Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Who are mindmaps for?

13 November 2009 by Clark 9 Comments

In response to my recent mindmap of Andrew McAfee’s conference keynote (one of a number of mindmaps I’ve done), I got this comment:

Does the diagram work as a useful way of encapsulating the talk for someone who was there? Because, speaking as someone who wasn‘t, I find it almost entirely content-free. Just kind of a collection of buzz-phrases in thought bubbles, more or less randomly connected.

I‘m not trying to criticise his talk – which obviously I didn‘t hear – or his points – which I still have no idea about – but the diagram as a method of conveying information is a total failure to this sample size of one. Possibly more useful as a refresher mechanism for people who got the talk in its original form?

Do mindmaps work for readers?   Well, I have to admit one reason I mindmap is completely personal.   I do it to help me process the presentation. Depending on the speaker, I can thoughtfully reprocess the information, or sometimes just take down interesting comments, but there are several benefits: In figuring out the ways to link, I’m capturing the conceptual structure of the talk (really, they’re concept maps), and I’m also occupying my personal bandwidth enough to allow me to focus on the talk without my mind chasing down one path and missing something.   Er, mostly…

Then, for a second category, those who actually heard the talk, they might be worthwhile reflection and re-processing.   I’d welcome anyone weighing in on that. I don’t have access to someone else’s example to see whether it would work for me.

Then, there are the potential viewers, like the commenter, for whom it’s either possible or not to process any coherent idea out of the presentation.   I looked back at the diagram for McAfee’s keynote, and I can see that I was cryptic, missing some keywords in communicating. This was for two reasons: one, he was quick, and it was hard to get it down before he’d moved on.   Two, he was eloquent, and because he was quick I couldn’t find time to paraphrase.   And there’s a more pragmatic reason; I try to constrain the size of the mindmap, and I’m always rearranging to get it to fit on one page.   That effort may keep me more terse than is optimal for unsupported processing.

I will take issue with “more or less randomly connected”, however.   The connections are quite specific.   In all the talks I’ve done this for, there have been several core points that are elaborated, in various ways by talk, but each talk tends to be composed of a replicated structure.   The connections capture that structure.   For instance, McAfee repeatedly took a theme, used an example to highlight it, then derived a takehome point and some corollaries.   There would be ways to more eloquently convey that structure (e.g. labeled links, color coding), but the structure isn’t always laid out beforehand (it’s emergent), and is moving fast enough that I couldn’t do it on the fly.

I could post-process more, but in the most recent two cases I wanted to get it up quickly: when I tweeted I was making the mindmap, others said they were eager to see it, so I hung on for some minutes after the keynotes to get it up quickly.   McAfee himself tweeted “dang, that was FAST – nice work!”

I did put the arrow in the background to guide the order in which the discussion came, as well, but apparently it is too telegraphic for the non-attendee. It happens I know the commenter well, and he’s a very smart guy, so if he’s having trouble, that’s definitely an argument that the raw mindmap alone is not communicative, at least not without perhaps some post-processing to make the points clear.

Really valuable to get the feedback, and worthwhile to reflect on what the tradeoffs are and who benefits. It may be that these are only valuable for fellow attendees.   Or just me. I may have to consider a) not posting, b) slowing down and doing more post-processing, or…?   Comments welcome!

Comments

  1. Bert Bates says

    13 November 2009 at 9:42 AM

    I’m a HUGE fan of mindmaps. It’s an essential part of the author training we do. With that said, I tend to think of mindmaps as being most useful in the early stages of content development, and not so much as a way to ultimately deliver content. In other words, mindmaps are a great way to take notes during a presentation, but I probably wouldn’t publish one.

  2. Tanja says

    14 November 2009 at 3:34 AM

    I use mindmaps a lot. Whenever I want to capture a topic or develop a concept (for an article, a presentation or a conversation with a customer) I find mindmaps very helpful. And even for work in a team I find them great, at least at the stage of brainstorming or elaborating an idea.

  3. Jane Bozarth says

    14 November 2009 at 4:58 AM

    Clark,
    It’s funny, but the reader comment that your mindmap is “Just kind of a collection of buzz-phrases in thought bubbles, more or less randomly connected” is often pretty much what we hear from critics (or, perhaps more accurately, confused observers) of the weekly Twitter #lrnchat sessions. Some find it messy and frustrating; I find it exhilarating and thought-provoking. I don’t subscribe to the “learning styles” myths, but I am starting to wonder if there really are groups of learners we might call “linear thinkers” and “other”.

    What I find especially interesting: I don’t see your mindmap as a “visual” at all. Looks like an outline to me, and where there are phrases I can fill in the blanks. I understand it perfectly even though it’s spiderweb-shaped. Good work.

    JB

  4. Cheryl Hall says

    15 November 2009 at 2:47 PM

    Clark,
    I loved the mindmaps you published for the conference. I spent my time tweeting during these sessions, so they are really
    helpful. I always thought mindmaps were BEST used by participants. The connection of main points to the center and the
    connected thoughts off each shoot help me remember the points McAfee was making. I am planning to use your maps as well
    as the ones I did myself to debrief the conference with my team.
    Thanks again
    CH

  5. Rob Moser says

    17 November 2009 at 9:26 PM

    The comments above just tell me what I had already guessed; they _are_ quite useful for other folks who had seen the talk.

    I didn’t mean for the original comment – yes, that was me – to be scathing (which I hope you know me well enough to know, but perhaps needs explaining to other readers here because I appear to have been a little “pointed” with my language that day…) I was (and to the extent to which the question remains unanswered, still am) genuinely curious as to whether it was a useful tool for communicating content to non-audience members. Just because I haven’t learned to use it yet doesn’t make it useless; some of the best tools require training and practice to use, and perhaps I just need to do my homework. On the other hand, if its primarily used as a mnemonic for yourself or others who saw the talk, then I can perhaps afford to feel a little less behind, and should just seek out some of McAfee’s content via a different media.

    The “more or less randomly connected” quip was purely about its appearance to an outsider. I know you well enough to know you weren’t just doodling lines, I just couldn’t follow the connections without more context.

  6. Tarmo Toikkanen says

    23 November 2009 at 7:40 AM

    Mind maps are personal since they can be made with personal choices. Concept maps, on the other hand, have strict structure and can be understood by anyone else. Take a look at CmapTools for an excellent free (as in beer) Java based concept mapping tool.

  7. nancy white says

    2 December 2009 at 7:35 PM

    I used to use mind maps to summarize web based discussions. My co facilitator would look at them and say USELESS. Many of the participants – not all- would say fantastic. Upon some probing, we came to the conclusion that mind maps are one of those things that are or are not triggered by our learning preferences (if you want to call them that.) I suspect this has something to do with basic cognition and brain function. Like some people get a great deal out of listening to a podcast, and others (like me), don’t.

    In my practice, mind maps have been useful in these contexts:

    * organizing and pattern seeking – and the mapping is usually of most value to the mappers.
    * pulling out key words and phrases (even the buzz ones!)
    * summarizing of material that benefits from chunking (vs linear, etc.)

    My two bits — rather late in the convo!

  8. Mark Fidelman says

    13 December 2009 at 6:51 PM

    Any suggestions for useful mindmap tools? What are you using in your blog posts?

  9. Clark says

    14 December 2009 at 1:36 PM

    Mark, I use OmniGraffle. Mac only, but brilliant for diagramming. I redid a number of my diagrams in it, just because it was literally fun. Collaboratively, MindMeister works for mindmapping, I’ve also used Gliffy a *wee* bit for diagramming.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

License

Previous Posts

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok