Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, academics and educators have begun to use software mapping tools for a number of education-related purposes. Typically, the tools are used to help impart critical and analytical skills to students, to enable students to see relationships between concepts, and also as a method of assessment. The common feature of all these tools is the use of diagrammatic relationships of various kinds in preference to written or verbal descriptions. Pictures and structured diagrams are thought to be more comprehensible than just words, and a clearer way to illustrate understanding of complex topics. Variants of these tools are available under different names: “concept mapping”, “mind mapping” and “argument mapping”. Sometimes these terms are used synonymously. However, as this paper will demonstrate, there are clear differences in each of these mapping tools. This paper offers an outline of the various types of tool available and their advantages and disadvantages. It argues that the choice of mapping tool largely depends on the purpose or aim for which the tool is used and that the tools may well be converging to offer educators as yet unrealised and potentially complementary functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A list of mind mapping software is available ("List of Mind Mapping Software," 2008) and ("Software for Mind mapping and Information Storage," 2008).

  2. Cmap Tools is available free from the Institute of Human and Machine Cognition (http://www.ihmc.us). Compendium is available from the Open University (http://www.labspace.open.ac.uk). A list of concept mapping software is available here ("List of Concept Mapping Software," 2008).

  3. Harrell provides a comprehensive list of argument mapping software (Harrell 2008).

References

  • Ahlberg, M. (1993). Concept maps, vee diagrams, and Rhetorical Argumentation (RA) analysis: Three educational theory-based tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Paper presented at the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics, Cornell University. Available from.

  • Ahlberg, M. (2004). Varieties of concept mapping. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain. Available from.

  • Amundsen, C., Weston, C., & McAlpine, L. (2008). Concept mapping to support university academics’ analysis of course content. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 633–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baugh, N. G., & Mellott, K. G. (1998). Clinical concept mapping as preparation for student nurses’ clinical experiences. Journal of Nursing Education, 37(6), 253–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beitz, J. M. (1998). Concept mapping: Navigating the learning process. Nurse Educator, 23(5), 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

  • Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biktimirov, E. N., & Nilson, L. B. (2003). Mapping your course: Designing a graphic syllabus for introductory FINANCE. Journal of Education for Business, 78(July//August), 308–312.

  • Biktimirov, E. N., & Nilson, L. B. (2006). Show Them the money: Using mind mapping in the introductory finance course. Journal of Financial Education, 32(Fall), 72–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, T. (1974). Using both sides of your brain. New York: E. P. Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2000). The mind map book. London: BBC Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cañas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., & Eskridge, T. (2004). CMap tools: A knowledge modellign and sharing environment. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. Gonzalez (Eds.), Concept maps theory, methodology, technology: First international conference on concept mapping (Vol. 1, pp. 125–133). Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Publica de Navarra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chei-Chang, C. (2008). The effect of concept mapping on students’ learning achievements and interests. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Concept Map. (2010). Retrieved 8/3/2010, Wikipedia, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concept_map&oldid=139167845.

  • Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number four in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daley, B. J. (2004). Using concept maps in qualitative research. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamploma, Spain. Available from http://cmc.ihmc.us/papers/cmc2004-060.pdf.

  • Davies, W. M. (2009a). Computer-assisted argument mapping: A rationale approach. Higher Education, 58(6), 799–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, W. M. (2009b). Not quite right: Teaching students how to make better arguments. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonson, K. M. (1993, April 12-16). Concept mapping for the development of medical curricula. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia. Available from.

  • Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching; an integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5, 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, L. T., & Hauer, A. M. (2004). Mind map marketing: A creative approach in developing marketing skills. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(2), 174–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrand, P., Hussain, F., & Hennessy, E. (2002a). The efficacy of “mind map” study technique. Medical Education, 36(May), 426–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrand, P., Hussain, F., & Hennessy, E. (2002b). The efficacy of the ‘mind map’ study technique. Medical Education, 36(5), 426–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouveia, V., & Valadares, J. (2004). Concept maps and the didactic role of assessment. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Concept Mapping.

  • Harrell, M. (2008). iLogos. Retrieved 7/11/08, from http://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/argument_mapping/.

  • Harrell, M. (2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research and Development, forthcoming.

  • Hay, D., Kinchin, I., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008). Making learning visible: The role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, D., Wells, H., & Kinchin, I. (Forthcoming). Using concept maps to measure learning quality. Higher Education.

  • Hoffman, E., Trott, J., & Neely, K. P. (2002). Concept mapping: A tool to bridge the disciplinary divide. Amercian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 187(September), S41–S43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, R. E. (1998). Mapping great debates: Can computers think? bainbridge island. WA: MacroVU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, H., Cooper, K., & Jones, G. (2005, 24th–25th November). Concept mapping to enhance student learning in a financial accounting subject. Paper presented at the Accounting Educators’ Forum, Sydney, NSW. Available from.

  • Jackson, K., & Trochim, W. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 307–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Jonassen, D. H., Reeves, T. C., Hong, N., Harvey, D., & Peters, K. (1997). Concept mapping as cognitive learning and assessment tools. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3–4), 289–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. M. (2000). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34(2), 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. (2001). If concept mapping is so helpful to learning biology why aren’t we all doing it? International Journal of Science Education, 12, 1257–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, M., & Shell, R. (2002). Teaching and evaluating critical thinking with concept maps. Nurse Educator, 27(5), 214–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes. London: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., Lee, J. B., & Caterino, L. C. (1985). Conjoint retention of maps and related discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 683–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leauby, B. A., & Brazina, P. (1998). Concept mapping: Potential uses in accounting education. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(1), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List of Concept Mapping Software. (2008). Retrieved 30th November, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_concept_mapping_software&oldid=139133393.

  • List of Mind Mapping Software. (2008). Retrieved 29 October, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mind_mapping_software&oldid=139428677.

  • Maas, J., & Leauby, B. A. (2005). Concept mapping: Exploring its value as a meaningful learning tool in accounting education. Global Perspectives of Accounting Education, 2, 75–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning, i-outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning, ii-outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(December), 715–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClain, A. (1987). Improving lectures: Challenging both sides of the brain. Journal of Optometric Education, 13(Summer), 18–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGaghie, W. C., McCrimmon, D. R., Mitchell, G., Thompson, J. A., & Ravitch, M. (2000). Quantitative concept mapping in pulmonary physiology: Comparison of student and faculty knowledge structures. Advances in Physiology Education, 23(1), 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mealy, D. L., & Nist, S. L. (1989). Postsecondary teacher directed comprehension strategies. Journal of Reading, 32(6), 484–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mento, A., Martinelli, P., & Jones, R. M. (1999). Mind mapping in executive education: Applications and outcomes. Journal of Management Development, 18(4), 390–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mind Maps Made With Mind Mapping Tool. 8/3/2010, from http://www.mindmapexample.com/samples.php.

  • Nassi, I., & Shneiderman, B. (1973). Flowchart techniques for structured programming. SIGPLAN Notices, 8(8).

  • Nettleship, J. (1992). Active learning in economics: Mind maps and wall charts. Economics, 28(Summer), 69–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1981). Applying learning psychology and philosophy to biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 43(1), 12/20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01 Retrieved 21/6/07, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, from http://cmap.ihmcus/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1983). The empirical case for dual coding. In J. Yuille (Ed.), Imagery, memory and cognition. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Van Etten, S., Yokoi, L., Freebern, G., & VanMeter, P. (1998). The metacognition of college studentship: A grounded theory approach. In J. D. D. J. Hacker & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in theory and practice (pp. 347–367). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rochecouste, J. (2005). Constructing taxonomies for student writing. Paper presented at the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing. from http://eataw2005.hau.gr/pages/about.htm.

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safayeni, F., Derbentseva, N., & Canas, A. J. (2005). A theoretical note on concepts and the need for cyclic concept maps. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 741–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schau, C., & Mattern, N. (1997). Use of map Techniques in teaching applied statistics courses. The American Statistician, 51(May), 171–175.

  • Schuster, P. M. (2000). Concept mapping: Reducing clinical care plan paperwork and increasing learning. Nurse Educator, 25(2), 76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, N. H. (1988). Cognitive processing characteristics of maps: Implications for instruction. Educational and Psychological Research, 8, 93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (2007). concept mapping in a financial accounting theory course. Accounting Education, 16(3), 272–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 515–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Software for Mind mapping and Information Storage. (2008). Retrieved 30th October, from http://www.mind-mapping.org/.

  • Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed. ed.). Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Laan, S., & Dean, G. (2006). Assessment to Encourage Meaningful Learning in Groups: Concept Mapping,. NZ: AAFANZ SIG Wellington.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. Paper presented at the Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, University of Melbourne. Available from.

  • van Gelder, T. (2007). The rationale for Rationale™. Law, Probability and Risk, 6, 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J., & King, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a form of student assessment and instruction. Paper presented at the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Available from.

  • West, D. C., Pomeroy, J. R., & Park, J. K. (2000). Critical thinking in graduate medical education: A role for concept mapping assessment. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(9), 1105–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes, L., Cooper, K., Lewin, J., & Batts, J. (1999). Concept mapping: Promoting science learning in bn learners in Australia. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 30(1), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 211–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeilik, M. (nd). Classroom assessment techniques: Concept mapping. Retrieved 8/3/2010, from http://www.flaguide.org/cat/conmap/conmap1.php.

Download references

Acknowledgments

My thanks to Tim Beaumont and two anonymous reviewers from the journal for useful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Martin Davies

Authors
  1. Martin Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Davies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davies, M. Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?. High Educ 62, 279–301 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation