Dear Antonia,

Like Ivo, I also think that mind-mapping refers to a mnemonic process of organization of knowledge. This procedure is very old and has a long-term history.

Even so, I think that we should look carefully at the idea of cognitive or mind maps. First, I think that there is no cognitive map in our minds/brains in the sense that there are road maps, for example, in our car. Second, it is often said that, for example, a child is not able to solve a cognitive task (e.g., an operation of multiplication) because s/he has no cognitive map of the task at hand. Third, I am afraid that to appeal to the lack of cognitive maps, mental operators, and the like to explain a child's intellectual failure gives us an illusion of explantion when none is being provided. Fourth, the focal child's failure to solve the task at hand may be due, for example, to his/her low level of cognitive development or because s/he did not yet learn how to perform an operation of multiplication. Fifth, If you tell a teacher that their pupils are not able to perform the focal task because they have not yet a cognitive map of the task, it is likely that they do not understand what you are saying nor are they able to see how their pupils can form a cognitive map of the problem at issue. Sixth, In other terms, there are no mental maps in our minds/brains in literal terms. Therefore, the idea of mind maps is a metaphorical idea. And to appeal in metaphorical terms to the lack of such maps to explain a child's failure on an intellectual task may gives as an illusion of explanation when none is being provided. More to the point, to invoke the lack of such maps to explain the above mentioned child's behavior may reveal more our ignorance than a real understanding of the focal behavior. Seventh, as I espouse a constructivist approach to one's development and education, I think that if we want to understand a child's failure or success on an intellectual task, we should not look at an internal space or mind maps, but rather to an external time, for instance, to the the child's actions upon objects and his/her interactions with others, be they peers or adults. Eighty, cognitive psychology is full with examples of evasive concepts such as mind maps, internal switchers, mental operators, and the like that often lead to circularity. That is, it is said that the child is not able to solve an intellectual task because s/he has no mind map of the focal task, and has not such a map because s/he is not able to solve the task at hand.

From the foregoing considerations, it is easy to see that I don't not use the idea of mind maps in both my empirical or/and conceptual research.

Best regards,

Orlando

Hi !

You can improve the us of mind-maps with TICS. I use with my students apps that can mediate the production of knowledge. Also you can analyse them with rubrics (previously construct):

https://www.goconqr.com/en/mind-maps/

Regards.

Dear colleagues,

thank you for your answers so far!

With respect to Ivo's and Orlando's answers I would like to stress that I am well aware of the extensive discourses on whether or not knowledge can be organised, constructed, etc. Also I can see that in many ways mind maps to you seem to be more an eroding than a retrieval/recall device -which under specific epistemological perspectives is absolutely valid. However, just as a though-experiment: if one would like to reconstruct an individuals ideas and/or constructions of the self under certain perspectives - which measures/tools/approaches would you recommend? Or, asked differently - are there such approaches after all?

Tank you and kind regards,

Antonia