Review of: Knowledge Maps as Scaffolds for Cognitive Processing Joseph D. Novak Professor Emeritus, Cornell university This paper presents a summary of the research done by Donald Dansereau and his students and colleagues over the past dozen years to assess the value of various knowledge representation schemes for the facilitation of learning. These prolific studies have their origins in Dansereau's early efforts to represent information in text passages using Multirelational Semantic Maps (Dansereua, Collins, McDonald, Holley, Diekhoff, and Evans, 1979; Dansereau and Holley, 1982). During this period, I had a number of correspondence exchanges with Dansereau, and some of these are reflected in his 1989 paper, Multirelational Semantic Maps. In the latter paper, Lambiotti, Dansereau, Cross, and Reynolds describe the TCU Knowledge Mapping System that named nine kinds of nodes and links to represent ideas in a knowledge domain. They also identify three different types of links between nodes. Their scheme was contrasted with other knowledge representation schemes, including our method of knowledge representation we called concept maps. In their 1989 paper, Lambiotte, et al describe some of our work in the development of concept maps and characteristics of these maps, including their hierarchical form and what they called the "idiosyncratic" nature of the links between nodes (concepts). Three examples of our concept maps were shown. The authors go on to say: Drawing on Ausubel's theory of learning, Novak felt that maps could be used effectively to diagnose two characteristics of cognitive learning: differentiation and integration of concepts. His arguments are convincing, and he presents examples of how maps can reveal advances in cognitive structure as a result of instruction...(page 353) Somewhat in contradiction to the above the authors state: ...Indeed, it is not clear that Novak's group has any valid evidence for claiming that concept maps enhance instruction and/or learning. (Page 355). Obviously, the TCU group had not seen papers such as our study showing that high school physics students using concept maps far out performed their non-mapping counterpart with the F value for methods variance being F= 480 (Basconas and Novak, 1985). Describing limitations in other research using maps, Lambiotte, et al observe: First, the domain of maps appears to consist of a haphazard collection of mapping approaches: with the exception of Novak's work and the TCU knowledge mapping system, no other fully developed mapping systems are in evidence. And summarizing the work of the TCU group with their Multirelational Semantic Maps Labiotte, et al conclude: " thus, although we believe that the TCU system is ready for use in real-world settings, we know it will continue to evolve." Page 363. What I find interesting in the current paper being reviewed is that over the past 12 years, the TCU group has found increasingly that mapping approaches similar to our uses of concept maps appear to be the most facilitative of learning. However, they no longer call these Multirealtional Semantic Maps, but rather Knowledge Maps. Moreover, most of their publications after 1990, no longer cite references to our work even though the mapping formats and applications move strikingly closer to work we have done. For example, Mazur (1989) did a study showing that concept maps facilitated counseling of drug addicts, and none were readmitted to drug treatment programs two years later. While the TCU maps still use only a limited array of "linking" words between "nodes" or "ideas", it would not surprise me to see the TCU maps continue to evolve to more closely appear like our "concept maps". This does raise in my mind a question of intellectual honesty. All of the above not withstanding, I think the paper does a service in summarizing considerable research on the value of knowledge representation schemes for the facilitation of learning. The paper is much less comprehensive than Jonassen, Beissner and Yacci's (1993), Structural Knowledge: Techniques for Representing, Conveying, and Acquiring Structural Knowledge. Of course, a paper cannot cover the as much ground as a book. Their summary of research concludes with many of the same claims we would make for concept maps. However, their summary finding that Knowledge Maps benefit most low verbal ability students may be largely an artifact of the highly artificial learning situations for many of their studies and/or the limited potential for expressing subtle and creative insights in the more limited node-link format of Knowledge Maps. Their recommendations for use of Knowledge Maps are also consistent with some of our recommendations, except we go much further in recommending efforts to help users understand key learning principles and key epistemological ideas that underlie the use of concept maps. (Novak and Gowin, 1984; Novak, 1998) The fact that no mention is made of the importance of underlying epistemological ideas is in part reflective of the current status of the TCU knowledge mapping program. It shall be interesting to observe if the latter become a significant part of their concerns in the future. References Dansereau, D.F., Collins, K.W., McDonald, B.A., Holley, C.D., Diekkhoff, G.and Evans, S.H.,(1979). Development and evaluation of an effective learning strategy training program. J. Educat. Psychol. 71:64-73 Dansereu, D.F.and Holley, C.D. (1982). Development and evaluation of a text mapping strategy. In Flammer, A. and Kintsch, W. (eds.) Discourse Processing. Amsterdam, North-Holland Punlishing Co. Jonassen, D.H., Beissner, K. and Yacci, M. (1993). Structural Knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence Earlbaum & Assoc. Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Cross, D. R., Reynolds, S. B. (1989). Multirelational semantic maps. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 331-367. Mazur, J. (1989). Using Concept Maps in Therapy with Substance Abusers in the Context of Gowin's Theory of Education. Unpublished M.S.Thesis, Cornell Unniversity, Ithaca, NY. Novak, J.D., and Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.