An interesting debate (among many) in yesterday’s AACE Global USocial Media Seminar around mind and concept mapping. Whilst Dave Cormier dismissed mapping as a personal and potentially isolating learning activity, George Siemens was keen to promote its potential for knowledge sharing. I support this perspective yet am somewhat confounded by the reality of its limitations. The ability to create a map and simply put it on the web as a PDF is not a particularly interactive process and whilst the growth of mapping web apps (such as MindMeister and Gliffy) proviide new opportunities for collaboration, they still fall way short in enabling the potential of mapping as a fully participatory medium. Current mapping technologies and practices are unfortunately just too immature,
Multiple mapping notations (mind and concept mapping have fundamentally different psychological and theoretical foundations), and the lack of a standard mapping format (numerous mapping softwares and web apps were suggested by the audience yesterday) mean online map-sharing resources tend to be software specific (such as Biggerplate or the forthcoming cMappers). I want to be able to search for content across integrated mapping resources, navigate easily through mapping levels and hierarchies, take sections from different maps to add my own etc. in other ways, use maps in the way I use textual content systems to navigate, annotate and access the Web. This is dependent not only on the technological standardization of formats and architectures, but in establishing common practices in the way we map, how we link things, and how we develop visual knowledge networks.
The next seminar in this excellent series is at 9pm (Eastern US time) on October 13th.
An interesting debate (among many) in yesterday’s AACE Global U Social Media Seminar around mind and concept mapping. Whilst Dave Cormier dismissed mapping as a personal and potentially isolating learning activity, George Siemens was keen to promote its potential for knowledge sharing. I support this perspective yet am somewhat deflated by the reality of its limitations. The ability to create a map and simply put it on the Web as a PDF or whatever is not a particularly interactive process and whilst the growth of mapping web apps (such as MindMeister and Gliffy) provide new opportunities for collaboration, they still fall way short in enabling the potential of mapping as a fully participatory medium. Current mapping technologies and practices are unfortunately just too immature.
Multiple mapping notations (mind and concept mapping have fundamentally different psychological and theoretical foundations), and the lack of a standard mapping format (numerous mapping softwares and web apps were suggested by the audience yesterday) mean online map-sharing resources tend to be disparate and software specific (such as Biggerplate or the forthcoming cMappers). I want to be able to search for content across integrated mapping resources, navigate easily through multiple mapping levels and hierarchies, select isolated sections from different maps to add to my own etc. – in other words; use maps in the way I use numerous text-based systems to navigate, annotate and contribute to the Web. This capability would not only depend on the standardization of formats and architectures, but in establishing common practices in the way we map, link things, and develop visual knowledge networks.
The next seminar in this excellent series is at 9pm (Eastern US time) on October 13th.
Tags: concept mapping, mindmapping
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pm and is filed under Posts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I still prefer to map using pen and pencil and don’t feel that mind or concept map software gives me the ability to show relationships in multiple dimensions that way I draw them on paper.
I have to disagree with your wish to make them standard. In fact, as mind mapping is so spatial, I think you would limit collaboration by standardizing the software. I get so frustrated at the linearity of most of these maps. I find that drawing the graphics on Word is more satisfying (although this can be very frustrating also). I’d like to see a software that allows multiple dimensions, something like Kartoo does in online searches.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I nearly always hand draw maps first – sometimes down on the floor with big sheets of paper and chunky marker pens. I don’t think mapping tools are intuitive enough. But I then transfer all my maps electronically – it helps tighten up concepts and links, and enables me to edit, update and disseminate more easily.
Everyone seems to run out of dimensions when mapping! That’s where I think hyperlinking between, across and within maps can help. I don’t think maps should exist in isolation – because concepts don’t exist in isolation. I have maps within maps, maps which overlap with others, maps which relate to different contexts.
In the seminar Dave Cormier (rightly) argued mapping is too goal-orientated, with too much focus on the output. The focus should be on the mapping process and the resource. We should think about using mapping in the same way we use text. I may write lots of rough notes around a topic (or several interrelated topics). From these I may draft an essay, a proposal, abstract, poster text etc. These are the outputs, yet my body of notes still remains my most valuable resource, particularly if it is contextualised in something like a personal wiki, with useful links and annotations. The open-source mapping programme VUE (Tufts University) has a feature called Pathways which enables you to create multiple linear paths (for presentations etc.) from a map, yet you still retain the original map in all its complexity as a record of your mapping process.