Justin Sung GRINDE Maps vs Buzan Mindmaps
Summary
TLDRThis script delves into the world of mind mapping, comparing Tony Buzan's traditional mind maps with Joseph Novak's concept maps and Justin Sun's grind maps. It evaluates these methods based on their impact on learning, focusing on criteria like depth of learning, elaboration quality, and usability. The video also touches on the importance of visual metaphors and diagrams for higher-order learning, and the need for objective evaluation in mind mapping techniques.
Takeaways
- 📚 Mind maps were first coined by Tony Buzan in 1974 and are known for their central subject, radiating branches, and use of images and symbols.
- 🎨 Buzan mind maps are hierarchical and can be used as mnemonic devices for memorization but may not scale well for large topics or higher order learning.
- 🌐 Joseph Novak's concept maps, developed in 1972, encourage meaningful learning and provide a visual representation of understanding, focusing on explicit relationships and higher order thinking.
- 🔍 Concept maps are created through a process that includes a focus question, ordering concepts, building a representation, and iterative refinement.
- 📈 Novak's approach uses Bloom's taxonomy to identify and create the most prominent and useful relationships within the concept map.
- 🤔 The comparison between Buzan mind maps and Novak concept maps can be based on architectural components, creation steps, final diagram rules, and evaluation criteria.
- 🧠 Both mind maps and concept maps encourage higher order learning and the making of connections with existing knowledge, but concept maps may have an edge due to explicit relationships.
- 🖼️ Buzan mind maps uniquely encourage visual elaboration, using dual coding with visuals and words, which can aid in offloading cognition and improving memorability.
- 📝 Concept maps have explicit steps and relationships, making them more rigorous and repeatable, but potentially more tedious for new practitioners.
- 🔄 Grind maps, as introduced by Justin Sun, are similar to Novak's concept maps in their iterative keyword collection and mapping process, with an emphasis on important relationships.
- 🎯 Grind maps differentiate themselves by not starting with a deep evaluative focus question, allowing for more flexibility in learning direction and content.
- 📊 Evaluation of mind maps and concept maps can be subjective, but grind maps may lag in providing clear criteria for objective evaluation compared to the established methods of Buzan and Novak.
Q & A
Who coined the term 'mind map' and in what year?
-Tony Buzan coined the term 'mind map' in 1974.
What are the key features of a Buzan mind map?
-A Buzan mind map has a central subject, branches that radiate and taper outward, one keyword per branch, use of images and symbols, different colors for different branches, stylized arrows or blank space for connections, and an overall balanced and aesthetically pleasing appearance.
How does the Buzan mind map differ from a concept map in terms of learning perspective?
-Buzan mind maps are known as mnemonic devices for memorization but are considered hierarchical and not scaling well for large topics. Concept maps, developed by Joseph Novak, focus on meaningful learning and showing how understanding changes over time.
What is the process for creating a concept map according to Joseph Novak?
-The process starts with a focus question, identifying 15 to 25 concepts and ordering them from general to specific. Then, build a representation by connecting keywords with explicit relationships, add cross-links for non-hierarchical connections, organize into levels of hierarchy, and refine the map through multiple cycles before cleaning it up for presentation.
Why might Buzan mind maps not be ideal for higher order learning?
-Buzan mind maps might not be ideal for higher order learning because they are too hierarchical, don't clearly define relationships, and do not focus on higher order learning objectives.
What is Bloom's Taxonomy and how does it relate to concept maps?
-Bloom's Taxonomy is a framework for categorizing educational goals into a hierarchy of complexity and specificity. Concept maps use this taxonomy to identify and create the most prominent and useful relationships in the map.
How do Buzan mind maps and concept maps differ in terms of visual elaboration?
-Buzan mind maps uniquely encourage visual elaboration with images and symbols, while concept maps focus more on the encoding aspect and explicit relationships rather than visual appeal.
What is the main difference between Novak's concept maps and Justin Sun's grind maps in terms of starting point?
-Novak's concept maps start with a deep evaluative focus question, which directs the learning and encourages deep processing, while grind maps do not have a clear starting point or focus question.
How do grind maps improve upon the concept of 'chunking' or grouping information?
-Grind maps improve upon chunking by allowing for a more free-form grouping that resembles the spacing of Buzan maps, subtly improving the visual layout and usability while still maintaining a focus on important relationships.
What is the role of visual metaphors and diagrams in learning according to the script?
-Visual metaphors and diagrams serve as a higher level of 'scratch work' that can be useful for consolidating, interleaving, and memorizing information. They are particularly effective for offloading cognition and providing feedback on understanding.
How does the script suggest evaluating the effectiveness of mind mapping techniques?
-The script suggests evaluating mind mapping techniques based on criteria such as depth of learning, elaboration quality, cognition offloading, repeatability, rigor, and usability. It also mentions the importance of objective evaluation criteria for learning-related aspects.
Outlines
📚 Mind Maps and Concept Maps: A Comparative Analysis
This paragraph introduces the concept of mind mapping, credited to Tony Buzan in 1974, and contrasts it with concept mapping developed by Joseph Novak in 1972. It discusses Buzan's 10 laws for mind maps, emphasizing their hierarchical structure, use of keywords, images, and colors, and their function as mnemonic devices for memorization. The paragraph also critiques mind maps for their limitations in scaling to large topics and fostering higher-order learning. It then explores Novak's approach to concept maps, which focuses on meaningful learning and the evolution of understanding over time. The process of creating a concept map involves starting with a deep question, identifying key concepts, and explicitly defining relationships between them. The paragraph concludes by comparing the two mapping techniques based on their design, creation steps, and evaluation criteria, highlighting the depth of learning and cognitive offloading each method promotes.
🔍 Evaluating Learning Techniques: Usability and Feedback
The second paragraph delves into the practical aspects of learning methods, emphasizing the importance of repeatability and rigor. It discusses the usability of Buzan mind maps and concept maps, noting that while Buzan's maps have a set of laws, concept maps offer explicit steps and relationship creation, which may be overwhelming for beginners. The paragraph also addresses the challenge of objectively evaluating mind maps and the criteria used for concept maps, which focus on higher-order relationships and hierarchy. It introduces the idea of visual metaphors and diagrams as supplementary learning tools that, while not as extensive as mind maps, can be useful for consolidation and memorization. The paragraph concludes with an overview of Justin Sun's grind map method, which is influenced by Novak's concept maps but lacks a clear focus question, and discusses the iterative process of creating a grind map, emphasizing the importance of critical examination and the inclusion of doodles for visual elaboration.
🎨 The Art of Learning: Grind Maps and Visual Metaphors
This paragraph examines the artistic and visual aspects of learning tools, comparing Buzan mind maps, which are likened to artwork with an emphasis on abstract visualizations for memorability, to grind maps, which incorporate doodles and symbols in a less explicit manner. It discusses the trade-offs between explicit relationships that encourage active thinking and the potential tedium of creating them. The paragraph also explores the balance between visual appeal and the cognitive load associated with different types of maps. It touches on the use of visual metaphors and diagrams as higher-level cognitive tools, suggesting that they may be more effective for deep learning than mnemonic devices like doodles. The paragraph concludes by discussing the criteria for objectively evaluating grind maps and the potential for personalizing learning methods through experimentation and self-regulation.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Mind Map
💡Tony Buzan
💡Concept Map
💡Joseph Novak
💡Bloom's Taxonomy
💡Higher-Order Learning
💡Mnemonic Device
💡Grind Maps
💡Dual Coding
💡Visual Elaboration
💡Chunking
Highlights
Mind maps were first coined by Tony Buzan in 1974 and serve as a visual thinking tool.
Buzan mind maps have a central subject, branches with keywords, and use images and symbols.
Buzan mind maps are hierarchical and can be used as mnemonic devices for memorization.
Joseph Novak developed concept maps in 1972 to encourage meaningful learning and understanding.
Concept maps start with a focus question and build on it with 15 to 25 concepts.
Concept maps use explicit relationships and cross-links to show connections between concepts.
Bloom's taxonomy is used in concept maps to identify and create prominent and useful relationships.
Grind maps, developed by Justin Sun, are similar to Novak's concept maps in creation and structure.
Grind maps emphasize the importance of relationships and critical examination of concepts.
Visual metaphors and diagrams can be useful for consolidating knowledge and enhancing memorization.
Buzan mind maps use dual coding with visuals and words to offload cognition and improve memorability.
Concept maps are rigorous and repeatable, with explicit steps and relationships for learning.
Usability is a key factor in the practical application of mind mapping techniques.
Grind maps improve on usability and organization, incorporating elements from Buzan mind maps.
Directionality in grind maps is a balance between the explicit relationships of concept maps and the simplicity of Buzan mind maps.
Grind maps include doodles and symbols, a compromise between the visual emphasis of Buzan maps and the focus on encoding of concept maps.
Objective evaluation of mind maps is challenging, with criteria varying between methods.
The transcript suggests that grind maps could be further improved with personalized experimentation and self-regulation.
Transcripts
this is a mind map mind maps were coined
by Tony buzan in 1974 your pattern is
becoming an environmentally enclosed one
this is what Justin s calls a mind map
these don't look very similar and I'd
like answers today we'll look at the
academic literature on mindmapping from
a learning perspective let's find out
what the authorities say
[Music]
let's make a buzan mind map about buan
mind maps first we'll open up our copy
of Mind map Mastery to make sure we
adhere to Tony's 10 laws ban mind maps
have a central subject like everything
else in the mind map it's accompanied by
images and symbols branches radiate and
taper outward from the center each
branch gets one keyword and that keyword
is capitalized different branches get
different colors connections can can be
represented by stylized arrows or blank
space and finally the Mind map should
look nice and balanced bazon says mind
maps can be used in infinite ways but
from a learning perspective they're most
well known as a nemonic device for
memorizing pretty useful pretty fun but
from a learning perspective I think they
are too hierarchical don't scale well to
large topics have unclear relationships
and don't have a focus on higher order
learning
so how do we get from here to grind Maps
we need a
[Music]
bridge Joseph Novak developed concept
maps in 1972 his goal was to create a
method that encourages meaningful
learning he also wanted to provide a
window into how someone's understanding
changes and improves over time here's
Novak's process for creating a concept
map we start with a focus question it
should not be a simple topic like
neuroscience
it should be a deep question that
requires explanation like why is the
brain considered the center of cognition
or why do concept Maps encourage
learning based on that question we find
15 to 25 Concepts and put them to the
side in a parking lot we then order them
from General to specific to make the
next steps easier taking one keyword at
a time we build a representation of our
understanding of the topic when
connecting keywords we write down the
explicit relationships between between
them to show other relationships we can
even add nonh hierarchical connections
called cross links usually the map is
organized into a few levels of hierarchy
where the bottommost layer is
examples the combination of two concepts
and a link makes a proposition AKA
declarative knowledge an example would
be neuron sends a
signal the clear problem here is that
everything in the world is related in
some way how do we choose which
relationships to the
show Novak points us to Bloom's taxonomy
he says we should identify and create
only the most prominent and useful
relationships as defined by the higher
orders of Bloom's
taxonomy continuing we now have a
parking lot from which we created a
preliminary map with higher order
relationships the next steps are to keep
adding to the concept map through three
or more cycles each time we add new
Concepts and rearrange the existing ones
finally we do one last pass and clean up
the Mind map to make it more presentable
now that we've looked at buan mind maps
and Novak concept maps by which criteria
do we compare these and Justin Sun's
grind
[Music]
Maps the research has a lot to say about
this I've tried to consolidate down to a
few key ideas a basic architectural
comparison can be made based on three
design decisions we could look at the
steps taken to create a diagram the
rules of the final diagram and that's
what it actually looks like and the
checklist for how we or an expert
evaluate the final diagram we can also
consider more nuanced criteria both
abstract and practical First we can look
at the depth of learning that the method
encourages in terms of higher order
learning concept maps have a clear upper
hand they answer a deep focus question
and connections are made based on
evaluative processing in terms of
elaboration quality both methods
encourage us to make connections with
existing knowledge concept Maps might
have the upper hand again because of
their explicit relation ships but buzan
mind maps uniquely encourage visual
elaboration the human brain is amazing
brain is fish complex but it does have
limitations so using a tool that
complements it would be ideal one
criteria we can evaluate these methods
by is how well they offload our
cognition Bon mind Maps use dual coding
with visuals and words and do an okay
job spacing things out into chunks
additionally buan mind Maps use spatial
relationships and images to improve m
memorability even Novak himself admits
concept Maps aren't great for rote
memorization practically we want our
learning methods to be repeatable and
rigorous we want learning biology on a
Tuesday to go just as well as calculus
on a Friday bazon mind maps do have 10
laws but concept maps have explicit
steps and make the user create explicit
relationships finally we have to look at
usability none of the criteria we've
talked about so far matter if we don't
actually use the technique because it's
too much work the explicit steps and
relationships in concept Maps can be
overwhelming and tedious for a new
practitioner however that's only
usability on the encoding side after
mind mapping we need to evaluate the
work feedback is a core component of
learning evaluating buz on mindmaps
objectively is not easy there is a buzan
mind mapping competition with criteria
but it's not really learning related
criteria concept maps are a little
better at being evaluated they focus on
explicit higher order relationships and
hierarchy which lend them to object
objective critiques in the literature
there is both qualitative and
quantitative criteria the qualitative
criteria is pretty interesting it
mentions that we shouldn't create maps
that look like a spoke or a chain our
concept Maps should look a little bit
more like a net now we understand buan
mind maps Novak concept maps and the
criteria by which we can evaluate and
create these methods before we dive into
grind Maps though I want to quickly
highlight some smaller methods
a visual metaphor is a metaphor that we
draw it could be the three pillars of
mind maps a pyramid taxonomy or even
conjoined triangles take a look at the
conjoined triangles of success we know
from the last video that creating
analogies and metaphors instigates good
Germaine cognitive load so while this
doesn't compare to the size of mind maps
and concept Maps it can be really useful
for consolid dating interleaving and
memorizing however like mind maps it can
be hard to evaluate objectively on the
other hand drawing plain old diagrams
like flowcharts can be a great way to
construct our own understanding as a
bonus it can be objectively evaluated
for example while reading about a
process we might draw it out and then
compare the drawing to the ground truth
to get feedback on our understanding
it's a trade-off we're working at a
lower levels of blooms but we're
definitely getting the benefits of
offloading and
[Music]
feedback Justin Sun's grind map methods
are spread out over a lot of YouTube
videos it could be hard to put it all
together what we have to do is look at
the three Architectural Components from
earlier and use bazon and Novak's
approaches as a baseline for the
creation steps grind maps are very
similar to Novac concept Maps both
create a keyword list like what you can
do is you can create a list of keywords
and then you can create a subl list of
keywords both build the Mind map
starting from the big picture you know
kind of like a basic backbone that I'm
creating this is the overall structure
of the topic both build outward from the
big picture you want to do broad topic
first and then you want to do the whole
topic again but at at another level of
detail and another level of detail both
go through multiple iterations of
keyword collection and mapping simplify
it group it make it make more sense then
add on the next set of keywords pause
group it simplify it connect it and then
continue to do that again and again
until you finish that
list both focus on the most important
relationships as defined by Bloom's
taxonomy and thinking which Concepts or
which chunk and group of information is
more important than another group it
forces you to examine them in a more
critical level of depth and both include
cleaning the Mind map process of making
it cleaner that forces you to activate
higher order learning in terms of
Bloom's
taxonomy the biggest difference in my
opinion is that Novak's concept Maps
start with a deep evaluative Focus
question the focus question directs The
Learning and encourages deep processing
grind Maps don't have this it's unclear
what a grind map is supposed to be about
a topic a chapter I really like Novak's
Focus question because asking different
questions instigates different types of
thinking it even changes the traversal
order of the material you could ask two
different questions about the topic and
get two very different
Maps here is a side by side of a buzan
map a Novak map and a grind map from a
Justin Su
video I really like the grouping in
grind Maps or as Justin calls it
chunking it's an improvement over
concept maps and definitely resembles
the spacing of buzan maps but it moves
away from the purely hierarchical
grouping subtly improving the visual
layout of course there are trade-offs to
everything while making the grouping
more free form improves usability and
encourages different thinking that means
we're also making it harder to evaluate
objectively emphasis in grind Maps would
make Novak happy Novak wants us to
choose relationships that are prominent
and useful emphasizing relationships in
grind Maps takes that a little further
it's asking of the prominent
relationships we've chosen which are the
most important
directionality is somewhere between
buzan and concept Maps ban maps have
lines grind maps have arrows and concept
maps have explicitly named relationships
the trade-off here is that more explicit
relationships ensure active thinking
however they also tend to get more
tedious plain lines aren't tedious but
can be drawn without really considering
what the relationship is grind maps are
trying to find a balance between these
two whether or not that balance overly
compromises is up for interpretation all
three methods use spatial layout and
arrows but how pictorial they are is
different bazon mind maps are basically
artwork they really emphasize abstract
fun visualizations for memorability
grind maps are a bit vague with this but
they include Doodles and symbols concept
Maps ignore visuals and focus on the
encoding aspect rather than memorability
in a way grind maps are again a
compromise between the two but it's
unclear why memorability is a focus when
the goal is higher order learning not
memorization from a learning perspective
I think I'd prefer to see visual
metaphors and diagrams they're kind of
like scratch work at a higher level of
Bloom's taxonomy especially when
compared to pneumonic devices like
Doodles and symbols but of course
Doodles can be used for dual coding and
elaboration so don't throw them out for
objective evaluation I didn't find too
much in Justin's YouTube videos in
Novak's concept Maps we're supposed to
watch out for Spokes and chains there is
some evidence that grind maps have
similar criteria yeah this is just like
a single chain but buzan and Novak maps
have published criteria that people can
use like a checklist grind maps have the
grind criteria itself but as far as I
can tell grind Maps lag behind here
hopefully the relationships between
different methods is a lot more clear we
looked at how Justin Sun's grind Maps
probably draw heavily from the
literature on Novak's concept Maps
however we also saw how grind Maps made
positive tweaks in usability and
organization and brought over doodles
from buzon Maps but we also looked at
visual metaphors diagrams and
fundamental criteria for good learning
it's not hard to imagine improving on
grind maps in a personalized way with
experiments and self-regulation
[Music]
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)