Criticisms: Hierarchical, not scalable for large topics, unclear relationships, not focused on higher-order learning
Concept Maps by Joseph Novak
Developed in 1972
Encourages meaningful learning and tracks understanding over time
Process:
Start with a focus question (deep and explanatory)
Identify 15-25 concepts and organize them from general to specific
Build understanding by connecting keywords and explicating relationships
Non-hierarchical connections (cross-links)
Use Bloom's Taxonomy for meaningful relationships
Iterative process: Add concepts and rearrange through cycles
Final cleanup to make presentable
Example: Neuron sends a signal
Comparing Different Methods
Depth of Learning: Concept maps promote higher-order learning
Elaboration Quality: Both methods encourage existing knowledge connections; concept maps might have the upper hand due to explicit relationships; Buzan maps encourage visual elaboration
Cognition Offloading:
Buzan maps: Dual coding (visuals and words), spacing out into chunks
Concept maps: Not ideal for rote memorization but better for deep understanding
Repeatability and Rigor: Concept Maps have explicit steps, Buzan maps have 10 laws
Usability:
Concept maps: More tedious but more explicit relationships
Buzan maps: More intuitive but harder to objectively evaluate
Additional Techniques
Visual Metaphors: Useful for consolidating, interleaving, and memorizing
Plain Diagrams (e.g., Flowcharts): Good for constructing understanding, easy to evaluate objectively, trade-off with no higher-order processing
Justin Sun's Grind Maps
Similar to Novak's concept maps
Create keyword lists, build from big picture to details, multiple iterations, focus on prominent relationships
Differences: Lack of deep evaluative focus question
Grouping/chunking improves visual layout, moves away from strict hierarchy
Emphasis on most important relationships
Use of arrows for connections (middle ground between Buzan and concept maps)
Inclusion of doodles and symbols (compromise between visual appeal and memorability)
Evaluation: Grind maps lack clear criteria compared to Buzan and Novak maps
Conclusion
Grind maps draw from concept maps with tweaks for usability and visual elements from Buzan maps
Visual metaphors and diagrams can be improved with personalized experiments and self-regulation
Key Takeaways
Understanding of both mind maps and concept maps
Importance of method choice based on learning goals (memorization vs. deep understanding)
Iterative, flexible approach recommended for personalized learning