How to Mind Map:
1. Introduction How to Mind Map: The Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic engagement:
In the last article, we had described the concept of mental learning through the program of ‘Learn How to Learn‘ and in this article, we would be dealing with the theme of ‘learning to learn’ (L2L) of Tony Buzan.
Buzan is credited with further development of what is described as Mind Mapping to the application of learning. With an objective to retain what is learnt. There are at least two theories to which the development of his concept could be traced to.
The first one relates to the experiments conducted by Ebbinghaus. Ebbinghaus through a scientific experiment conducted between 1879 and 1885 had demonstrated that the process of ‘forgetting’ could be plotted in a graph. Such experimentations proved that ‘memory’ is short-lived, in that, less than 20% information learnt is retained after 31 days. His theory subsequently came to be known as ‘Ebbinghaus Curve of Forgetting’ is quoted in Colin Rose’s book on ‘Accelerated Learning’ (1988).
The Second one relates to the original research conducted by David Paul Ausubel – in his work Learning theory and classroom practice. Ausubel’s approach was to transform experiences into concepts and giving them meaning they no longer remain separate entities but arrange themselves into groups, or “maps”, this approach mirrors the way our brains learn.
Practical Experimentation
The practical experiment of it [Mind Mapping] in the educational learning context took place with the Campion School undertaking a Project captioned ‘Learn to Learn’. The rationale behind its applicability to education is described by the Educational Kinesiology UK Foundation, as an ‘educational movement based programme which uses simple movements to integrate the whole brain, senses, and body. Through this, the learners are prepared with the physical skills they need to learn effectively that can be used to improve a wide range of learning, attention and behaviour skills’.
Having dealt with some of the theoretical foundations, we would consider in the next section as to how it could be connected to Accelerated Learning Techniques and its methodology.
2. The connection between Accelerated Learning Techniques and Mind Mapping:
Accelerated Learning Techniques and the Multiple Intelligence Theory advance the learning through Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic (VAC) methods for imparting effective knowledge to the learners depending upon their aptitude for learning. Tony Buzan (2003) mainly concentrated on the likely beneficial outputs the visual techniques can bring upon the learners and postulated using ‘Mind Maps’ as an effective way of getting the learners involved into learning purposefully.
Mind Mapping then, as postulated by Tony Buzan, is a particular type of ‘pattern diagram’. It resembles in certain ways to a spider diagram but with adjustments which help the learners to stimulate creativity and learning. By connecting the VAK with the graphical and colour representation and physical movements through the Brain Gym®, his program is aimed at the:
- The process of organising the learning materials in graphical forms which helps the brain to recognise objects faster and even more enables the information to be retained.
- The colour-coding of the learning materials enables the brain in making sense of the information
- Linking learning to music and musical rhythm can further aid in the retention of what is being learnt.
2.1: The Methodology:
It consists of four inter-dependent techniques.
- A central image crystallises the subject of attention.
- The main themes of the subjects are pictured as branches having their origin from the central theme.
- The branches contain either a keyword associated with a line or key image. Topics considered to be of a lesser value are sub-plotted as an attachment to the main branches.
- Such branches form a connected nodal structure.
To sum up, the author concluded that “all knowledge is a giant map of associative networks, containing billions of sub-maps of associative networks, containing billions of sub-maps each emanating from its own special-subject centre”.. (http://www.mind-map.com [link goes to original site]) and hence the connection of brain mapping to Accelerated Learning Techniques should be found in similarities in the application of the keywords, associations, connections, network etc. in imparting knowledge/skills to the learners.
2.2.: Application and Evidence of benefits:
Contrary to the earlier articles, it needs to be stressed here that there is not much of scientific evidence regarding the accrual of benefits in the application of this theory in learning and or training programs and in fact, there are controversies about its unqualified benefits. It is not the objective of this article to go into them. In spite of such doubts, it can be said that it may well be having its utility in helping the learners (to what extent is unknown) to organise information recall. In regard to its association with AL, some studies have attested to their positive connections. Pica and Short, (1999) had supported the positive association and benefit of this method, by holding to the views, that practicing smooth and controlled voluntary cross lateral movement, similar to the ones performed by musicians leads to a difference in inter-hemispheric communication as both sides of the brain are compelled to connect which produces a range of benefits to the learners. In the’ Learn to Learn’ (L2L) Project quoted earlier in this article, it was found that BrainGym® session had positive outcomes in mood controlling outcomes.
A natural doubt may arise in the minds of the readers as to how this technique is connected to Dr.Lozanov’s ‘Suggestopedia’. The answer could lie in the fact that this method utilises the mental rehearsal and imitation capabilities of human beings. It is an application of suggestion when the learners imagine themselves of doing something or engaged in visioning, it activates the neural pathways involved in actually doing the imagined activity. In other words, both imagining and doing functions are functions are carried by the same area in the brain. Thus, its name Brain Gym® gets justified when one considers the fact that the above theory is the one widely used in sports psychology in preparing them to imagine themselves as winners.
3. Conclusions: What is the utility of this theory to the HRM/ HRD Practitioners?[a]
It was already pointed out that direct evidence are hard to forthcome, but we hold to the opinion that does not mean that the concept does not have any implicational validity for HRM/ HRD. Such shreds of evidence could be found through looking for indirect ways it works and accordingly conclusions are drawn based on this principle.
Organisational Behaviour Theories and HRM/HRD experts have tended more and more towards the beliefs that getting people to change requires both information and the right motivation. This is an activity of the brain and to accomplish this brain needs coaches and coaching in turn work on brains as changing an attitude of a person is hard and requires inputs of additional resources.
In addition to the author quoted as the basis for drawing writing the concluding sections, there is enough evidence available in the pioneering works of Neurasthenics of Dr.Jeffrey M.Schwartz. Dr.Jeffrey Schwartz is a worldwide recognised expert in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorders without administration of drugs by applying the concept of brain imaging and scientifically demonstrated that choices change the functioning of the brain moment to moment and this exactly brain mapping aims to accomplish in HRM.
The brain needs coaching through HRM by bestowing ongoing attention and efforts in developing the will power in the individuals so trained. It has been effectively proved that through ‘Attention, Reflection, Insight, and Action (ARIA) coaching can positively impact the brain. Though not all of these can be traced to brain mapping alone, yet there are certain elements of it which can successfully adopted in any coaching program, because mental maps play a role in influencing perceptions that can impact the goal accomplishment.
Bibliography – How to Mind Map: Visual, Auditory & Kinesthetic engagement
Ausubel, D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational Research, 48, 251-257.
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (2nd Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Buzan, T. (2003), Mind Maps for Kids: the Shortcut to Success at School, Harper Collins.
Dennison, P., and Dennison, G. (1994): Brain Gym: Teacher’s Edition Revised. Ventura, CA: Edu-Kinesthetics, Inc
Pica, R. and Short, K. (1999): Moving and leaning across the curriculum, Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 10(1) 5-7. Quoted in Jehue, D. and Carlisle, C. (2000), Movement Integration; The Key to Optimal Development, Teaching Elementary Physical Education, January 2000.
Rose, C & Nicholl, M.J. (1977): Accelerated Learning for the 21st Century: the six-step plan to unlock your MASTER-mind, Dell Publishing, New York
[a] The concluding paragraph is based on the article written by David Rock entitled A Brain-based Approach to Coaching, which itself is based on his interview with Jeffery M. Schwartz, M.D. and originally published in the International Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 2006, 4(2) pp32-43. For details please visit [PDF] Rock: A Brain-based Approach to Coaching
Reviewed March 2019 – broken links repaired & new subheadings added – MM
Chia Suan Chong says
31/07/2012 at 10:05How to Mind Map: The Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic engagement through Mind Mapping – #article http://t.co/14MdU9hl
YOLANDA EGEA says
31/07/2012 at 06:45How to Mind Map: The Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic engagement through Mind Mapping – #article http://t.co/JcMRMP8B
Sue Annan says
31/07/2012 at 06:40How to Mind Map: The Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic engagement through Mind Mapping – #article http://t.co/14MdU9hl
Emma James says
31/07/2012 at 06:01How to Mind Map: The Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic engagement through Mind Mapping – #article http://t.co/14MdU9hl
Chris de Jong says
13/05/2012 at 22:34Useful Blog post: http://t.co/yR0PSote #hr
theLBSS says
13/05/2012 at 22:15Useful Blog post: http://t.co/yR0PSote #hr
theLBSS says
15/04/2012 at 04:55Useful Blog post: http://t.co/yR0PSote #rapidbi
Mike Morrison says
16/02/2012 at 13:20Historical article from our site- http://t.co/tcdwrUJk Pls RT
theLBSS says
21/01/2012 at 03:00Useful Blog post: http://t.co/yR0PSote #hr
theLBSS says
28/10/2011 at 05:15Useful Blog post: http://t.co/yR0PSote #biz
Barry Mapp says
27/02/2010 at 00:23Would be interested in your source article for Concept Maps. My source as originator of this term is Novak- and in his technique the maps are not radiant, they progress from top down, main ideas are contained in boxes not on branches, straight-line arrows make connections rather than curved organic branches and colour not part of the data differentiation. Both techniques though arrange information hierarchically.
rapidbi says
27/02/2010 at 09:24Barry,
Certainly Concept maps originally did not start out as radiant, however in their use with linking, there was often a radiant nature to the output – but then concept mapping was a more general tool for what mapping what existed rather than creating. Indeed concept maps can included 2 or more main ideas where as the mind map methodology suggests one.
Concept mapping also encouraged one word per branch (although they did box the word – historically from the computing world (flow charts) that the concept was adapted from.
Are you familiar with the work of David Paul Ausubel – in his work Learning theory and classroom practice, and other publications there is a lot of references to what we would know as mind mapping/ concept mapping. Put Ausubel and Novak’s worth together and you have mind maps. Ausubel’s approach was to transform experiences into concepts and giving them meaning they no longer remain separate entities but arrange themselves into groups, or “maps”, this approach mirrors the way our brains learn.
Have you also looked at the work of Tolman (c 1948)?
Useful references include:
https://www.msu.edu/~luckie/ctools/
At the end of the day Buzan has a ‘tight’ copyright on the “Mind Mapping” phrase and that is great – it is in his copyright that he has strong reasons to push the differences (or he has no copyright) – to the average user of the technique the differences are on the whole semantic – indeed even in education where Buzan started (BBC education), most teachers refer to the technique as spider diagrams more than concept maps or mind maps and results tend to look more like concept maps. Buzan has never given any references other than his own materials, which does nothing for the learning credibility of the methodology.
This piece is a general one, not an in-depth one on mind maps or concept maps.
Barry Mapp says
26/02/2010 at 12:03Hi Mike,
Thanks for your reply comments. Firstly Operational Definitions. I wonder if you are unclear about the considerable differences between Concept Maps and Mind Maps as you are using these terms inter-changeably. Concept Maps (Novak – are operationally different to Mind Maps (Buzan) and the only common feature in both techniques as original described is they utilize the hierarchical ordering principle (as does a simple tree diagram). On a Venn diagram both of these techniques are visual association tools or graphic organizers but the Venn would show little overlap between the two. Only the left side of our brain would ever see them as being the same thing at a working operational level. So I don’t believe it is correct to say (as others have said also) that Buzan popularised Concept Maps (its a bit like saying Pears popularised Apples). However I am interested to know more about your proposition that Buzan applied his own rules (agreed) without real reference to the original research in the early 60’s (not sure, which research precisely?) Also I don’t get the connection between the development of Mind Mapping and Ebbinghaus and Brain Gym so if you are able to elucidate that would be great.
On your point about being illustrative and not definitive. You have given a good representation of Buzan’s Main Mind Mapping Principles under “methodology” and the “four inter-dependent techniques – so I don’t have any issue with this. Your illustration however is neither a Concept Diagram nor a Mind Map. So for me it is not illustrative in the way I would use the term (to show an example of), though it looks pretty. This looks like a common trend on the Internet – the principles of Mind Mapping accurately described in text but the illustrations being a webbing-spidery-bubbly-arrowy thing that bears little resemblance to the Buzan quoted/referenced verbal description. Someone writing a blog on the uniqueness of Jaguar cars, for example would not make the only illustration a picture of a Fiat Panda (unless they did not know the difference). Most Jaguar enthusiasts would quickly leave the site without reading the content. Secondly most beginners might be somewhat confused particularly if they then try to show others their picture of a “Jaguar”? And if one comes to believe that a Fiat Panda can give the performance of a Jaguar then one is going to be disappointed. When Buzan says that there are 250 million people using Mind Mapping across the world I think this is incorrect for as many as 95% of these are doing the webbing-spidery-bubbly-arrowy thing. Does this matter? Well I believe from personal experience using and teaching the technique that you lose a good 80% of the potential accelerated learning and productivity benefits when the key principles are missing.
I totally agree that our goal should always be to help people try out new things, and to lessen anxiety in doing so and make things fun. Here we differ though because in my experience we lessen anxiety when we give students a set of principles or guidelines to follow (‘rules’ are too harsh a word). It is easier to learn a new skill (like drawing for example) when the teacher gives you guidelines (about how to draw), than (like when I was at school) being just left to your own devices (so I never ‘learnt’ to draw!).
rapidbi says
26/02/2010 at 19:10Hi Barry, I have changed the image to avoid confusion.
Concept maps & Mind Maps – “only common feature in both techniques as original described ” not strictly true as both radiate, both can link ideas, generally one word per branch.. there are more similarities than differences.
In terms of Ebbinghaus – that is all about retention, and clearly ‘repeating’ memories, providing memory ‘hooks’ vis maps aids retention and recall. the same has been said for some elements of brain Gym – both in terms of preparing physically for learning – crossing right & left – but also to map on a very large physical scale so as to include gross motor as well as fine motor and memory.
another article perhaps…
rapidbi says
24/02/2010 at 18:27Hi Barry, yes and this this is meant to be illustrative not definitive, but then this is not a lesson on “how to mind map” per say – as (1) that term is © and (2) mind-mapping or concept mapping is very individual and what works for an individual works for them. this illustration is one taken from a training courses not about mapping directly, but I though it made a great illustration. The fact that Buzan actually popularised “concept mapping” and applied his own rules without real reference to the original research in the early 60’s has also been overlooked somewhat. Surely our goal as learning facilitators is to empower people to try new things and for many using images and colour is very uncomfortable indeed – if we apply strict rules when people are learning we will end up inhibiting learning.
Barry Mapp says
24/02/2010 at 17:06Just wondered if you realised that the illustration “map” in this article breaks almost all the rules of Mind Mapping as devised by Buzan?
Dee Allan says
24/02/2010 at 15:16Loved this post, particularly as mind mapping and NLP is a technique which we (Redmos) also train people to use.
Mind mapping really does gather all your ideas in one place, almost like a graphical to do list. In recruitment it’s such a useful tool, as it’s like doing a mini business plan for each job you need to fill/candidate you assist for a job search.
Great post
Simon Roskrow says
24/02/2010 at 14:01RT @Rapidbi How to Mind Map: The Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic engagement through Mind Mapping: How to Mind Map… http://bit.ly/cV98FL