2002a) The scholarship of teaching and learning: Facilitating adult learning. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning3(1): 14–23.
16.
DaleyBJ (2002b) Facilitating learning with adult students through concept mapping. Journal of Continuing and Higher Education50(1): 21–31.
17.
DeweyJ (1910) How We Think, Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.
18.
DoroughDKRyeJA (1997) Mapping for understanding. Science Teacher64(1): 36–41.
19.
GeorgeJW (2009) Classical curriculum design. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education8(2): 160–79.
20.
GriffithsMTannS (1992) Using reflective practice to link personal and public theories. Journal of Education for Teaching18(1): 69–84.
21.
HayDB (2007) Using concept mapping to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education32(1): 39–57.
22.
HayDB (2008) Developing dialogical concept mapping as an e-learning technology. British Journal of Educational Technology39(6): 1057–60.
23.
HayDBKinchinIM (2006) Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies. Education and Training48: 79–83.
24.
HayDBKinchinIM (2008) Using concept mapping to measure learning quality. Education and Training50(2): 167–82.
25.
HayDBKinchinIMLygo-BakerS (2008a) Making learning visible: The role of concept mapping in Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education33(3): 295–311.
26.
HayDBWellsHKinchinIM (2008b) Quantitative and qualitative measures of student learning at university level. Higher Education56(2): 221–39.
27.
HerlHEBakerELNeimiD (1996) Construct validation of an approach to modeling cognitive structure of US history knowledge. Journal of Educational Research89(4): 206–18.
28.
IllerisK (2002) The Three Dimensions of Learning: Contemporary Learning Theory in the Tension Field Between the Cognitive, the Emotional and the Social, Leicester: NIACE.
29.
IllerisK (2003) Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education22(4): 396–406.
30.
IllerisK(2005) A comprehensive understanding of human learning. In: JarvisPParkerS (eds) Human Learning: An Holistic Approach, London: Routledge, pp. 87–100.
31.
JarvisP (2006) Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning: Lifelong Learning and the Learning SocietyVol. 1, London: Routledge.
32.
KemmisS(1985) Action research and the politics of reflection. In: BoudDKeoghRWalkerD (eds) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, London: Kogan Page, pp. 139–64.
33.
KinchinIM (2003) Effective teacher student dialogue: A model from biological education. Journal of Biological Education37(3): 110–13.
34.
KinchinIMCabotLBHayDB (2008) Visualising expertise: Towards an authentic pedagogy for higher education. Teaching in Higher Education13(3): 315–26.
35.
KinchinIMHayDBAdamsA (2000) How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research42(1): 43–57.
36.
Mezirow J (1990) How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In: Mezirow J and associates, Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1–20.
37.
MintzesJJWanderseeJHNovakJD (1999) Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View, Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
38.
NeumannR (2001) Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education2: 135–46.
39.
NovakJD (1990) Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching27(10): 937–49.
40.
NovakJD (1993) Human constructivism: A unification of psychological and epistemological phenomena in meaning making. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology6: 167–93.
41.
NovakJD(1996) Concept mapping: A tool for improving science teaching and learning. In: TreagustDFDuitRFraserBJ (eds) Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics, London: Teachers College Press, pp. 32–43.
42.
NovakJD (1998) Learning, Creating and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
NovakJDGowinDB (1984) Learning How to Learn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
NovakJDMusondaD (1991) A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal28(1): 117–53.
45.
Perkins D (2007) Theories of difficulty, in N. Entwistle and P. Tomlinson (eds) Student Learning and University Teaching, British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 4. Leicester: The British Psychology Society, 31–48.
46.
PiagetJ (1952) The Origin of Intelligence in Children, New York: Norton.
47.
ShavelsenRJRuiz-PrimoMAWileyEW (2005) Windows into the mind. Higher Education49: 413–30.
48.
SmithK (2004) School to university: An investigation into the experience of first-year students of English at British universities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education3(1): 81–93.
49.
SternglassMS (1997) Time to Know Them: A Longitudinal Study of Writing and Learning at the College Level, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50.
TightM (2003) Researching Higher Education, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
51.
WegerifR (2007) Dialogic Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning, New York: Springer.
52.
WegerifR (2008) Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal34(3): 347–61.
