JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING

VOL. 27. NO. 10. PP. 923-936 (1990)

CONCEPT MAPPING AND THE CARTOGRAPHY OF COGNITION

JAMES H. WANDERSEE
Graduate Studies in Curriculum and Instruction, Louisiana Stare University

Abstract
Since concept maps are designed to find out what the learner knows about a subject
and are, in effect, maps of cognition, this article synthesizes relevant facts, concepts, and
principles from cartography and applies them to concept mapping. The metaphor of the map
and its applicability for representing scientific knowledge are discussed. The context of concept
mapping IS presented and suggestions for successful application of the technique in the science
classroom are offered. Finally, researchers are invited to conduct studies that investigate the
graphic representation of scientiJic knowledge in order to create, evaluate, and improve the
graphics and graphic metacognitive tools (such as concept mapping) which are used in science
teaching.

Perspectives from Cartography

Mapping and Knowing

To map is to construct a bounded graphic representation that corresponds to a

perceived reality. Cartography, the science of map making, has a long and noble
history. The earliest known map was found inscribed on a bone artifact at Mezhirich.
USSR and dates back to about 10,OOO BC (Hellemans & Bunch, 1988). It seems to
show the geographic area immediately surrounding the site at which it was found. Not
only ancient peoples, but also remote and isolated tribes living in modem times have
developed mapping prowess. South Sea Islanders invented stick charts-palm sticks
tied together in grid form with coconut fiber-to map the currents, prevailing winds,
and islands they encountered in their journeys across hundreds of miles of open sea.
The technique was fully developed even before they had any written language ( W m a n ,
1989). In the early 1800s, Admirals Parry and Ross were startled to find that Eskimos
whom they met on their expeditions to the Arctic were not only able to understand
the explorers navigational maps but could even supply important information to hpmve
them (Daly, 1879). From early on, humans have ventured forth to explore and then
map their world of experience. Once mapped, it was no longer considered terra
incognita but terra c0gnira-a region known to humankind. Thus, to map has always
meant to know.
8 1990 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
CcC 0022-4308/90/100923- 14W.00

924

WANDERSEE

The Signijcance of Mapping

The map was a signal innovation in human thought. Perhaps no one has captured
its importance better than Arthur H. Robinson (1982), Lawrence Martin Professor
Emeritus of Cartography at the University of Wisconsin:
The act of mapping was as profound as the invention of a number system. . . The
combination of the reduction of reality and the construction of an analogical space
is an attainment in abstract thinking of a very high order indeed, for it enables one
to discover structures that would remain unknown if not mapped. (p. 1)
The Cartographic Communication Process

There are two critical transformations which must occur if a map is to fulfill its
role as an instrument of human communication (Dent, 1985). First, the mapmaker
must encode the meaning, using appropriate graphic conventions. Only potentially
meaningful, contextually appropriate information should be included on a map (Guelke,
1976). Second, the map reader must perform detection, recognition, discrimination,
and estimation tasks in order to extract the meaning which was encoded.
Thus the cartographic design and interpretation processes involve complex cognitive
transformations with both intellectual and visual components. Opportunities for creativity
are also present at both transformation points and may serve (a) to challenge ones
assumptions, (b) to recognize new patterns, (c) to make new connections, and (d) to
visualize the unknown. Thus, the real world yields the raw data of perception which
are transformed by the map maker into a map that represents knowledge worth sharing;
the map reader then extracts the relevant meaning and uses it for problem solving and
decision making (Cuff C?Z Mattson, 1982).
In most commercial cartographic enterprises, there is little opportunity for twoway communication with or feedback from the map reader. The feedback which the
map makers receive is usually indirect (e.g., the maps sales document its value to
the user). Most cartographers. however, admit that the solicitation and careful consideration
of map readers evaluative responses are vital to improvement of map design (Dent,
1985).
Limiting Factors

Although all maps contain errors. the history of cartography shows that the accuracy
of any map is highly dependent upon the quality and quantity of the data the map
maker collects about the reality to be mapped. In addition, the cartographers prior
knowledge influences hidher selection of and generalization about the data. The map
makers aesthetic sense and artistry also affect the final product (Robinson, 1980).
Thus, every map reflects both its data and its designer. Map making is a human
exercise in knowledge construction or meaning making, and therefore has both
inherent strengths and limitations.
Brown (1949) defends map makers with vigor in his classic work, The Story of
Maps, when he writes

CARTOGRAPHY OF COGNITION

925

criticized for its errors than cartographers . . . for every map and chart compiled by
the pioneers in cartography, a thousand pages of adverse criticism have been written
about them by men who were themselves incapable of being wrong because they
would never think of exposing themselves to criticism, let alone failure. (p. 9)

Maps as Indicators of Change

It is interesting to peruse old world maps and compare them to modem ones; the
older maps transport us to a strange perceived reality and help us to understand the
thoughts of generations past. Where once dragons were believed to lurk, now new
continents exist; when Once every civilization thought it was at the geographic center
of the earth, now-on the surface of an oblate ellipsoid-no one is. Upon viewing
a chronological sequence of world maps, we can see how knowledge about the natural
world has changed over time. Changes in maps reflect changes in understanding.

The Influence of Prior Knowledge

It would be reasonable to assume that the parade of maps across time would show
steady progress toward what we today consider greater understanding of the natural
world. But that is not the historical reality. To give just one example, Boorstin (1983)
writes:
Christian Europe did not carry on the work of Ptolemy [they replaced his detailed
gridwork with caricature]. Instead the [medieval] leaders of orthodox Christendom
built a grand barrier against the progress of knowledge about the earth . . . Designed
to express what orthodox Christians were expected to believe, they were not so
much maps of knowledge as maps of Scriptural dogma. (pp. 100- 101)

Jerusalem was placed at the center of the world because of the Bible verse Ezekiel
5 5 ( . . . I have set it in the midst of the nations . . .). More than 600 extant maps
from this period in history reflect such medieval Christain thought. Thus, the prior
(theological) knowledge of the medieval map makers affected their choice of data and,
ultimately, the maps they constructed.

The Inherent Distortion of Maps

While technological advancements and cartographic algorithms give the impression
that todays maps are perfect representations of reality, every map (even a globe) still
distorts reality. Various projections (e.g., cylindrical, conical, azimuthal) are employed
to give alternate views of the perceived reality on a flat piece Of paper-views that
are very useful for specific purposes, but distorted nevertheless. Why use a projection?
Robinson (1980) observes, The projection Constitutes a systematic reference frame. . .
(p. 58). Commonly, factors such as the maps intended intellectual function and desired
visual structure are used to determine which projection is most appropriate for a given
application. A single kind of graphic representation certainly does not meet the needs
of all map makers and, even today. all maps are approximations of perceived reality.
Monmonier (1977) goes so far as to contend that distortion is necessary in order that
the map reader be permitted to comprehend the meaning of the map (p. 7).

926

WANDERSEE

The Cognitive Power of Maps

In Chapter 3 (Mapping) of their stimulating book The Ring of Truth: How We

Know What We Know ( 1987), Momson and Morrison point out that only in this century
have humans been able to send astronauts and satellites into space to see what the
world really looks like. Yet the space trips yielded no real surprises to change the
world map; even before balloons and aircraft provided wider views, cartographers had
already mapped the globe quite accurately by crawling like ants over its surface.
We should never underestimate the cognitive power represented in the mapping process.
Using Maps to Integrate and Summarize Knowledge

The Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, finished in 1870, crisscrossed that

country with huge sightline triangles using only the low technology of sighting towers
(Momson & Momson, 1987). It was this survey and those triangles that identified
Mount Everest as the highest mountain on earth-a mathematical discovery made by
mapmakers doing calculations in an office in Calcutta-cartographers who never
actually set foot on the mountain itself! From this historical account, it seems apparent
that mapping-even using indirect methods-can be a valid and reliable way of
integrating and summarizing a set of perceived units of reality.
The Generative Power of Maps

Another conclusion that one could draw from the same story is this: Not only do
maps represent what we know, they suggest further explorations. When Sir Edrnund
Percival Hillary and his native guide, Tenzing Norkay, reached the peak of Mount
Everest on May 29, 1953, they provided direct verification of what the Indian map
makers had predicted Some 80 years before (Asimov, 1972, pp. 758-759). There were
other unclimbed peaks, but Sir Edmund wanted to conquer the one the mapmakers
said was the highest of all. Just as an impetus for Columbus famous voyage was a
map, so it was for Hillarys momentous ascent.

The Metaphor of the Map

The Role of Metaphor

Metaphors are archetypes that can subsume difficult concepts and have heuristic
value. For example, someone might say that the earth is an organism or the brain is
a computer and then explore the implications of such a metaphor. Philosopher D. Bob
Gowin once observed, An apt metaphor is probably better than an arid and formally
stated hypothesis in trying to find Out about something unknown. . . . Get thyself a
metaphor to ride the unknown. All the rest is algebta (Gowin, 1983, p. 39).
Scientific Knowledge and the Map Metaphor

If knowing is making a mental map of the concepts one has learned and if people
think with concepts, then the better ones map, the better one can think. Judson (1980)
reminds us that the map as metaphor for the network Of scientific knowledge has

CARMGRAPHY OF COGNITION

927

often been suggested . . . (p. 191). Although maps are always somewhat inaccurate,
approximate, and incomplete, so are the scientific theories which humans construct.
Like a map, theories connect knowledge in many directions and are continually updated
to incorporate new information. The act of theory building, like map making, exposes
doubtful knowledge and calls for its replacement with more reliable knowledge. Ziman
(1978) points out that the first maps of a new territory are usually naive, somewhat
arbitrary, and asystematic. It is only after innumerable expeditions have reported their
findings that major discrepancies or ambiguities in the original map are resolved. But
without that first map of the territory, subsequent explorers would have nothing to test
and nothing to amend. Just as a map cannot be reduced to strings of text, scientific
knowledge is fairly nonlinear, hierarchical, and weblike. Therefore, the metaphor of
the map seems quite appropriate for holistic representation of scientific knowledge.

The Context of Concept Mapping

Theoretical Foundution

Concept mapping is a metalearning strategy based on the Ausubel-Novak-Gowin

theory of meaningful learning (Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian, 1978; Gowin, 1981;
Novak, 1977; Novak & Gowin, 1984). It relates directly to such theoretical principles
as prior knowledge, subsumption, progressive differentiation, cognitive bridging, and
integrative reconciliation. Unfortunately, some teachers master the technique because
it is mentioned in their teachers manual, but are completely unaware that concept
mapping is not just another study strategy. They do not realize that it is based upon
a major psychological theory in science education and that it is designed to help
students learn how to learn science.
Basic to making a concept map for a piece of scientific knowledge is the ability
of the mapper to identify and relate its salient concepts to a general, superordinate
concept. That requires an understanding of what constitutes a science concept. Concepts
may be defined as regularities in objects or events designated by some label, usually
a term. Whether a process (e.g., precipitation), a procedure (e.g., titration), or a
product (e.g., carbohydrate), concepts are what we think with in science. Concepts
can be connected with linking words to form propositions (e.g., turtles are classified
as reptiles, sucrose tastes sweet, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). Therefore, a
concept map may be defined as . . . a schematic device for representing a set of
concept meanings embedded in a framework of propositions (Novak Lk Gowin. 1984,
p. 15).
At first glance, a concept map looks like a flow chart without the arrows. However,
it is not. Rather than representing a linear or branched sequence of steps in a process
or procedure, concept maps are designed to parallel human cognitive structure, in that
they show concepts organized hierarchically, whereas flowcharts do not. Instead of a
representation that corresponds directly to a linear text or lecture and reflects the
structure of knowledge (e.g., outlines), concept maps reflect the psvchologica/ structure
of knowledge. A concept mapper must often transform the knowledge to be mapped
from its current, linear form to a context-dependent hierarchical form. Before that can
be done, the mapper must first identify the key concepts, arrange them from general
to specific, and relate them to each other in a meaningful way.

928

WANDERSEE

Graphic Conventions and Map tmprovement

A finished concept map, which has probably undergone numerous revisions, looks
deceptively simple to someone who has never actually constructed one. It is visually
efficient and easy to understand. Concepts are written using lowercase letters and are
centered within circles or ellipses. From the superordinate concept at its top flow
several cascades of subordinate concepts, each level of the case increasing in specificity
as it approaches the bottom of the page. All of the lines connecting the concepts must
be accompanied by linking words, so that each branch of the map can be read from
the top down. Often, at the terminus of each branch, may be found examples of the
terminal concept. Examples anchor the map, may be included anywhere in the map,
and are not encircled as the concepts are; they may be enclosed by broken circles or
ellipses, however. Where appropriate, cross-links labeled with linking words connect
branches of the map like bridges link riverbanks. By convention, such cross-links may
be represented by broken lines. Occasionally, an arrowhead is used at the end of a
linking line to show that a proposition is not bidirectional. Despite their uncomplicated
appearance, concept maps are, initially, difficult to construct. It may take as long as
8- 10 weeks for students to become fully accustomed to the technique and to realize
its potential for improving their understanding of science.
One of the problems students initially encounter when constructing their own
concept maps is how to formulate meaningful propositions so that they have appropriate
linking words to write on the lines that connect the concepts. In their first attempts,
often the maps students produce make heavy use of the linking verb be and the
propositions they generate are less powerful because of it. Students need to see examples
that use other verbs, as well as adverbs, adjectives, and prepositions so that the concept
map reads like a graphic argument that uses data, claims, warrants, support, and
reservations much like Toulmins (1964) system of argumentation.
This author also sees the recent discourse analysis conducted by Dagher and
Cossman (1990). which seeks to analyze the verbal explanations which are often used
in science teaching, as potentially invaluable as a heuristic for helping students word
some of the key propositions which they place on their maps. That studys organizational
scheme would suggest that the following categories of propositions may be important
to consider when making a Science concept map in that they are both useful for learning
science and falsifiable: (a) practical: how to think about or do something (e.g., an
instrument must be calibrated); (b) theoretical: analogical (e.g., the cell functions as
if it were a factory); (c) theoretical: functional (e.g., together, the genetic program
and the environment determine the phenotype); (d) theoretical: teleological (e.g., Salk
wanted to find a polio vaccine); (el theoretical: genetic (antecedent event sequence)
(e.g., the food chain biologically magnifies DDT);(f) theoretical: mechanical (e.g.,
new feathers that emerge following molting replace faded, brittle, or worn feathers);
and (s) theoretical: rational (evidence-basPd)b g . , mammalian heart rate varies inversely
with body size). As Robinson (1980) points out: Cartography is a technique, just as
scientific writing or the language of mathematics. by which intellectual concepts are
displayed for consumption (p. 19). Thus, the greater the clarity of the propositions,
the more conceptually transparent ones concept map Will be.
One of the best references on concept mapping and how it may be introduced to
students at various grade levels is the book: Learning HOW to Learn (Novak & Gowin,
1984). Science educators should not attempt to teach others how to make a concept

CARTOGRAPHY OF COGNITION

929

map unless they have mastered all of the graphic conventions and have constructed
at least ten different maps by themselves. One can neither empathize with nor capably
assist the beginning concept mapper without such experience. With such experience,
it is also obvious that the educational benefit accrues chiefly to the mapper, not the
person given anothers map.
Three Theory-BasedMetacognitive Tools

If learners are empowered through instruction that promotes personal meaning

making (Novak, 19891, and if the world seems already firmly committed to a more
visual than verbal learning mode. . . (Hass, 1990, p. 61, and if . . . meaning depends
on context and understanding requires a vast body of knowledge about the world
(Waldrop, 1984, p. 372), then new graphic tools and instructional strategies based on
a theory of meaningful learning are needed.
At present, only three graphic metacognitive tools have been developed which
are based solely upon the Ausubel-Novak-Gowin theory of meaningful learning. They
are (a) concept circle diagrams, (b) concept maps, and (c) vee diagrams. See Appendixes
A, B, and C. Each has a particular role to play in science instruction and each has its
own growing research base.
Concept circle diagrams. The concept circle technique was invented at Cornell
University in 1984 by Wandersee (1987a, 1987b) and was designed to conform explicitly
to the Ausubel-Novak-Gowin theory of meaningful learning and to modern visual
perception research. It is derived from mathematician Leonhard Eulers (1707- 1783)
system of logic diagrams and is especially useful for teaching bounded taxonomic
concepts and depicting the categorical relationships of inclusion and exclusion.
Concept circle diagrams may be defined as two-dimensional geometric figures
(circles) which are isomorphic with the conceptual structure of a particular piece of
knowledge and are accompanied by a title, concept labels. and an explanatory sentence.
Students use drawing templates (with experimentally determined, psychologically sized
circle holes) in order to encode quantitative and categorical relationships between the
concepts they wish to represent. The format of the concept circle diagram is based
upon the scanning pattern of the human eye and the number of circles in a given
diagram is intentionally limited to five or less, based upon research in information
processing. visual perception, and science education (Wandersee, 1987b). Diagrams
may be connected by a visual technique called telescoping and all diagrams are
colored using principles of visual perception to guide color selection. The technique
has been used successfully with life science classes from grade 4 through graduate
school (Nobles & Wandersee, 1990) and it appears applicable to any science discipline.
However, further research is both necessary and planned.
Initially, the author has found the technique eSpecidlY Useful as a way of introducing
students to graphic metacognitive tools, to the nature of a concept, and to the learning
strategy of searching for simple exclusive/inclusive relationships between concepts. It
appears to be the first graphic metacognitive tool to be designed using visual perception
principles and it seems to be quite helpful in Preparing students to learn concept
mapping.
Concept maps. Concept mapping was invented at COrnell University by Novak
and the members of his research group (Stewart. Van Kirk & Rowell, 1979). It was

930

WANDERSEE

described earlier in this article. Of the three, this tool has the largest research base
and is quite widely used in textbooks, teachers guides, and science classrooms.
For example, a recently completed major survey of the high school science teachers
in the state of Louisiana showed that 50% of them were aware of the instructional
technique of concept mapping (McCoy, Wandersee & Good, 1990). It is especially
useful for helping students understand what meaningful learning is and showing
them that learning is idiosyncratic and is therefore a responsibility which cannot
be shared.
Vee diagrams. Vee diagramming was invented at Cornell University in 1977
by Gowin (1981). Although this technique is less widely known, it is ideally suited
to improve science laboratory instruction, research design, and the writing of research
papers. The same survey of Louisiana high school science teachers found that just
17% were aware of the vee diagramming technique (McCoy, Wandersee & Good,
1990). Nonetheless, it is especially useful in helping students understand the structure
of knowledge and how we know what we know in science. This graphic has the
form of a capital letter V and has a thinking (epistemological) and a doing
(methodological) side. A central telling question points the vee at an object or
event that can help to answer it. The method of extracting knowledge from the
object or event of interest is informed by the conceptual side of the vee and the
complex interplay of the vees elements produces knowledge and value claims.
This tool is the most difficult of the three for students to grasp and therefore it
should probably be the last one they learn to use. It may also be the most powerful
of the three, and this author asserts that its use should be a part of every graduate
program in science and science education.

Applying Cartography to Metacognition

All three of the metacognitive tools discussed in this article are maplike, with
concept mapping showing the closest relationship to cartography. The metaphor of the
map seems quite appropriate for holistic representation of what we know in and through
science. The following generalizations from cartography can inform our understanding
of such graphic tepresentation of scientific knowledge: (a) mapping and knowing are
closely intertwined; (b) maps are excellent heuristic devices; (c) both the map maker
and the map reader have important responsibilities to fulfill if communication is to
occur; (d) every map reflects both its data and its designer; (e) changes in maps reflect
changes in understanding; (f) the Prior knowledge of the map maker can have a great
influence on the maps he or she produces; (8) all maps distort reality, both because
of the very nature of mapping and because map makers have learned how to exploit
distortion to achieve their communicative goals; and (h) maps have great cognitive,
integrative, summative, and generative Power.

Concept Mapping, Cartography, Cognition, and Future Research:

Some personal Comments
Concept mapping, the subject of this Special issue of the Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, is relatively new. Its long-term impact on science education cannot

CARTOGRAPHY OF COGNITION

93 I

yet be determined. If research results remain promising, the technique will no doubt
continue to be modified and improved.
With the readers forbearance, the following personal comments may be instructive.
During the 11 years that I have been associated with Novak and his research group
at Cornell University, I have used concept mapping (a) to teach undergraduate biology
courses; (b) to teach science education methods courses to pre- and in-service primary,
secondary, and university science teachers; and (c) to publish science education research
papers based upon it (e.g., Abrams & Wandersee, 1990; McCoy, Wandersee, & Good,
1990; Wandersee, 1983; 1990).
I continue to be impressed by the potential of such graphic metacognitive tools
to help science teachers and science educators improve science instruction. 1 invite all
researchers with an interest in the graphic representation of scientific knowledge to
join us in exploring this domain, since much more research is needed.
At Louisiana State University, a graduate course that I teach which is entitled
The Graphic Representation of Scientific Knowledge attempts to integrate relevant
principles and research from such domains of knowledge as epistemology, learning
theory, visual perception, graphic design, computer visualization, information processing,
scientific illustration, cartography, and even vexillology to create, evaluate, and improve
the graphics and the graphic metacognitive tools used in science teaching. In addition
to the instructors presentations, guest speakers from other units of the university, the
citys professional community, and neighboring universities offer students new perspectives on what makes a scientific graphic effective.
At San Diego State University, Kathleen Fisher and the SemNet research group
have also developed a promising new metacognitive tool, a course, and a research
program in this field-all of which are described in an article appearing elsewhere in
this issue.
In closing, perhaps a parallel can be drawn from the history of cartography. Up
to the late 1600s, there were only general geographic maps. Then, a significant advance
was made: Thematic maps were invented. Thematic maps portray variations within a
single class of features rather than show an assemblage of features. A weather map,
for example, is a thematic map, so is a bird species range map. Robinson (1982)
contends that:

. . . the development of thematic mapping in the Western world ranks as a major

revolution in the history of mapmaking. Its intellectual and conceptual consequences
are comparable to those that followed upon the spread of the concepts in Ptolemys
Geography some three centuries earlier. ( p . 17)

WANDERSEE

932

Appendix A
Two concept circle diagrams done by a student in a ninth-grade environmental
science course, with annotation added to highlight key features of such diagrams and
shading added to represent the original colors (redrawn). (Note: The technique can
depict five basic qualitative relationships among concepts and two basic quantitive
ones. This example shows only the inclusion and the relative importance relationships.
It also shows how diagrams can be linked by telescoping.)

CARTOGRAPHY OF COGNITION

933

Appendix B
Concept map on the design of the pencil, constructed to show most of the graphic
conventions employed in concept mapping.

Q
psnc 1I

934

WANDERSEE

Appendix C
A Gowins vee diagram for a high school biology laboratory investigation of the
microscopic organisms in pondwater. (The original diagram was made by a preservice
biology teacher.)

CARTOGRAPHY OF COGNITION

935

References
Abrams, E. & Wandersee. J. (1990). How to use a concept map to identify
students biological misconceptions. Submitted for publication.
Asimov, 1. (1972). Asimovs Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology.
New York: Avon Books.
Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D. & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A
Cognitive View, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Boorstin, D.J. (1983). The Discoverers: A History of Mans Search to Know his
World and Himself. New York: Random House.
Brown, L.A. (1949). The Story of Maps. New York: Bonanza Books.
Cuff, D.J. & Mattson, M.T. (1982). ThematicMaps: TheirDesignandProduction.
New York: Methuen.
Dagher, Z. & Cossman, G.W. (1990). The nature of verbal explanations given
by science teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching. Atlanta, GA, April, 1990.
Daly, C.P. (1879). On the early history of cartography; or, What we know of
maps and mapmaking, before the time of Mercator. Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, 11, 1-41.
Dent, B.D. (1985). Principles Of thematic map design. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Gowin, D.B. (1981). Educating. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gowin, D.B. (1983). Misconceptions, metaphors and conceptual change: once
more with feeling. In: H. Helm and J.D. Novak, Eds., Proceedings ofthefnternational
Seminar on Misconceptions in Science
Mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University,
pp. 39-41.
Guelke, L. ( 1976). Cartographic communication and geographic understanding.
Canadian Cartographer, 13, 107- 122.
H a s , T.E. (1990, June). Guest editorial: prettier, or more sensible? Scientific
Computing & Automation, 5-6.
Hellemans, A. & Bunch, B. (1988). The Timetables of Science: A Chronology
of the Most Important People and Events in the History of Science. New York: Simon
and Shuster.
Judson, H.F. (1980). The Search for Solutions. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
McCoy, M.H., Wandersee, J.H. lk Good, R.G. (1990). A science education
awareness map of the state of Louisiana. Submitted for publication.
Monmonier, M.S. (1977). Maps, distortion, and meaning (resource paper No.
75-4). Washington, D.C.: Association Of American Geographers.
Momson, p. & Momson, P. (1987). The Ring of Truth: An Inquiry into How We
Know What we Know. New York: Random House.
Nobles, C. & Wandersee, J.H. (1990). Drawing concept circles: A new way to
represent knowledge. Submitted for publication.
Novak, J.D. (1977). A Theory of Education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Novak, J.D. (1989). Helping students learn how to learn: a view from a teacherresearcher. Paper presented at the Third Congress on Research and Teaching of
Science, Santiago de Compostah Spain. September, 1989.
Novak, J.D. & Gowin. D.B. (1984). Learning HOW to b a r n . New York: Cambridge
University Press.

936

WANDERSEE

Robinson, A.H. (1980). The Look of Maps: An Examination of Cartographic

Design. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Robinson, A.H. (1982). Early Thematic Mapping in the History of Cartography.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stewart, J., Van Kirk, J. & Rowell, R. (1979). Concept maps: A tool for use in
biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 41(3), 171- 175.
Toulmin, S.E. (1964). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Waldrop, M.M. (1984). Natural language understanding. Science, 224, 372-374.
Wandersee, J.H. (1983). What research says: the concept of away. Science and
Children, 21(2), 47-49.
Wandersee, J.H. (1987a). Drawing concept circles: a way of revealing what the
learner knows. In J.D. Novak, Ed.. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar
on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University, Vol. 1, pp. 506-520.
Wandersee, J.H. (1987b). Drawing concept circles: a new way to teach and test
students. Science Activities, 24(4), 1, 9-20.
Wandersee, J.H. (1990). On the value and use of the history of science in teaching
todays science: constructing historical vignettes. In D.E. Herget. Ed., The history
and philosophy of science in science teaching. Tallahassee,FL: Florida State University,
VOl. 11.
Wurman, R.S. (1989). Information Anxiety. New York: Doubleday.
Ziman, J. (1978). Reliable Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Manuscript accepted August 21, 1990.