Special Issue Paper

Information Visualization (2006) 5, 202–210. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500131

A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing

Martin J Eppler1

1Faculty of Communication Sciences, University of Lugano (USI), Lugano, Switzerland

Correspondence: Martin J. Eppler, Faculty of Communication Sciences, University of Lugano (USI), Lugano, Switzerland. Tel.: 058 666 45 12 Fax: 058 666 46 47; martin.eppler@lu.unisi.ch

Received 8 February 2006; Revised 31 March 2006; Accepted 13 April 2006; Published online 22 June 2006.

Top

Abstract

In this article, Novak's concept mapping technique is compared to three other types of visualization formats, namely mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors. The application parameters and the respective advantages and disadvantages of each format for learning and knowledge sharing are reviewed and discussed. It is argued that the combination of these four visualization types can play to the strength of each one. The article then provides real-life examples from such a use in undergraduate and graduate university teaching. The results provide first indications that the different visualization formats can be used in complementary ways to enhance motivation, attention, understanding and recall. The implications for a complementary use of these visualization formats in class room and meeting contexts are discussed and a future research agenda in this domain is articulated.

Keywords:

Concept map, mind map, conceptual diagram, visual metaphor, concept skeleton, complementary visualization

Extra navigation

.
ADVERTISEMENT
Interactive Visualization and Data Analysis, Masters program at Danube University Krems, Austria