Concept map vs. mindmap

I've always been a little confused at the distinction between a mindmap and a concept map. Here is how I see the differences:

Concept maps

• have separate arc and nodes, these can be named and annotated.
• allow non-hierarchical relationships, even recursion, (do not force tree structures).
• permit spatial placing / arrangement of nodes and arcs

example

Mindmaps

• use labeled arcs only
• are predominantly bifurcating (tree like structures)
• clustering is mostly via color or line thichness rather than spatial

example

In my view, mindmaps are less rich than concept maps

Comments

[Marco]

Because Mind maps have the option/ability to insert Hyper-links among their nodes it shows the need of the Mind map model to drift in the Concept maps arena...
You can create a Mind map with a Concept maps if is necessary and vice versa a Mind map can, with the Hyper-link function, create a quasi Concept maps.

[lisa lozano]

Hello,
I was worried when I first started with concept mapping that I just cannot create one of those neat 'Novakian' heirarchial maps. Mine tend to look like a plate of spaghetti and meatballs. But I've come to the realisation that I don't think heirarchically. Newer concepts tend to be on the periphery of my maps more fundamental ones are in the middle. This gives me endless opportunity to expand my knowledge domain. I find it good for designing teaching sequence I track back to see what foundation knowledge I needed in order to understand current information. I really like the expanded nodes tool in cmap . I wish it was easier to print out.
On another topic: V-maps, well they complete bamboozle me! I wanted to use them to redesign a chemistry practical experiment. Perhaps someone could create a concept map of creating a vmap and perhaps this would help me.
Mind maps are like the big bang that generated all those enrgy patters called atoms at the beginning of the universe,the mind map is used in generating concepts you associate with an idea. The mind maps reflects often your affect and on what side you got out of bed in the morning.One does not reveal how the concepts are connected. Concept mapping deliberately involves elucidating why one concept lead you to consider another and this is done by writing the 'connecting words' on the directional arrow that connects the nodes containg each concept.
What is this 'cluster analysis' that the psychologists (Trochim seems to be the guilty party) are so enormoured with in their programme planning.

Excuse my sentence structure I have a form of dyslexia where I can recognise words and read but my grammar is shocking and sense of writing style non existent Probably why I like concept mapping as it contains only short propositions with no need for stylish prose to communicate.

cheers
Lisa

[Mauricio Sedano]

Mind maps or conceptual maps?
Are does a complement technics for register, express and share aknolegdement?

I am interested in to find a way to express and transmit clear messages to my relatives... and I have found that in ICT area to express innovation in ideas, projects, strategies or business plans is no a easy homework.

Does any one give me some key reasons for to use mind or conceptual maps if my intention is: integrate a large comunity of capacitis for facilitate it continue movement?

thanks

[mic]

Hello I am having some prolems with defining the charateristics of hierarchical concept maps, can any one answer the following questions?
when Novak came up with hierarchical concept maps did he advocate the use of colour? If not why then have I seen concept maps using colour, surely these do not represent "true" concept maps.

Here is an answer from Barbara Bowen - Cmap expert

Good question! Novak and his research team developed concept maps as a way for students and scientists to map their science knowledge. They were used as part of an educational and research program to promote and encourage student’s meaningful learning, as described by cognitive psychologist David Ausubel. The key elements of a concept map are: the focus question, the concept—linking phrase—concept triplets that form propositions (knowledge claims), and a hierarchal conceptual structure. Crosslinks are an important element because conceptual knowledge is highly relational. A good concept map lends itself to crosslinks between concept nodes in different parts of the map.

In the early days, concept maps were hand-drawn on paper, often in pencil to make changes easier. Later, Post-It notes were sometimes used to create concept maps—each concept and linking phrase was on a separate note. Post-It notes are easily moved around, which facilitates the re-organization process that is characteristic of the formative stages of a concept map.

When Novak, and a research team from IHMC, designed CmapTools in the late 1990’s, they included color, and other formatting features. The suite of formatting functions enables a concept map to be customized to enhance communication and understanding.
One of the tenets of Ausubel’s theory of meaningful learning is that the chances of meaningful learning are increased if the learner is presented with an “advance organizer” they can use to organize and frame new information.

Given the nature of today’s media environment, and the demand by business audiences for instant sense-making, color and other formatting features are often used to increase the likelihood that a concept map will provide an effective “advance organizer” for the message(s) the presenter wants to communicate. Even though they are not essential parts of a concept map, as long as the three core elements are in place, the thoughtful, use of color and other formatting elements can provide additional cognitive supports to enhance the effectiveness of a concept map, that it can foster meaningful learning.

Barbara Bowen, PhD, Principal
See What You Know
Shifting Your Knowledge Into High Gear
www.seewhatyouknow.com
info@seewhatyouknow.com

[Martin Cleaver]

Hi Denham - thanks for the trackback from http://wiki.conceptmapping.org/view/Discussion/MindMappingVsConceptMapping - the conceptmapping community welcomes questions around these issues; I invite your fellow bloggers to join our dialog.

(Denham - am back in North America again - we should chat again...)

Regards, M.

[Jane]

I love your concept mapping software because it accommodates the need for focus while giving space for creativity and human potential. Thank you for sharing.

[Arnold]

Hi,

Remembering the statement "what is perceived, is real", I made a small survey on concept maps and mindmaps: see URL.

Arnold.

[Denham]

Mark,

Thanks for your comment. We may be talking at a slight tangent here. I'm not saying concept maps cannot be hierarchical, rather the representation is different, nodes & arcs vs just arcs for mindmaps.

Agree, Novak does favor hierarchy (-belongs to - part of) to show the 'place' of major and minor concepts.

For me concept mapping is just a richer representation with more possibilities.

[Mark Harris]

First, I have just discovered your excellent blog and appreciate your sharing your insights. I'm sure I'll be back.

Regarding concept maps and hierarchy, I believe you have this reversed. The seminal work, Learning How to Learn, by Novak and Gowin (1984), states,

... concept maps should be hierarchical; that is, the more general, more inclusive concepts should be at the top of the map, with progressively more specific, less inclusive concepts arranged below them... (pp. 17-18).

The authors explain (pp. 97-99) that this hierarchy is based on Ausubel's (with whom Novak collaborated in research) subsumption principle (newly encountered information is relates to and is subsumed by more inclusive concepts that already exist in a person's mind). They describe concept mapping as focused upon representing "hierarchies of relationships" through a top-down process of (a) hierarchical organization, (b) progressive differentiation and (c) integrative reconciliation. Concept mapping employs the general-to-specific development protocol from Ausubel's constructivist learning theory, citing as benefits of a hierarchical approach that it:

• Guides the task of knowledge articulation from more inclusive to more specific (exclusive), which is the prevalent learning progression.


• Provides a convenient, consistent convention supporting evaluation of the learning process and of specific knowledge (indicated by areas of a map containing.

Novak and Gowin also explain throughout their book that concept mapping is principally about constructing (or articulating the construction of) meaning.

Of course there are meaningful semantic modeling techniques that express hierarchy through other conventions (or not at all), and that is fine, but—if we want to use the definitions laid out by the originators of concept mapping—concept maps entail a top-down, hierarchical structure.

[geoff.geoff elliott]

How does concept mapping differ from cognitive mapping?

[David Tebbutt]

Don't Mind Maps and Concept Maps have different purposes? Isn't that why they're different? One is about capturing information, often for personal purposes. The other is about defining the meaning of information, which is probably assumed with mind maps.

Concept maps would lend themselves well to machine interpretation, as envisaged by the semantic web. Mind maps aren't machine processable although they can, of course, be created and maintained by a human using appropriate software.

Just my opinion, as someone who is very interested in both forms of knowledge capture and sharing. (I publish related software and write for Information World Review magazine.)