Higher Education

, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 279–301 | Cite as

Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?

  • Martin DaviesEmail author


In recent years, academics and educators have begun to use software mapping tools for a number of education-related purposes. Typically, the tools are used to help impart critical and analytical skills to students, to enable students to see relationships between concepts, and also as a method of assessment. The common feature of all these tools is the use of diagrammatic relationships of various kinds in preference to written or verbal descriptions. Pictures and structured diagrams are thought to be more comprehensible than just words, and a clearer way to illustrate understanding of complex topics. Variants of these tools are available under different names: “concept mapping”, “mind mapping” and “argument mapping”. Sometimes these terms are used synonymously. However, as this paper will demonstrate, there are clear differences in each of these mapping tools. This paper offers an outline of the various types of tool available and their advantages and disadvantages. It argues that the choice of mapping tool largely depends on the purpose or aim for which the tool is used and that the tools may well be converging to offer educators as yet unrealised and potentially complementary functions.


Concept mapping Mind mapping Computer-aided argument mapping Critical thinking Argument Inference-making Knowledge mapping 



My thanks to Tim Beaumont and two anonymous reviewers from the journal for useful comments on earlier versions of this paper.


  1. Ahlberg, M. (1993). Concept maps, vee diagrams, and Rhetorical Argumentation (RA) analysis: Three educational theory-based tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Paper presented at the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics, Cornell University. Available from.Google Scholar
  2. Ahlberg, M. (2004). Varieties of concept mapping. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain. Available from.Google Scholar
  3. Amundsen, C., Weston, C., & McAlpine, L. (2008). Concept mapping to support university academics’ analysis of course content. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
  5. Baugh, N. G., & Mellott, K. G. (1998). Clinical concept mapping as preparation for student nurses’ clinical experiences. Journal of Nursing Education, 37(6), 253–256.Google Scholar
  6. Beitz, J. M. (1998). Concept mapping: Navigating the learning process. Nurse Educator, 23(5), 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).Google Scholar
  8. Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biktimirov, E. N., & Nilson, L. B. (2003). Mapping your course: Designing a graphic syllabus for introductory FINANCE. Journal of Education for Business, 78(July//August), 308–312.Google Scholar
  10. Biktimirov, E. N., & Nilson, L. B. (2006). Show Them the money: Using mind mapping in the introductory finance course. Journal of Financial Education, 32(Fall), 72–86.Google Scholar
  11. Buzan, T. (1974). Using both sides of your brain. New York: E. P. Dutton.Google Scholar
  12. Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2000). The mind map book. London: BBC Books.Google Scholar
  13. Cañas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., & Eskridge, T. (2004). CMap tools: A knowledge modellign and sharing environment. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. Gonzalez (Eds.), Concept maps theory, methodology, technology: First international conference on concept mapping (Vol. 1, pp. 125–133). Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Publica de Navarra.Google Scholar
  14. Chei-Chang, C. (2008). The effect of concept mapping on students’ learning achievements and interests. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Concept Map. (2010). Retrieved 8/3/2010, Wikipedia, from
  16. Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number four in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daley, B. J. (2004). Using concept maps in qualitative research. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamploma, Spain. Available from
  19. Davies, W. M. (2009a). Computer-assisted argument mapping: A rationale approach. Higher Education, 58(6), 799–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davies, W. M. (2009b). Not quite right: Teaching students how to make better arguments. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edmonson, K. M. (1993, April 12-16). Concept mapping for the development of medical curricula. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia. Available from.Google Scholar
  22. Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching; an integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5, 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eriksson, L. T., & Hauer, A. M. (2004). Mind map marketing: A creative approach in developing marketing skills. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(2), 174–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Farrand, P., Hussain, F., & Hennessy, E. (2002a). The efficacy of “mind map” study technique. Medical Education, 36(May), 426–431.Google Scholar
  26. Farrand, P., Hussain, F., & Hennessy, E. (2002b). The efficacy of the ‘mind map’ study technique. Medical Education, 36(5), 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gouveia, V., & Valadares, J. (2004). Concept maps and the didactic role of assessment. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Concept Mapping.Google Scholar
  28. Harrell, M. (2008). iLogos. Retrieved 7/11/08, from
  29. Harrell, M. (2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research and Development, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  30. Hay, D., Kinchin, I., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008). Making learning visible: The role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hay, D., Wells, H., & Kinchin, I. (Forthcoming). Using concept maps to measure learning quality. Higher Education.Google Scholar
  32. Hoffman, E., Trott, J., & Neely, K. P. (2002). Concept mapping: A tool to bridge the disciplinary divide. Amercian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 187(September), S41–S43.Google Scholar
  33. Horn, R. E. (1998). Mapping great debates: Can computers think? bainbridge island. WA: MacroVU Press.Google Scholar
  34. Irvine, H., Cooper, K., & Jones, G. (2005, 24th–25th November). Concept mapping to enhance student learning in a financial accounting subject. Paper presented at the Accounting Educators’ Forum, Sydney, NSW. Available from.Google Scholar
  35. Jackson, K., & Trochim, W. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Jonassen, D. H., Reeves, T. C., Hong, N., Harvey, D., & Peters, K. (1997). Concept mapping as cognitive learning and assessment tools. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3–4), 289–308.Google Scholar
  38. Kinchin, I. M. (2000). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34(2), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kinchin, I. (2001). If concept mapping is so helpful to learning biology why aren’t we all doing it? International Journal of Science Education, 12, 1257–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. King, M., & Shell, R. (2002). Teaching and evaluating critical thinking with concept maps. Nurse Educator, 27(5), 214–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes. London: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  42. Kulhavy, R. W., Lee, J. B., & Caterino, L. C. (1985). Conjoint retention of maps and related discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 683–699.Google Scholar
  43. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leauby, B. A., & Brazina, P. (1998). Concept mapping: Potential uses in accounting education. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(1), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. List of Concept Mapping Software. (2008). Retrieved 30th November, from
  46. List of Mind Mapping Software. (2008). Retrieved 29 October, from
  47. Maas, J., & Leauby, B. A. (2005). Concept mapping: Exploring its value as a meaningful learning tool in accounting education. Global Perspectives of Accounting Education, 2, 75–98.Google Scholar
  48. Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning, i-outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning, ii-outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(December), 715–726.Google Scholar
  52. McClain, A. (1987). Improving lectures: Challenging both sides of the brain. Journal of Optometric Education, 13(Summer), 18–12.Google Scholar
  53. McGaghie, W. C., McCrimmon, D. R., Mitchell, G., Thompson, J. A., & Ravitch, M. (2000). Quantitative concept mapping in pulmonary physiology: Comparison of student and faculty knowledge structures. Advances in Physiology Education, 23(1), 72–81.Google Scholar
  54. Mealy, D. L., & Nist, S. L. (1989). Postsecondary teacher directed comprehension strategies. Journal of Reading, 32(6), 484–493.Google Scholar
  55. Mento, A., Martinelli, P., & Jones, R. M. (1999). Mind mapping in executive education: Applications and outcomes. Journal of Management Development, 18(4), 390–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mind Maps Made With Mind Mapping Tool. 8/3/2010, from
  57. Nassi, I., & Shneiderman, B. (1973). Flowchart techniques for structured programming. SIGPLAN Notices, 8(8).Google Scholar
  58. Nettleship, J. (1992). Active learning in economics: Mind maps and wall charts. Economics, 28(Summer), 69–71.Google Scholar
  59. Novak, J. D. (1981). Applying learning psychology and philosophy to biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 43(1), 12/20.Google Scholar
  60. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01 Retrieved 21/6/07, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, from http://cmap.ihmcus/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.
  61. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
  63. Paivio, A. (1983). The empirical case for dual coding. In J. Yuille (Ed.), Imagery, memory and cognition. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  64. Pressley, M., Van Etten, S., Yokoi, L., Freebern, G., & VanMeter, P. (1998). The metacognition of college studentship: A grounded theory approach. In J. D. D. J. Hacker & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in theory and practice (pp. 347–367). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  65. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rochecouste, J. (2005). Constructing taxonomies for student writing. Paper presented at the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing. from
  67. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Safayeni, F., Derbentseva, N., & Canas, A. J. (2005). A theoretical note on concepts and the need for cyclic concept maps. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 741–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schau, C., & Mattern, N. (1997). Use of map Techniques in teaching applied statistics courses. The American Statistician, 51(May), 171–175.Google Scholar
  70. Schuster, P. M. (2000). Concept mapping: Reducing clinical care plan paperwork and increasing learning. Nurse Educator, 25(2), 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schwartz, N. H. (1988). Cognitive processing characteristics of maps: Implications for instruction. Educational and Psychological Research, 8, 93–101.Google Scholar
  72. Simon, J. (2007). concept mapping in a financial accounting theory course. Accounting Education, 16(3), 272–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Software for Mind mapping and Information Storage. (2008). Retrieved 30th October, from
  75. Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed. ed.). Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar
  77. Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116.Google Scholar
  78. van der Laan, S., & Dean, G. (2006). Assessment to Encourage Meaningful Learning in Groups: Concept Mapping,. NZ: AAFANZ SIG Wellington.Google Scholar
  79. van Gelder, T. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. Paper presented at the Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, University of Melbourne. Available from.Google Scholar
  80. van Gelder, T. (2007). The rationale for Rationale™. Law, Probability and Risk, 6, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Enhancing expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–152.Google Scholar
  82. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Walker, J., & King, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a form of student assessment and instruction. Paper presented at the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Available from.Google Scholar
  84. West, D. C., Pomeroy, J. R., & Park, J. K. (2000). Critical thinking in graduate medical education: A role for concept mapping assessment. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(9), 1105–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilkes, L., Cooper, K., Lewin, J., & Batts, J. (1999). Concept mapping: Promoting science learning in bn learners in Australia. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 30(1), 37–44.Google Scholar
  86. Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 211–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zeilik, M. (nd). Classroom assessment techniques: Concept mapping. Retrieved 8/3/2010, from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations