mind mapping as an interactive tool for engaging complex geographical issues

Geo-Ed

Mind mapping as an interactive tool for engagingcomplex geographical issues

David Lloyd, Bill Boyd and Kristin den ExterSchool of Environmental Science and Management, Southern CrossUniversity, Lismore, PO Box 157 Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia

Abstract: Students and communities engaging with complex geographical issuesrequire tools to assist them structure and contextualise data. This paper examines theuse of mind mapping as a tool in geographical education. Case studies are presentedfrom a sample of undergraduate and cross-cultural educational settings demonstrat-ing the use of mind mapping in communication, analysis and problem solving. Incritiquing this educational tool, we conclude that mind mapping is particularly effectivewith communities whose cultures are strong on visual communication but weaker onwritten communication and in cross-cultural situations where use of written Englishwould disadvantage learners.

Key words: community engagement, geography education, mind mapping.

Students of geography are in a very fortunateposition. Not only are they exposed to animmensely rich and varied knowledge base,but they also have exceptional opportunitiesfor developing information handling andproblem-solving skills through visualisation.(Gardiner & Hughes 2000, pp. 38–39)

Much that is written about visualisation andgraphic representation of geographic data referto relatively static data presentation forms.Boyd and Taffs (2002) and Hay (2006), forexample, both devote chapters to ‘communicat-ing with figures and tables’, covering a conven-tional range of graphics: scattergrams, graphs,bar charts, histograms and population pyra-mids. However, graphics are usually not har-nessed to portray dynamic information, nodes,relationships and diverse content of systems.Student study guides provide instruction onwriting techniques, tending to focus on literaryskills for gathering, organising and presentinginformation (e.g. O’Meara et al. 1984; Burdess

1991; Cheek et al. 1995; Burkill et al. 2000;Hay 2006) but do not appear to encouragestudents to adopt such visualisation in theirown learning.

Of course, there is not a complete void in theuse of visualisation in geography teaching. Theuses of visualisation as a learning technique arediverse, ranging from, for example, digital pho-tography (Latham & McCormack 2007) tophysical and computer-generated imaging(Edsall & Wentz 2007) and mapping. Howmight geographers extend the use of visualisa-tion to enhance learning?

Communicating new and varied concepts tostudents and the community requires recogni-tion of a variety of learning styles (Biggs 1996;Toohey 1999) and therefore, the use of variedtools to actively engage students. Recognisingthe difficulty many have with a traditionallinear approach to understanding text-basedmaterial and the need to develop appropriatesocial learning approaches (e.g. Keen et al.2005), the authors developed a series of

Note about authors: David Lloyd, Bill Boyd and Kristin den Exter teach natural resource management units inthe School of Environmental Science and Management at Southern Cross University.

E-mail: [email protected]

New Zealand Geographer (2010) 66, 181–188

© 2010 The AuthorsNew Zealand Geographer © 2010 New Zealand Geographical Society

doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7939.2010.01185.x

training exercises utilising a form of conceptmapping known as ‘mind mapping’ (Buzan &Buzan 1996) to assist students deconstructcomplicated concepts and interrelationships. Inthis paper, the authors describe the use of mindmapping exercises in the teaching of complexenvironmental and geographical concepts andsystems.

The mind map

Mind mapping, a ‘form of structured brain-storming showing the way ideas relate to eachother’ (Hunt et al. 1996, p. 346), is a form ofconcept mapping (Åhlberg 2008). While aconcept map provides an ‘accurate representa-tion of the main features of cognitive struc-tures’, mind maps provide the ‘orderedassociation map open to multiple interpreta-tion’, i.e. an analytical tool (Åhlberg &Ahoranta 2002, p. 119).

In practical terms, Buzan developed asystem of (mind) mapping for organisinginformation based on hierarchies and associa-tions that branch out of a central image(Buzan & Buzan 1996). Each branch and linkis categorised by the use of graphics, keywordsand colours. This allows users who have diffi-culty with text-based models, such as thosefrom Indigenous oral-based societies or stu-dents with a predisposition to think visually, torapidly develop associative links. Secondaryitems then flow from main branches untilthird- or fourth-order links are established.Buzan and Buzan (1996) also recommendedthe use of graphics since the brain is morereadily drawn to an image than a word,although words written in varying styles andfonts may become a graphic feature in them-selves (e.g. Keates 1996).

Mind mapping can be widely used. Theauthors have, for example, taught students touse this technique in note-taking as it providesa strong association that aids memory (Driscoll2000), while the use of branches in mind mapspromotes memory of associations between con-cepts. Authors such as Ison (2005) use mindmaps to structure complex ideas while othersindicate the suitability of mind mapping foryoung children (Hunt et al. 1996) or universitylaw students (Morgan et al. 2004).

Case study: the sequentialintroduction of mind mapping to

university students

We have been using mind mapping with ourpostgraduate research students for some timeto support students through planning andimplementing their research and thesiswriting. More recently, we (Lloyd and denExter) have formally introduced undergradu-ate third-year students to mind mapping as acore tool for problem-based learning and laterintroducing it into the first-year curriculum.Our findings are discussed throughout thispaper.

The context of these and of the followingexperiences is an environmental science andmanagement degree course in which studentsprogress from an environmental science sylla-bus basis through increasing focus on practiceto environmental management and planning.One of the pedagogical issues we face is man-aging the transition from linear rationalisticcontent teaching and learning (largely favouredin the content-driven sciences) to the moremultifaceted process and skills focus of anissues and problem-based management sylla-bus (Boyd 2001).This transition requires a shiftin the ways in which students engage theknowledge and manage socially constructedconcepts and expressions of knowledge(Jackson & Penrose 1993).

Our paths commenced in a number of places.One of us (Boyd) has been using mind mappingin postgraduate supervision and undergraduatestudies since the late 1980s, and his students’notebooks, especially during the early stages ofproject planning, are full of mind maps. In par-allel, Lloyd was using this tool in research withIndigenous communities, where language andcultural constructs may affect context andreadiness to participate (Lloyd & Norrie 2004;Lloyd et al. 2005; Nimwegen et al. 2009). In thisapplication (Figs 1,2), mind mapping allowedcomplex associations to be formed even thoughup to four languages were being used in theprocess. In contrast, den Exter’s introduction tovisual learning using ‘concept mapping’ wasparticipatory dynamics modelling, a visualobject-oriented modelling tool (den Exter &Specht 2003). In bringing mind mappinginto third-year undergraduate teaching, our

D. Lloyd et al.182


students are introduced to the method througha step-wise process.

1 Introduction to illusory perceptions: the stu-dents were shown a series of illusionaryimages to encourage discussions on brainfunction and differences in perception. Thisis important since, particularly in a science-based course, many students are acculturatedin linear and concrete approaches to tacklingissues.

2 Discussion of illusory perceptions: in prac-tice, discussions on lateral thinking takeapproximately 20 minutes, and students areready to enter discussions on the applicationof mind mapping.

3 Mind mapping examples from our work:drawing on examples of mind mapping in ourresearch (design and data collection) leads toan explanation on the method of mindmapping. This takes 20 minutes, then weengage students in real examples.

4 Student engagement with mind mapping: weuse an ‘oil spill’ scenario from an actual eventwhere one of us (Lloyd) was involved. Ran-domly assigned teams are asked to focus on aparticular aspect of the scenario and encour-aged to generate a mind map based on thespecific assigned roles. Lecturers movearound the classroom asking only openquestions in order to refocus teams.

5 Student discussion on their mind maps: theteams are then asked to bring their mindmaps to explain to the class. Differences inapproach are discussed as is the technicalnature of the mind maps elements.

6 Demonstration of use with real-time sce-narios: on completion of the discussion, abuzzer sounds and a pre-recorded scenariocommences of an oil spill and fire in theWhitsunday Islands that all teams must bringtheir elements together to respond to asmarine managers of the area. The sound ofsirens and text messages rolling across the

Figure 1 Outline mind map showing primary nodes developed by West Timorese subsistence farmers in acommunity development project. This version is the English language version, produced by Lloyd onMindmanager software, summarising mind maps produced in the field in several languages (two Tetumdialects, Bahasa and English).

Mind mapping as an interactive tool 183


Figure 2 Section of the expanded West Timorese subsistence farmer mind map, illustrating the commu-nity’s understanding of the complexity of a community-based agricultural development program. Here, onearm of the mind map has been opened up; all the other arms expand in a similar and equally detailed manner.This is the English language version as described for Figure 1.

D. Lloyd et al.184


screen adds to the urgency of the situation ofimpending environmental and human disas-ter. This demonstrates the ability of users touse mind maps to rapidly respond by seeinginterrelationships and hierarchies allowingrapid decisions on actions and assigning ofresponsibilities for response.

7 Debriefing: students discuss the mindmapping process and whether it made aresponse plan easier and quicker to generate.Many, who had previously expressed difficul-ties in organising their work, indicated thatthe process gave them a sense of empower-ment. The last phase takes 60 minutes, and inmost cases, the island is saved . . . but notevery year.

Feedback indicated that the students wereexcited by the process and suggested that thesetools be provided earlier in the course. Toachieve this, the authors set aside time inGlobal Environmental Issues, a first-yearissues-based unit where the use of mind mapswould be appropriate. The initial lecture andconstruction of the mind map was identical tothird-year training, but instead of a standardcase study, students used mind maps to indi-vidually analyse issues papers relevant to theunit of study.

In bringing mind mapping into first-yearundergraduate teaching, our students were alsointroduced to the method through a step-wiseprocess.

1 Introduction: the students were introducedto the topic using the same introductorymaterial as aforementioned.This is especiallyimportant since these are introductory stu-dents whose sense of ‘science’ is less welldeveloped.

2 Mind mapping examples from our own work:this section was condensed, with briefexamples and no discussion of illusory per-ception. A more direct path to operationalaspects of mind mapping seemed to suit thisnovice group better.

3 Student engagement with mind mapping:student groups of three or four were given 15minutes to read and discuss one of two recentpapers (four to five pages long) with pro-vocative and contentious opinions on climatechange (the theme of the study unit).

Another 10–15 minutes was given to draw amind map to represent the argument in thepaper.

4 Student discussion on mind maps: the teamsbrought their mind maps to the class explain-ing what they now understood the papers tomean. Each group was able, after half anhour, to present (Fig. 3) a detailed discussionof a complex issue.

5 Closure: the teaching staff reminded the classthat this was but one tool for synthesisingand presenting complex ideas. Discussionwas more practical, and did not, as for thethird year, concern itself with some of themore conceptual matters surrounding mindmapping.

Discussion: student feedbackand performance

Feedback from the students indicates high levelof satisfaction with the functionality and sim-plicity of the technique. Many students indi-cated a significant advantage over linear notetaking for recall and creative thinking. Forexample, one third-year student stated:

When introduced to mind mapping by Davidand Kristin I could not understand why sucha useful skill was not taught at the beginningof my degree and rather than at the end. Inow use mind mapping when taking notes.(third-year student)

The students reported mind maps being par-ticularly useful in thesis or paper planning andin integrating ideas rather than for purposes ofdescription. The students who are most enthu-siastic about using mind mapping report feelingliberated and in control as visualisation allowsthem to identify content and context in a rela-tional way.

I was sceptical when David and Kristin firststarted talking about this but when weapplied it to solving the oil spill issue I sawhow quickly we were able to work out whatto do and who should do it. The processinvolved the whole group, including the oneswho often hang back and it was amazing tosee how we all knew how everything fittedtogether. I always had trouble seeing the big



picture and this has given me a skill to helpbring it together. Pity I learned this so late inthe course. (third-year student)

Mind mapping, however, is not for everyone.A significant minority felt a linear approachbetter met their problem solving needs.This is a

valid response reflecting the students’ area ofcomparative advantage and existing technicalskills.

A further evaluation arose from the use ofmind mapping in a first-year written exam. Thewritten exam was revised to allow studentsto:

(a)

(b)

Figure 3 Examples of a mind map drawn by novice mind mappers, two first-year university student groupswho had been introduced to the concept and practice of mind mapping within the half hour preceding theproduction of these mind maps and had read a previously unseen paper to provide the content within theprevious 15 minutes.

D. Lloyd et al.186


1 Draw a mind map to depict a complexcoastal erosion issue the class had examined

2 Develop an essay plan regarding key envi-ronmental issues

3 Write a short prose essay comparing andcontrasting two key readings

4 Write a reflection, on the students’ experi-ence of their studies.

It was notable that the marks for the mindmap question were generally very good (highlycommendable grade average; four-point scale –satisfactory, commendable, highly commend-able, exceptional), the essay frame questionswere commendable on average and the essayswere satisfactory. From a marker’s perspective,the advantage was to be easily able to recognisea student’s understanding of an issue.

The objectives of the first-year teaching unitwere to equip first-year students with the skillsrequired to handle complex tasks in theremainder of the course and to understand thecomplex interrelationships that occur withinenvironmental and social systems.The ability torapidly describe and recall these associationsare facilitated by the use of mind maps, and thesuccessful application should lead to betterlearning outcomes as described by Buzan andBuzan (1996). The added benefit is that mindmaps are tools that can easily be adapted tocollaborative learning approaches and groupsituations.

The role of the tutor becomes critical; howmuch direction to give to guide participantsthrough the process can radically impact onoutcomes. Usually, ‘less is more’ as we try toachieve a situation of collaborative learning;the tutor should be the ‘guide on the side ratherthan the sage on the stage’ (Palloff & Pratt2001, p. 108). In this way, we find that ourstudents’ experience mirrors Åhlberg andAhoranta’s (2002) findings that studentsdevelop more sophisticated and complexconcept structures and link these to othercontent more widely.

Conclusion

Geographical educators have moved awayfrom the standard chalk-and-talk approachnow actively engaging students in the learningprocess. Buzan and Buzan (1996) argued that

mind maps harness the way the brain works,and the authors conclude that for some stu-dents, it is highly effective. Mind mapping hasadvantages in promoting collaborative andactive learning processes inclusive of individu-als who have difficulty with a linear approachand as a tool for analysis and note taking. Inother words, mind mapping provides a linkbetween complex (non-linear) issues, differentlearning styles and re-energised participants.

References

Åhlberg M (2008). Concept mapping as an innova-tion. In: Cañas AJ, Reiska P, Åhlberg M, NovakD, eds. Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators.Proceedings of the Third International Confer-ence on Concept Mapping, Tallinn and Helsinki[Cited 20 October 2010.] Available from URL:http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2008papers/cmc2008-p288.pdf

Åhlberg M, Ahoranta V (2002). Two improved edu-cational theory based tools to monitor andpromote quality geographical education andlearning. International Research in Geographicaland Environmental Education 11, 119–37.

Biggs JB (1996). Teaching for Quality Learningat University, 2nd edn. Society for Researchinto Higher Education and Open University,Buckingham.

Boyd B (2001). Is my teaching and learning practicein environmental education action research? In:Sankaran S, Dick B, Passfield R, Swepson P, eds.Effective Change Management Using ActionLearning and Action Research. Southern CrossUniversity Press, Lismore, pp. 269–82.

Boyd B, Taffs K (2002). Field-based environmentalassessment. In: Boyd B, Taffs K, eds. Mappingthe Environment: A Professional DevelopmentManual. Pearson, Frenchs Forest, pp. 247–312.

Burdess N (1991). The Handbook of Student Skills.Prentice Hall, New York.

Burkill S, Corey D, Healey M (2000). Improving stu-dents’ communication skills. Geography Disci-pline Network, Cheltenham.

Buzan T, Buzan B (1996). The Mind Map Book.Plume, New York.

Cheek J, Doskatsch I, Hill P, Walsh LB (1995).Finding Out: Information Literacy for the 21stCentury. Macmillan Education Australia,Melbourne.

den Exter K, Specht A (2003). Assisting StakeholderDecision Making Using System Dynamics GroupModel-building. Proceedings of the 2003 APENNational Forum, 26–28 November 2003, Hobart,Tasmania.



Driscoll MP (2000). Psychology of Learning forInstruction, 2nd edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston,MA.

Edsall R, Wentz E (2007). Comparing strategies forpresenting concepts in introductory undergradu-ate geography. Journal of Geography in HigherEducation 31, 427–44.

Gardiner V, Hughes K (2000). Improving Students’Problem-solving and Thinking Skills. GeographyDiscipline Network, Cheltenham.

Hay I (2006). Communicating in Geography and theEnvironmental Sciences, 3rd edn. Oxford Uni-versity Press, Melbourne.

Hunt G, Murdoch K, Walker K (1996). Assessmentand evaluation. In: Gilbert R, ed. StudyingSociety and Environment. Macmillan, SouthYarra, pp. 336–48.

Ison R (2005). Traditions of knowledge: Language,dialogue and experience. In: Keen M, BrownVA, Dyball R, eds. Social Learning in Environ-mental Management. Earthscan, London, pp.22–40.

Jackson P, Penrose J, eds (1993). Constructions ofRace, Place and Nation. UCL Press, London.

Keates JS (1996). Understanding Maps, 2nd edn.Longman, Harlow.

Keen M, Brown VA, Dyball R, eds (2005). SocialLearning in Environmental Management. Earth-scan, London.

Latham A, McCormack DP (2007). Digital photogra-phy and web-based assignments in an urban field

course. Journal of Geography in Higher Educa-tion 31, 241–56.

Lloyd DN, Norrie F (2004). Identifying trainingneeds to improve indigenous community repre-sentatives input into environmental resourcemanagement consultative process: A case studyof the Bundjalung Nation. Australian Journal ofEnvironmental Education 20, 101–14.

Lloyd D, van Nimwegen P, Boyd WE (2005). Lettingindigenous people talk about their country. Geo-graphical Research 43, 406–16.

Morgan C, Dunn L, Parry S, O’Reilly M (2004). TheStudent Assessment Handbook. Routledge,London.

Nimwegen P, Lloyd DJ, Vanclay JK (2009). Prospectsfor Integrated Timber–Forage–Livestock Agro-forestry Systems for Economic Diversification inWest Timor Farming Communities. ResearchSeries, ACIAR, Canberra.

O’Meara P, Shirley D, Walsche RD (1984). How toStudy Better and Pass Exams Confidently.Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.

Palloff RM, Pratt K (2001). Lessons from the Cyber-space Classroom: The Realities of Online Teach-ing. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Toohey S (1999). Designing Courses for Higher Edu-cation. Society for Research into Higher Educa-tion & Open University, Buckingham.

D. Lloyd et al.188


mind mapping as an interactive tool for engaging complex geographical issues

Documents