also gives guidance to the educator in connection with future education and development in connection to the value of concept mapping for various activities and projects as well as visual presentations which supports the work of Hitchcock and Hughes (1995).
Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) states that we are living in a visually image saturated universe and that the use of artifacts and still photography is very underdeveloped. They also mention that visual data commands a different sort of gaze and a different sort of stance. My argument is that this is true also for concept mapping and hence this method is opening some exploration for me to undertake and add to the development thereof. I looked at the method of concept mapping and how teachers respond to this visual, inter - relational method of operation within concepts of learning areas and classrooms. Inter- relational concepts of learning areas are in line with the arguments of relational understanding of Skemp (1976).
Skemp (1976) argues against Instrumental Understanding (fixed, directed and determined by a static plan) and use the multiplicity of rules instead of the principle of general application to the given and current situation or problem to understand it relationally(flexible, sensible and contextual). When teachers are set in their teaching styles, they do not easily part from it hence this miss–match of the new curriculum and their old ways of teaching to be jettisoned, is not enough to sway them in adopting the new styles and theories of learning. If educators are teaching a text instrumentally that is meant for relational understanding then it will cause more damage then good. Instrumental teaching is better supplemented by a traditional syllabus. Learners will then at least learn proficiency of mathematical techniques that can be useful in other subjects (Skemp, 1976).
The argument of Skemp (1976) relate to the study, because it is implying that in order to understand with a higher sense of clarity, the understanding needs to be integrated and in coherence with other relevant understandings. To teach with integration is in line with what Skemp (1976) nominate as relational understanding, because of its open or blurred boundaries (weak classification) and weak framing referring to the input from students and teachers in accordance with Bernstein (1996). The concepts of Bernstein (1996) play an important theoretical framework role in my study. Prevein Marnewicke: Forms and meanings of Integration. A case study towards completion
of a Master of Education degree.