![]() ![]() Set/graph theory is the 'noun', the tools we actually use are the verbs.įreeMind is evolving, as are other tools, but isn't funded by sales so its not moving as fast or as far down th road as MindManager or MindMapper. I look a the Buzan maps and I see things that are more strictly trees, organic, and to my eyes, hard to read and follow when I compare them to the tools I do use, MindJet's MindManager, MindMapper and FreeMind (and a couple of other's I've tried). Schottky invented the transistor, but what he worked on is far removed from the chips in my laptop! The lines must be connected, starting from the central image. Words on the line, referred to as linking words or linking phrases, specify the relationship between the two concepts.īuzan, extract of his 'rules': Each word/image must be alone and sitting on its own line. include concepts, usually enclosed in circles or boxes of some type, and relationships between concepts indicated by a connecting line linking two concepts. A couple of UML tools now have a mind mapping function amongst all the other diagram formats. I occasionally use UML but not for purposes that a mind map would be suited to. ![]() Having said that, I hardly ever use concept maps, and when doing mind maps on paper, I usually depart rapidly from a pure tree structure which I find confining. Planning a project, and a 'lessons learned' review after the project, for example. ![]() Two mind maps by the same person on the same topic might be very different if done at different times for different purposes. Getting every triplet right doesn't make a good concept map, but it's a start. But the lack of linking phrases means that they are not concept maps as Novak describes them either.Īs for use, a concept map sets out to encapsulate some knowledge and can be judged right or wrong, simple by reading theĪs a sentence, which can be judged right or wrong:įor example. Many people refer to bubble charts as mind maps and these do have nodes, with lines connecting them. I'm taking Novak's description of concept maps and Buzan's of mind maps. Neither mind maps nor concept maps are math constructs alone, though you can describe them partially that way. Even looking only at the graph element, Buzan's 'associations' make it more than a tree. IMO it needs some distortion to say the second is a subset of the first. I never found these very satisfactory, but there it is. The underlying structure is a tree, but Buzan encourages showing associations, and these are outside the tree structure. There are no nodes and no linking phrases. In a mind map, each concept or topic runs along the lines. There's more to concept and mind maps than the graph.Įach concept in a concept map is a node, and lines connecting them have linking words or phrases. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |