Enhancing Undergraduate Mathematics Learning Using Concept Maps and Vee Diagrams

  • Karoline Afamasaga-Fuata’i

Data from a group of six students who participated in a study, which investigated the impact using concept maps and Vee diagrams (maps/diagrams) has on learning and understanding new advanced mathematics topics, is presented. Constructing comprehensive topic concept maps, and Vee diagrams of problems as ongoing exercises throughout the semester was a requirement of the study. Students quickly found that learning about the new tools and a new topic was demanding. However, they also found that the concurrent use of the two tools in learning a new topic contributed substantively in highlighting the close correspondence between the conceptual structure of the topic and its methods. Having students display their developing understanding and knowledge on maps/diagrams greatly facilitated discussions, critiques, dialogues and communications during seminar presentations and one-on-one consultations. Maps/diagrams were qualitatively assessed three times during the study period. It was found that there was noticeable growth in students’ in-depth understanding of topics as indicated by increased valid propositions and structural complexity of concept maps, and multiplicity of methods and suitability of guiding theoretical principles on Vee diagrams. The chapter discusses the results and provides implications for teaching mathematics particularly for promoting meaningful learning and effective problem solving in mathematics classrooms.


Conceptual Structure Knowledge Claim Meaningful Learning Concept Hierarchy Valid Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Afamasaga-Fuata’i, K. (1998). Learning to solve mathematics problems through concept mapping and Vee mapping. Samoa: National University of Samoa.Google Scholar
  2. Afamasaga-Fuata’i, K. (2002). A Samoan perspective on Pacific mathematics education. Keynote Address. In B. Barton, K. C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch, & M. O. J. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics education in the South Pacific. Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA-25), July 7–10, 2002 (pp. 1–13). University of Auckland: New Zealand.Google Scholar
  3. Afamasaga-Fuata’i, K. (2005a). Mathematics education in Samoa: From past and current situations to future directions. Journal of Samoan Studies, 1, 125–140. Institute of Samoan Studies, National University of Samoa.Google Scholar
  4. Afamasaga-Fuata’i, K. (2005b). Students’ conceptual understanding and critical thinking? A case for concept maps and Vee diagrams in mathematics problem solving. In M. Coupland, J. Anderson, & T. Spencer (Eds.), Making mathematics vital. Proceedings of the Twentieth Biennial Conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT), January 17–21, 2005 (pp. 43–52). University of Technology, Sydney, Australia: AAMT.Google Scholar
  5. Afamasaga-Fuata’i, K. (2006). Developing a more conceptual understanding of matrices and systems of linear equations through concept mapping. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 28(3 & 4), 58–89.Google Scholar
  6. Afamasaga-Fuata’i, K. (2007). Using concept maps and Vee diagrams to interpret “area” syllabus outcomes and problems. In K. Milton, H. Reeves, & T. Spencer (Eds.), Mathematics essential for learning, essential for life. Proceedings of the 21st biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, Inc. (pp. 102–111). University of Tasmania, Australia: AAMT.Google Scholar
  7. Afamasaga-Fuata’i, K., & Cambridge, L. (2007). Concept maps and Vee diagrams as tools to understand better the “division” concept in primary mathematics. In K. Milton, H. Reeves, & T. Spencer (Eds.), Mathematics essential for learning, essential for life. Proceedings of the 21st biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, Inc. (pp. 112–120). University of Tasmania, Australia: AAMT.Google Scholar
  8. Afamasaga-Fuata’i, K., Meyer, P., & Falo, N. (2007). Primary students’ diagnosed mathematical competence in semester one of their studies. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 83–92). University of Tasmania, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  9. Afamasaga-Fuata’i, K., Meyer, P., Falo, N., & Sufia, P. (2007). Future teachers’ developing numeracy and mathematical competence as assessed by two diagnostic tests. Published on AARE’s website:
  10. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. Reprinted 1986, New York: Werbel and Peck.Google Scholar
  12. Ball, D. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Balacheff, N. (November, 1990). Beyond a psychological approach: The psychology of mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 10(3), 2–8.Google Scholar
  14. Barton, B. (2001). How healthy is mathematics? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(3), 163–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ernest, P. (1999). Forms of knowledge in mathematics and mathematics education: Philosophical and rhetorical perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gowin, D. B. (1981). Educating. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Knuth, E., & Peressini, D. (2001). A theoretical framework for examining discourse in mathematics classrooms. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 23(2 & 3), 5–22.Google Scholar
  18. Lesh, R. (2000). Beyond constructivism: identifying mathematical abilities that are most needed for success beyond school in an age of information. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(3), 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2007). 2000 principles and standards. Retrieved on July 28, 2007 from
  20. New South Wales Board of Studies (NSW BOS) (2002). K-10 Mathematics Syllabus. Sydney, Australia: NSW BOSGoogle Scholar
  21. Novak, J. D. (1985). Metalearning and metaknowledge strategies to help students learn how to learn. In L. H. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 189–209). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Novak, J. (2002). Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (LIPHs) leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Novak, J. D. (2004). A science education research program that led to the development of the concept mapping tool and new model for education. In A. J. Canãs, J. D. Novak, & F. M. Gonázales (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping September 14–17, 2004 (pp. 457–467). Dirección de Publicaciones de la Universidad Pública de Navarra: Spain.Google Scholar
  25. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006, available at: TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
  26. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pfannkuch, M. (2001). Assessment of school mathematics: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(3), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richards, J. (1991). Mathematical discussions. In E. von Glaserfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 13–51). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Schell, V. (2001). Introduction: Language issues in the learning of mathematics. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 23(2 & 3), 1–4.Google Scholar
  30. Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15:105–127.Google Scholar
  31. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1996). In fostering communities of inquiry, must it matter that the teacher knows “the answer”. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(3), 569–600.Google Scholar
  32. Steffe, L. P., & D’Ambrosio, B. S. (1996). Using teaching experiments to enhance understanding of students’ mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. F. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 65–76). New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  33. The Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT) (2007). The AAMT standards for excellence in teaching mathematics in Australian schools. Retrieved from, on July 18, 2007.
  34. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1991). What’s all the fuss about problem solving? Zentrallblatt Für Didaktik der Mathematik, 91(1), 4–8.Google Scholar
  35. Wood, T. (1999). Creating a context for argument in mathematics class. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New EnglandAustralia

Personalised recommendations