Mind Maps versus Concept Maps

Rating

Mind Maps versus Concept Maps

🔥 Mind Maps and Concept Maps are fundamentally different information mapping methods. The most significant differences are that:
1. Mind maps are hierarchical, with subjects and sub-subjects all connecting from a main (or central) subject. Links are not named and not directional, just connecting subjects hierarchically (and never laterally). Links between subjects are not directional or named.
Many individual or collaborative uses.
2. Concept maps are not hierarchical, subjects can be connected to one or multiple other subjects not necessarily hierarchically. Links are directional (one-way or two-ways), and their function is named (unlike in a mind map).
Uses: modelling, organising and representing knowledge.

		Comments by date▼ Comments by rating Rating
		2 Nick Duffill, United Kingdom
	White Paper on Mind Maps and Concept Maps I have a paper about the differences and different uses at harportconsulting.com. In essence, concept maps are designed for visualizing and communicating knowledge, while mind maps are better at capturing information in a personal way. Hierarchy has much less influence in concept maps. By convention, top-level ideas are drawn at the top of the map, but in practice there is not a strict ranking of concepts further down. Cross-tree links are considered a good sign of the ability to relate concepts in different domains. Moreover, in a Concept Map, concepts are always connected together through linking texts. There are no unexplained connections in a Concept Map. This is more rigorous than Mind Maps, because propositions are clearly visualised. A proposition is a pair of concepts, connected in a given direction by "linking text" which explains how they are related. A concept may be connected to many others in the same map, helping to define its scope and clarify its meaning. Mind maps in fact can include cross-tree links and this is supported by most Mind Mapping software. Cross-links are commonly used to denote dependencies in maps containing tasks.

		1 Dil Prasad Shrestha, PhD Management Consultant, Nepal
	Mind Mapping versus Concept Mapping Mind mapping, I think, is sequential in presentation, while concept mapping follows any direction and order in presentation. Mind Mapping is usually used in professional exercises and concept mapping is more relevant and used in academic exercises.

		1 Priyanka B Manager, India
	Mind Mapping versus Concept Mapping @Dil Prasad Shrestha, PhD: I think you are absolutely correct where you have the contrasting difference about the order in presentation, but concept mapping can also be used apart from academic exercises as well. Whatever you can form links about with a logical reason for the links, can be categorized under a concept map.

		3 Jaap de Jonge Editor, Netherlands
	Differences Between a Mind Map and a Concept Map I agree. Many people think that mind maps and concept maps are the same things. However, there are some differences between concept mapping and mind mapping techniques: Firstly, the concept maps have also a topic maps' structure, but the difference is that the connecting lines are replaced with labeled arrows. The labels have the role to explain the relationship between the concepts. Secondly, a concept map has a more flexible layout and it has many-to-many relationships. In other words, in a concept map presenting information is more detailed and the concepts can be connected between each other. Source: mindomo.com.

		0 Maurice Hogarth Consultant, United Kingdom
	The Mapping of Concepts and 'Mind' A Mind Map has its 'title' (topic or concept) depicted (word or image) at the centre of the layout. [Imagine this as a book title] From this radiates out [similar to the numbers on an analogue clock face] the section titles, from each of which branch their 'chapter' then 'paragraph' then 'sentence' 'titles'. Branching out from the most 'important' points to those of lesser importance. This could be considered as a 'hierarchy'. A Concept Map is founded on depicting hierarchy. The major Concept Name is (usually) at the top of the layout, from this lines flow and divide down through the sub-concepts, so depicting the hierarchy from major concept through its sub-concepts with arrowed lines, information points may be noted across these. The layout is on the same basis as that of an organisation chart depicting the management hierarchy. The main concept could also be placed at the centre of the layout with the various sub concepts radiating out from it. Mind Map structures are usually adorned with colours and changes of upper/lower case as well as a variety of images (which may be information codes) all of which are aids to memorisation and then remembering. This visual difference demonstrates the fundamental difference between a Mind Map and a Concept Map. Concept Maps are less likely to be given these memory aids. Relationships between points within these maps may be shown by arrows (particularly in a Concept Map, which may depict a complex network of linking lines) or, more likely by, in Mind Maps colours and font-'typeface' differences etc. Both layouts may be used to represent the same thing. For example, The topic of "Management" could be laid out in the form of a Mind Map or a Concept Map; the same for Mathematics etc. A Concept Map could be used to describe Mind Mapping and vice versa. Software Mind Maps are not laid out to the tight linking of the original (hand-written) concept so it is easy to see how the two forms could have become confused.

		0 Dil Prasad Shrestha, PhD Management Consultant, Nepal
	Mind Mapping versus Concept Mapping @Priyanka Buwe: Yes. I agree. A more detailed example is given by Jaap de Jonge, below your post.