Representing knowledge and thinking: concept mapping and mind mapping

Representing knowledge and thinking: concept mapping and mind mapping

The terms ‘concept map’ and ‘mind map’ are used interchangeably in much of the literature and in recent years the tendency has been to talk of mind maps rather than concept maps. In trying to understand their nature and purpose, however, we need to consider the literature that refers to concept maps as well as that which relates to mind mapping. Indeed, perhaps the most interesting work exploring the intentions and possibilities of such tools is written referring to concept maps.

PAUL WARWICK AND RUTH KERSHNER

In educational settings in particular, ‘concept maps’ have been used as a strategy for developing metaknowledge and metalearning 1 and there has been much interest over several years in their use in primary science class- rooms, both for developing learning and as a technique for formative assessment (Harlen et al. 1990; Comber and Johnson 1995; Stow 1997). Whilst the use of such maps always relates to specific content – for example, in connecting ideas in an area of science – an underlying inten- tion in classrooms is usually to enable learners to reflect upon how they are coming to develop and understanding concepts and the connections between them.

Concept mapping derives from the early and influential work of Novak and Gowin (1984), who developed the notion of the concept map from Ausubelian learning theory (Ausubel 1968). Novak and Gowin (1984: 4) define a concept as ‘a regularity in events or objects designated by some label’. For them, language and other symbol systems are the central tools for such labelling. In essence, a concept map provides a schematic for representing how concepts are perceived to be connected. Whilst there are many ways in which this might be done, the work of Novak and Gowin suggests that it is the ways in which meaningful relationships are drawn between concepts – in the form of propositions – that is the key to their worth in developing not only subject learning but also metaknowledge and metalearning. In Figure 7.1, some exemplars are presented that reflect different levels of propositional thinking.

Figure 7.1 Concept maps showing different levels of propositional linking: (a) provides no indication of how the concepts might be connected; (b) suggests a simple propositional link; (c) suggests a more highly developed link in terms of

science understanding.

‘IS THERE A PICTURE OF BEYOND?’

Thus concept mapping ‘is a technique for externalising concepts and propositions’ (Novak and Gowin 1984: 17) primarily using language. In the simple maps presented in Figure 7.1 (b and c) there is a clear direction in the ‘flow’ of the map – represented by an arrow – and this is usually

a feature of concept maps. As we can see from Figure 7.2, such a direc- tional representation is not always possible to achieve, particularly for younger children. In addition, Novak and Gowin also point to the idea of developing notions of super-ordinate and sub-ordinate concepts within concept maps – this again seems to be only partially realised in the work of primary pupils.

Since the early 1960s ‘mind maps’ have been used in a variety of edu- cational and business settings to summarise and consolidate information, as an aid to thinking through complex problems and as a means of presenting information (Buzan and Buzan 1993). Mind maps use a com- bination of different representational tools – pictures, diagrams, words etc. – to show concepts and the links between them. ‘Mind mapping’ therefore shares both the intention and the structures of concept mapping but there tends to be a greater emphasis on the use of combination of different representational tools to show concepts and the links between them. A further distinction that may be apparent is that concept maps tend to use as their starting point lists of words representing concepts, to be used as and where it seems appropriate to the learner. Though this is perfectly

Figure 7.2

A ‘typical’ concept map produced by younger primary pupils

(Year 1/2).

PAUL WARWICK AND RUTH KERSHNER

possible with mind maps – and happened on occasions in both our research classrooms – such lists are rarely a prerequisite of working with mind maps.

There are now numerous mind mapping software products on the market (‘Mindfull’, ‘Kidspiration’ and Logotron’s ‘Thinking with Pictures’ are amongst those appropriate for primary pupils). Most of these include banks of pictures that might represent ideas, the ability to manipulate colour and size, the possibility of creating ‘word boxes’ of different shapes and the inclusion of ‘supergroupers’ for clusters of concepts, as well as the organisational possibilities that might be seen in Novak and Gowin’s con- cept maps (i.e. hierarchical structures and directional linkages). Advocates of the use of mind mapping software packages would suggest that because of their flexibility such tools have additional explanatory power beyond that of purely language-based models (Buzan and Buzan 1993).

We will now turn to the science activities that were undertaken in our research classrooms using the mind mapping package Kidspiration with groups working on laptops and at the IWB.