A Comparison Between Concept Maps, Mind Maps, Conceptual Diagrams, and Visual Metaphors As Complementary Tools for Knowledge Construction and Sharing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Information Visualization (2006) 5, 202 --210 © 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. All rights reserved 1473-8716 $30.00 www.palgrave-journals.com/ivs A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing Martin J Eppler1 Abstract In this article, Novak's concept mapping technique is compared to three other 1Faculty of Communication Sciences, University types of visualization formats, namely mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and of Lugano (USI), Lugano, Switzerland visual metaphors. The application parameters and the respective advantages and disadvantages of each format for learning and knowledge sharing are re- Correspondence: viewed and discussed. It is argued that the combination of these four visual- Martin J. Eppler, Faculty of Communication ization types can play to the strength of each one. The article then provides Sciences, University of Lugano (USI), real-life examples from such a use in undergraduate and graduate university Lugano, Switzerland. teaching. The results provide first indications that the different visualization Tel.: 058 666 45 12 formats can be used in complementary ways to enhance motivation, atten- Fax: 058 666 46 47. tion, understanding and recall. The implications for a complementary use of E-mail: [email protected] these visualization formats in class room and meeting contexts are discussed and a future research agenda in this domain is articulated. Information Visualization (2006) 5, 202--210. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500131 Keywords: Concept map; mind map; conceptual diagram; visual metaphor; concept skeleton; complementary visualization Introduction: concept mapping and the realm of qualitative visualization methods The extensive use of concept maps in class rooms and related learning and knowledge sharing contexts (e.g. trainings, meetings, problem solving discussions) has shown that numerous benefits can be achieved by apply- ing visual mapping techniques that foster the graphic re-construction of , knowledge (see Novak1 2). Concept maps have demonstrated their posi- tive effects on student learning for various topics and in various teaching situations.3 Concept maps (for a definition see Table 1) are, however, not without drawbacks 15–17 and they may not fit all types of target groups (such as non-academics), learning tasks (i.e. developing procedural skills), appli- cation situations (such as rapid note taking) or topics (such as processes or developments over time). There are, in our view, several reasons for these application restrictions: the relatively strict formal rules that need to be adhered to when drawing a concept map and the emphasis on identifying concepts (and their multiple relationships) do not make it a simple, seam- less or very rapid visualization technique. In addition, the general top-down (from concepts to examples) structure of concept maps may not be ade- Received: 8 February 2006 quate to represent or structure sequential content such as processes, time- Revised: 31 March 2006 lines, or developments. The boxes and arrows format may also make it dif- Accepted: 13 April 2006 ficult to efficiently represent a great number of related items in an accessi- Online publication date: 22 June 2006 ble format. Students or practitioners who are confronted with ready-made Downloaded from ivi.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on September 14, 2016 A comparison between mapping methods Martin J. Eppler 203 Table 1 A comparison of concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors Format Parameters Concept map Mind map (T. Buzan) Conceptual diagram Visual metaphor (J.D Novak) Sample thumbnail representation Definition A concept map is a A mind map is a multi- A conceptual diagram A visual metaphor is a top-down diagram coloured and image- is a systematic graphic structure that uses showing the relation- centred, radial diagram depiction of an abstract the shape and elements of ships between con- that represents seman- concept in pre-defined a familiar natural or man- cepts, including cross tic or other connec- category boxes with made artefact or of an connections among tions between portions specified relationships, easily recognizable activity concepts, and their of learned material typically based on a or story to organize con- manifestations hierarchically theory or model tent meaningfully and use (examples) the associations with the metaphor to convey addi- tional meaning about the content Main function or Shows systematic Show sub-topics of a Analyze a topic or situ- Organize content benefit relationships among domain in a creative ation through a proven meaningfully and con- sub-concepts relating and seamless manner analytic framework vey main message to one main concept about it Typical application Classroom teaching, Personal note taking Slide presentations, Text book illustration, context self study and revision and reviewing text illustration, mana- summaries, presenta- gement discussions tions to novices Application Use it as a learning sup- Use it for pre-analytic Use it to structure a Use it to memorize guidelines port tool for students, idea jostles or rapid complex topic with the the key elements of a that is, to summarize note-taking, or to struc- help of pre-defined method or concept by key course topics or ture the main contents categories placing them meaning- clarify the elements and of a course or topic fully within a fitting examples of an abstract hierarchically graphic metaphor that concept shares one or more properties with the topic Employed graphic Boxes/bubbles with Central topic bubble Labelled boxes and Text within visual struc- elements text and labelled and colored (sub-) arrows with embedded ture, sometimes connected connector arrows branches with text text (if needed: icons) through arrows above branches, pictograms Reading direction Top-down Center-out Left to right or top to Bottom-up (e.g. lad- bottom der), top-down (fun- nel), in-out (wheel), out-in (spiral) Core design rules or Start with main Start with main topic Label all boxes. Fill all Employ a visual guidelines concept (at the top), (center) and branch boxes with correspond- metaphor that has a and end with exam- out to sub-topics, ing text. Larger boxes strong and clear main ples (bottom, without employ pictograms and designate more association that is circles); boxes/bubbles colors to add addi- important information related to the conceptual designate concepts, tional meaning. Write domain that arrows represent text above the branches is mapped. Use a relationships; include metaphor with clearly cross-links among detectable areas. elements Information Visualization Downloaded from ivi.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on September 14, 2016 A comparison between mapping methods Martin J. Eppler 204 Table 1 (Continued.) Format Parameters Concept map Mind map (T. Buzan) Conceptual diagram Visual metaphor (J.D. Novak) Macro structure Flexible, but always Somewhat flexible, but al- Fixed diagram shape Fixed metaphor shape adaptability branching out ways radial (variations regarding elements) Level of difficulty Medium to high Low Medium to high Low to medium Extensibility Limited Open Limited Very Limited Memorability Low Medium to high Low to Medium High Understandability High Low Medium High by others Typical software www.inspiration.com www.mindmanager.com www.visio.com www.lets-focus.com package support- ing the visualization format complex concept maps may initially feel overwhelmed or Methods: systematic comparison along de-motivated by the complex web of relations.16 application parameters and exploratory use cases Concept mapping is also not the only available qual- The domain of visual methods for learning and knowledge itative visualization technique that fosters learning or sharing is a broad one and the diverse learning needs and knowledge sharing in a constructive and systematic man- styles of students may make it necessary to use concept ner. There is a myriad of node-link mapping methods maps only as one type of learning support tool among from such diverse areas as psychology, computer science, others. Hence, it seems worthwhile to review the appli- requirements engineering, or business administration. cation parameters and the relative advantages and disad- Examples of such systematic methods that employ geo- vantages of concept maps, as they have been discussed metric figures for items, activities or concepts, and arrows in the existing literature, and compare them to the appli- for relationships are: cognitive mapping, mind mapping, cation benefits and parameters of other mapping meth- entity-relationship models, flow charts, Toulmin maps, ods. For this comparison, we have chosen one widely IBIS argumentation maps, semantic networks, swim lane used method, mind mapping,6 and two less prominent diagrams, clustering, UML diagrams, system dynamics, approaches, conceptual diagrams and visual or graphic evocative knowledge maps, soft system modelling, or metaphors. Below, we briefly describe our understanding , , process event chains.4–6 10–12 32 All of these methods re- of mapping approaches based on conceptual diagrams and late (boxed, circled, or otherwise framed) items to others visual metaphors. through (labelled or unlabelled) arrows based on explicit A conceptual diagram 28 employs a graphic conceptual and sequential rules. Nevertheless, there are also mapping framework to visually structure information or learning methods