Data collection outside and inside the classroom: Personal Meaning 

Mapping 

Anthony Lelliott 

Marang Centre for Maths and Science Education, School of Education, University of 
the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg email: anthony.lelliott@wits.ac.za 

Abstract 
This paper describes how Personal Meaning Maps, a variant of concept maps can be used to 
gather data from individuals on their thinking around a topic in science education. Using 
examples from a research study examining student learning when visiting an astronomy 
science centre, this paper explores the theory behind the practice of PMM, how it is 
conducted, how it can be analyzed, and its possible uses in research and teaching. 

Introduction 

Personal Meaning Mapping (PMM) is a variation of concept mapping developed by 
John Falk, of the Institute for Learning Innovation, Maryland, USA (Falk, 2003) for use in 
informal learning environments. While concept mapping requires the technique to be taught 
to learners, PMM can be used with no prior experience on the part of the learner, and has uses 
both in and outside the classroom. The paper is based on an empirical study of school groups 
visiting an astronomical observatory in Gauteng, South Africa (Lelliott et al., 2005). The data 
collection involved structured interviews on astronomy concepts such as stars, the Sun and 
gravity (not reported here) and the students drawing Personal Meaning Maps with the phrase 
‘space stars and planets’ used as the ‘prompt’ for investigating for their ideas on this topic. 

Theoretical Basis 

The technique of Personal Meaning Mapping is based on the concept maps developed 
by Novak and collaborators in the 1980s (Novak & Gowin, 1984). Concept maps have their 
roots in Ausubel’s theory of meaningful learning (Ausubel et al., 1978), whereby it was 
realized the finding out what individuals already know about a topic was a worthwhile 
endeavor. In concept mapping, a subject is taught how to map out their own understanding of 
concepts on a sheet of paper, and connect these concepts with appropriate connectors. In the 
technique of concept mapping, there is sometimes a ‘correct’ concept map, drawn by an 
expert, against which the subject’s map can be compared and scored. Much of the concept 
map analysis that has been developed over the past 20 years is based on this type of 
comparison (McClure et al., 1999) and it has proved a useful technique for both pedagogy 
and the study of conceptual development, especially at the school and tertiary education level. 
There have been a number of variants of concept mapping since the technique was first 
developed by Novak and a technique used by Morine-Dershimer (1993) and a recent one by 
Leinardt and Gregg (2002) are probably the closest to PMM. In a study of conceptual change, 
Morine-Dershimer asked student teachers to make a concept map depicting their view of the 
important components of teacher preparation by providing the phrase “teacher planning”. 
Two semesters later, the students repeated the task, and then compared their post-course map 
with their original map. Leinardt and Gregg used a similar method with pre-service teachers 
visiting a museum. They counted the number of ideas on each person’s pre-visit and post-visit 
map, and then analyzed the structure of the maps to detect whether the structure of the webs 
and any reorganization of information had changed. Like these variants of concept mapping, 
the method of PMM creates no expectations of what the learner should know, either before or 
after the visit. 

Other mapping techniques have been used in educational research, such as flow 
diagrams (Davidowitz & Rollnick, 2005) and vee diagrams (Trowbridge & Wandersee, 
1998). Critiques of concept mapping have been made by Kagan (1990) and Ruiz-Primo and 


Shavelson (1996). Kagan noted in his critique of concept maps that they were used to assess 
short-term change rather than long-term gain. He also remarked that studies often compared 
subject maps with a target ‘master’ map. Many studies made claims that the map reflects an 
individual’s actual cognitive structure, and that the maps may reflect their ability to 
“reproduce the structure of the discipline” (Kagan, 1990) rather than show real changes in 
students’ cognitive structures. Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson (1996) sounded warnings about 
using concept maps for assessment purposes, and stressed the need for further research on the 
relationship between the maps and students’ cognitive schema. Apart from the fact that I used 
PMMs to demonstrate short-term rather than long-term gain, these criticisms do not apply to 
my study, as I used the maps principally as a basis for further questioning rather than at face 
value. I chose to use PMM as a technique to complement my other data collection method of 
structured interviews. The structured interviews focused on Big Ideas in astronomy (Lelliott, 
2006), and could be regarded as a form of ‘pre- and post-test’ related to a traditional 
expectation of cognitive learning. In contrast, PMM is more suitable to the museum 
environment, and requires no preparation on the part of the participants (Adelman et al., 
2000; Falk, 2003). 

How PMM is conducted 

PMM is a technique developed specifically for museum learning, in which an 
individual’s knowledge and views about a particular topic are investigated prior to the person 
entering the museum and again after the visit. Specifically, PMM is carried out in the 
following manner: 

1. 
Prior to the visit to the museum, the person is given a sheet of paper, in which a word 
or phrase is written in the centre. He or she is then asked to write or draw anything 
that comes to mind in relation to the word or phrase. This can be factual information, 
ideas, beliefs, or any other related opinions, and is written in a specific color on the 
paper (e.g. blue). 
2. 
The investigator then has a short interview with the individual, and, investigates the 
ideas he or she has already written on the paper, recording any elaboration of ideas in 
a different color ink from the original (e.g. red). 
3. 
After the visit, the person is given their original paper, and asked to make and 
changes or additions to what they have already written on the paper. According to 
Falk (pers. comm.) and Luke (pers. comm.), it is crucial that the original paper is 
given back to the person, rather than asking them to fill a new one. It ensures that 
they do not feel that the investigator is ‘wasting their time’ by asking them to repeat 
what they have already done, and it allows them to alter their original ideas. This 
contrasts with methods normally used in concept mapping. The corrections and 
additions the individual makes to his or her map use another color ink (e.g. black). 
4. 
Finally, the investigator carries out another interview, based on the alterations and 
additions carried out in step 3. The investigator writes these (again using the person’s 
own words) in a different color ink (e.g. green). 
Examples of PMMs are shown below in Figures 2 and 3. 

In my study, the environment for data collection was quite different to many studies using 
PMM. Like Luke (1998), my data was collected in the school classrooms of the selected 
participants in the study. I initially gained permission of the school Principal and relevant 
class teachers, and obtained informed consent from the students and their parents. I then 
addressed the students in class and explained that I am researching their forthcoming visit to 
one of the study sites. After handing out blue pens to each student, I explained that I wanted 
them to write whatever they think about when seeing the words in the centre of the sheet of 
paper. Before giving them the paper, I then showed an example on the chalkboard, using the 
word “Johannesburg”. I asked the class what things came into their heads when they saw that 
word on the middle of a piece of paper. Using examples from the class, I then wrote their 


suggestions on the chalkboard, linking the words they suggested to the central word 
“Johannesburg”, or to words they have already put forward, as shown in Figure 2. 


Figure 1. Example of initial PMM drawn on chalkboard 

Once I had answered questions, and considered that students had got the idea of the 
technique, I handed out the PMM sheet that I had prepared in advance for the study. The 
‘prompt’ words in the middle of this sheet were “space, stars and planets”. Falk recommends 
that thorough piloting of the prompt is necessary (Falk 2003), and I did this in one of my pilot 
schools, using a combination of words including space, Earth and stars before deciding on the 
final wording, which elicited the most fruitful responses. 

I then asked the students to write what they could tell me about these words. I 
stressed the following, that: 

• 
Even if they were not sure about a particular issue, they should feel free to write 
about it. 
• 
This was not a test. 
• 
They could use words in their home language if they wanted. 
• 
They could do drawings. 
• 
They could write about their feeling and beliefs 
I then gave the students time to complete the PMM. This varied from about 5 
minutes, to a maximum of about 30 minutes. Most students would complete the map within 
15 to 20 minutes. In order to ensure anonymity, I wrote a number on the PMM as each student 
completed it, and compiled a class list with the students’ names and the PMM numbers. I 
could then cross reference each student against their own PMM, but anyone seeing a map 
would not be able to identify which student had completed it. As they completed their PMMs, 
students handed them to me. I then selected which students I wanted to interview, on the basis 
of what they had written or drawn in the PMM. 

Analysis 

One key difference between many analyses of concept mapping and PMM is that 
there is no ‘correct’ map developed at any stage, against which the PMM is scored. In fact 
Falk (2003) maintains that such a form of analysis would be counter to the philosophy of 
PMM in the context of museum learning. For Falk, there is no correct answer or series of 
answers that a museum visitor can be expected to come up with in relation to their visit. 
Unlike the school classroom, or the university lecture, where the students would be expected 


to learn particular scientific concepts or facts, the learning which takes place in museums is 
personal, context-bound and idiosyncratic. A PMM is therefore an individual’s personal 
construct of whatever learning took place as a result of their visit. 

Falk (2003) recommends a particular method of analyzing PMMs, which involves 
looking across four dimensions of learning: extent, breadth, depth, and mastery. Extent 
examines vocabulary while breadth categorizes concepts used by the learner, and a 
comparison can be made between his or her pre-and post-intervention learning. Depth 
measures a learner’s understanding of the concepts used while mastery assesses the overall 
quality of the understanding and how the learner makes use of it. While Falk suggests that 
PMMs can be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively, most of the studies in which 
they have been used have been dominated by quantitative techniques (Adelman et al., 2000; 
Falk et al., 1998). My study being qualitative in nature, implied that I forego extensive 
quantitative analysis, and make individual learners the units of analysis. In this respect the 
personal meaning maps and accompanying interviews were very helpful, as they provided 
details of the sort of learning not captured in my structured interviews. In addition, although 
not analyzed for all the dimensions suggested by Falk, I was able to use the PMMs to assist 
with some descriptive statistical data, such as the number of astronomical vocabulary words 
(‘extent’ in Falk’s terminology) used by each participant in the study. 

Nonkululeko’s learning 

Nonkululeko’s personal meaning map (Figure 2) drawn before her visit to the science 
centre was similar to those of many other students in my study. She listed the nine planets 
together with some brief facts about several of them. For example that Jupiter is the biggest 
planet and Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun. She referred to stars as being “a lighting 
thing” created by God, and that they are our “friends, family and negbour” (sic). She also 
referred to stars being at the galaxy and Milky Way. She stated that space consists of open 
space, containing planets, stars, galaxy and the Milky Way. When probed about her PMM, 
she confirmed that “God created stars so that it can shine at night”. Although she knew the 
term galaxy she was unable to explain its meaning or its relationship to the term Milky Way. 
She further referred to a spaceship and rocket, although she found difficulty in expressing 
herself here. She also appeared to have differing ideas on aliens. Having said she doesn’t 
believe in them in the structured interview, she mentioned that some planets have them in the 
PMM. 


Figure 2. Nonkululeko’s Pre-visit Personal Meaning Map 

After her visit to the science centre, Nonkululeko added considerably to her PMM 
(Figure 3), filling the reverse side of the paper with numerous facts. Several of these facts 
were a repetition of her pre-visit PMM, such as her reference to the nine planets, Pluto being 
the coldest, Mercury being the hottest and stars being in the galaxy. However, she wrote down 
several new pieces of information, including the following: 

• 
She “saw which bottle goes high and low”. This was reference to the ‘Coke 
bottle rockets’ which students used in an activity. 
• 
Additional planets to the nine named ones. 
• 
Additional facts about the nine planets. 
• 
Black spots on the Sun. 
• 
Various features of Mars: water, land, and orbit. 
• 
A description of the Moon landing and the time taken to get there 
• 
A star bigger than the Sun. 

Figure 3. Nonkululeko’s Post-visit Personal Meaning Map 

Further probing of several of the ideas was not carried out to any great extent, due to time 
constraints in her interview. Her understanding of a galaxy was still minimal: “A galaxy I 
think is where the stars stays and the moon and the solar system and the everything”, but she 
understood that it would contain thousands and thousands of stars. Her belief in aliens was 
still ambivalent: in the post-visit PMM she wrote that she believed in them, but when 
questioned she said she did not, although she had read about them in a magazine. I consider 
that Nonkululeko’s changes to her PMM are incremental additions to her knowledge of basic 
astronomy resulting from her visit to the science centre. All the additional facts she referred to 
in her PMM were examples of facts, activities or demonstrations she participated in during 
her visit. 

Implications for Personal Meaning Mapping in teaching and research 

The reason why I considered these additions to Nonkululeko’s PMM as important is 
that when questioned about aspects of space and stars during the structured interview data 
collection, Nonkululeko showed no improvement in her knowledge or understanding. The 
structured interview could be regarded as a more traditional pre- and post-test of astronomy 
knowledge, which demonstrated a range of ability across the 34 students in the study. 
Nonkululeko was at the bottom end of this range, suggesting that the visit had made no 
difference to her knowledge of astronomy. However, the use of PMM, in which there was no 
expectation of specific prior knowledge, showed that Nonkululeko had acquired several facts 
about astronomy which might not have been identified by traditional tests. This suggests that 
Personal Meaning Mapping might have uses in normal classroom settings, as well as the way 
is it currently used in out-of-school learning. Teachers could, for example, ask for their 
students to complete a PMM prior to starting a topic, in order to determine the prior 
knowledge of the class. A relatively brief analysis would enable a teacher to tailor his or her 
teaching to the class’ prior knowledge, as well as target individuals and groups for enrichment 
or remediation. 


As Personal Meaning Mapping is a relatively new technique, no analysis or 
evaluation of the technique has yet been published. During my study, I found no particular 
drawbacks in using PMMs as a data collection method, but I have the following 
recommendations for their use by future researchers: 

1. 
Where possible, spend adequate time in preliminary analysis of the PMM prior to the 
initial interview. Similarly, spend adequate time in analysis of the PMM before the 
second round of data collection, and prior to the second interview. Unfortunately, in 
the sequence of data collection involved in museum visits, this is not always possible. 
2. 
In a pilot study, experiment with the two alternatives of handing the original PMM 
back to the participants for addition/correction and asking them to complete a new 
PMM. Falk strongly recommends the former for museum visitors, for ethical reasons 
due to their time constraints and the inconvenience they are being put to. For school 
groups time is less of an issue and they are ‘used to’ formal and informal testing as 
part of their school work. A comparison between these two alternatives might 
therefore be of value. 
3. 
It might be worth doing some additional ‘testing’ of the technique as part of 
the piloting. For example, if a PMM is given to a group of people, who then 
repeat the procedure some time later, with no intervention between the two 
processes, is there any difference between what people complete on the PMM? 
To what extent does the very act of completing a PMM result in possible 
changes in people’s thinking about the topic? 
References 

Adelman, L. M., Falk, J., & James, S. (2000). Impact of national aquarium in 
baltimore on visitors' conservation attitudes, behavior and knowledge. 
Curator, 43(1), 33-61. 

Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive 
view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 

Davidowitz, B., & Rollnick, M. (2005). Development and application of a rubric for 
analysis of novice students’ laboratory flow diagrams. International Journal of 
Science Education, 27(1), 43-59. 

Falk, J. H. (2003). Personal meaning mapping. In G. Caban, C. Scott, J. H. Falk & L. 

D. Dierking (Eds.), Museums and creativity: A study into the role of museums 
in design education. Sydney: Powerhouse Publishing. 
Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors' agendas on 
museum learning. Curator, 41(2), 107-120. 
Kagan, D. (1990). Ways of evaluation teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the 
goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419-469. 
Leinhardt, G., & Gregg, M. (2002). Burning buses, burning crosses: Student teachers 
see civil rights. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning 
conversations in museums (pp. 139-166). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. 

Lelliott, A. D. (2006). Learning about astronomy: A case study exploring how grade 7 
and 8 students experience sites of informal learning in south africa. 

Unpublished PhD, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. 

Lelliott, A. D., Rollnick, M., & Pendlebury, S. (2005). Investigating learning about 
astronomy - a school visit to a science centre. Paper presented at the 
Proceedings of the13th Annual SAARMSTE Conference, Windhoek, 
Namibia. 


McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of 
classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of 
Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492. 

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1993). Tracing conceptual change in preservice teachers. 
Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(9), 15-26. 

Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge 
University Press. 

Ruiz-Primo, M., & Shavelson, R. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept 
maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 
569-600. 

Trowbridge, J. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Theory-drive graphic organizers. In J. 

J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for 
understanding. A human constructivist view (pp. 109-131). San Diego: 
Academic Press.