critical thinking and mind mapping

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Int Med Res
• v.48(3); 2020 Mar

Impact of mind mapping on the critical thinking ability of clinical nursing students and teaching application

Hang-zhou wu.

1 School of Nursing, Nursing Department, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China

Qiu-Ting Wu

2 Nursing Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China

Short abstract

We analyzed the impact of mind mapping on the critical thinking ability of clinical nursing students and its use as a teaching application. This study provides reference information for clinical teaching.

We selected 64 nursing students using convenience sampling. Participants received basic knowledge training of mind mapping in three sessions during the intervention. Questionnaires on critical thinking ability were designed by the researchers, adopting the Chinese version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Data collected using the questionnaires included learning strategy function and clinical skill improvement with mind mapping, as well as students’ degree of adaptability to mind mapping. Participants’ critical thinking ability before and after the intervention was analyzed using a paired t -test.

The critical thinking inclination of nursing students was significantly improved after intervention compared with that before the intervention ( t  = −0.74). The four dimensions of open-mindedness, inquisitiveness, cognitive maturity, and systematicity among nursing students after the intervention were also significantly improved compared with before the intervention.

Mind mapping is conducive to improving the critical thinking ability of clinical nursing students.

The modern medical environment requires nurses to have abilities of independent judgment, independent decision-making, and independent execution in clinical practice. Hence, nursing staff must be equipped with critical thinking skills. 1 , 2 Critical thinking pervades all human activities via the processes of thinking and reflection and is key in acquiring all of the abovementioned abilities. 3 , 4 In recent years, an increasing number of educators have realized the disadvantages of traditional teaching methods. Nursing educators have therefore attempted to implement various teaching methods, to improve critical thinking skills in nursing students. 5

In recent years, mind mapping has been applied in the field of nursing as a novel thinking method that has been integrated with teaching and learning. 6 – 9 Mind mapping, as a new learning memory tool, was proposed in the early 1960s by Tony Buzan, a psychologist and educational expert in Britain. 10 Mind mapping uses a technique of combining drawings with words to build memory links between a topic keyword and image, color, or other link, thereby highlighting the key point and level of the memory contents, allowing learners to effectively store and extract information. 10 It has been revealed that mind mapping, as a training tool in thinking, not only improves learning efficiency but also increases learning motivation and interest. 11 However, there is a lack of evidence on whether mind mapping can be effectively applied to clinical practice education.

The aim of the present study was to analyze whether mind mapping can effectively improve the ability to think critically among clinical nursing students. We discuss the impact of mind mapping on critical thinking among nursing students in clinical practice and provide reference information for clinical teaching.

Participants and methods

Research participants.

We selected nursing students at grade A tertiary hospitals in Fuzhou City using a convenience sampling method. All nursing students who were on duty in the medical and surgical wards from August 2016 to December 2016 were included in the study. The exclusion criteria were nursing students who did not wish to collaborate in the research process. In this study, all nursing students voluntarily participated in the research.

Research tools

The questionnaire included basic information such as sex, age, and school information. The Chinese version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI-CV) was applied. The content validity of the CTDI-CV is 0.89, as revised by Peng 12 and other translators at Hong Kong Polytechnic University; the Cronbach's alpha value of the CTDI-CV is 0.90. This scale consists of seven dimensions: analyticity, open-mindedness, self-confidence, inquisitiveness, cognitive maturity, systematicity, and truth-seeking; there are 10 entries per each dimension, for a total of 70 entries. The content of these entries are assessed using six ranking levels, from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. In the questionnaire, scores from 6 to 1 were considered positive entries, with higher scores indicting stronger agreement; scores from 1 to 6 scores were considered negative entries, with higher scores indicting stronger disagreement. The total score of each dimension ranges from 10 to 60, in which a score ≥40 indicates a positive inclination toward critical thinking, a score <30 a negative inclination, and a score of 30 to 40 indicates neither positive nor negative inclination toward critical thinking. The total score of the scale ranges from 70 to 420, with a score <210 indicating a negative inclination, a score of 210 to 280 a neutral inclination, a score >280 a positive inclination, and a score >350 indicating a strong inclination toward critical thinking. In the present study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.967.

Questionnaire on the application of mind mapping in teaching activities

We used a questionnaire addressing application of mind mapping to teaching activities. The survey was self-designed by the investigators to collect the students’ attitudes and evaluations of mind mapping as a teaching method. The content validity of this questionnaire was revised by three clinical experts with senior professional titles in nursing and more than 5 years of clinical teaching experience. The content of the questionnaire included learning strategy function and clinical skill improvement for mind mapping, as well as the degree of adaptability of students to mind mapping, among other aspects. A 5-point Likert ranking scale was adopted, with response options of strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain, agree, and strongly agree. These were each given a score from one to five; a score >4 indicated a positive attitude, a score of 3 a neutral attitude, and a score <3 indicated a negative attitude. Open-ended questions were included to assess the thoughts of nursing students regarding the application of mind mapping to teaching.

This questionnaire was validated by seven experts in two-round Delphi surveys. The panelists included (1) medical or surgery nurse educators with at least 2 years’ teaching experience, (2) at least 5 years’ working experience, and (3) a bachelor’s degree or above. Panelists evaluated the appropriateness and relevance of each item independently and provided their comments. The content validity index was calculated as the percentage of items identified as “relevant” or “very relevant”; this was 92% in the first round. Based on the experts’ comments, three questions were modified. The content validity index in the second round, conducted 2 weeks later, was 100%.

The Cronbach’s alpha of the questionnaire was 0.82. The internal consistency of the questions was 0.80, indicating an acceptable internal consistency.

Intervention method

During the internship period, basic knowledge training in mind mapping was provided by a full-time educator with a PhD and many years’ experience in the application of mind mapping for nursing students. The training was conducted for a total of three sessions of 2 hours each. The main contents included the definition, development process, and role of mind mapping, as well as an introduction to the drawing software and drawing method. The researchers conducted three demonstrations of mind mapping using a clinical case diagram, to improve nursing students’ understanding and comprehension of clinical mind mapping and to enhance their interest in learning the techniques. Each demonstration lasted about 40 minutes.

Each internship group, consisting of 4 to 6 members, learned and discussed the role and drawing method of mind mapping for a total of 3 to 5 sessions per group, for 30 to 40 minutes per session. Each group was allowed to independently select a topic for the mind mapping session, according to the educational contents of the Internship Department. Each group drew a mind map according to disease entities included in ward round teaching of the Internship Department. The investigators and clinical educators collected and summarized the data.

Data collection and statistical methods

The investigators personally administered the questionnaires to nursing students before and after the intervention, and collected all completed questionnaires. Data before the intervention were collected just prior to nursing students beginning their clinical training in the medical and surgical wards. Data after the intervention were collected after students finished their training in the wards, about 2 months later.

Data input and statistical analysis were conducted using SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Comparative analysis was performed to assess the critical thinking ability of nursing students before and after the intervention using a paired t -test. The results of the analysis are reported using mean and standard deviation.

Ethical considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Demographic variables of participants

Sixty-four nursing students from grade A tertiary hospitals in Fuzhou City were recruited using a convenience sampling method. The age range of the included students was 21 to 23 years. Among participants, 62 (96.87%) were women and two (3.13%) were men; 34 (52.35%) students were undergraduate university students and 30 (46.2%) were junior college students. There were 14 student groups, with an average of 4 to 6 students per group.

Critical thinking inclination before and after intervention

The results of the assessment of participants’ inclination toward critical thinking before and after intervention are shown in Table 1 . The total score for critical thinking inclination among nursing students before the intervention was 263.95 ± 46.09, indicating a neutral inclination. The total score for students’ critical thinking inclination after the intervention was 281.68 ± 46.14, indicating a positive inclination toward critical thinking. On comparing the critical thinking inclination before and after intervention, the inclination toward critical thinking of nursing students after the intervention was significantly improved compared with that before intervention ( t  = −0.74, P  = 0.045).

Results for participants’ inclination toward critical thinking, before and after the intervention (n = 64).

* P <  0.05.

Critical thinking ability before and after intervention according to scores on each dimension

The four dimensions of open-mindedness, inquisitiveness, cognitive maturity, and systematicity among nursing students were also significantly improved after the intervention, as compared with those before intervention ( Table 1 ) ( P  < 0.05). The four dimensions of analyticity, self-confidence, inquisitiveness, and systematicity after intervention showed a positive inclination toward critical thinking ( Table 1 ).

Survey results regarding mind mapping application in teaching

Results of the survey on the application of mind mapping to teaching activities are shown in Table 2 . The survey revealed that in the overall evaluation (average score 4.13 ± 0.73) of the mind mapping teaching method, nursing students had a positive attitude toward knowledge memory enhancement, cultivation of analytical abilities, the ability to systematically organize information, and the ability to combine theory with practice, among other aspects, all with scores of more than 4. Most nursing students reported that they enjoyed learning mind mapping and were willing to use the method in their work, with scores of more than 4 ( Table 2 ).

Survey results regarding application of mind mapping in teaching activities (n = 64).

In response to the open-ended questions, nursing students stated that the combination of mind mapping and professional knowledge can improve learning efficiency, contribute to learning memory, and cultivate analytical abilities. The main difficulties reported by participants in drawing mind maps ( Figure 1 ) were that the process is time-consuming, being unfamiliar with application software, and being unskilled in drawing, among others

Examples of nursing student’s mind map.

Improvement in critical thinking ability using mind mapping in nursing education

The research results revealed that the critical thinking ability of nursing students obviously improved after training in mind mapping, with neutral inclinations toward critical thinking before the intervention improving to positive inclinations post intervention. After the intervention, the four dimensions of analyticity, self-confidence, inquisitiveness, and cognitive maturity in critical thinking showed positive inclinations, indicating an enhanced desire for acquiring knowledge among nursing students and improved attitudes regarding independent investigation and initiative. These findings were consistent with research results reported by Chen and Zhang 13 and Chen and Zhao. 14 Therefore, our findings confirm that the application of mind mapping in teaching can improve the critical thinking ability of nursing students. 15 , 16 Mind mapping can be used to effectively integrate and optimize learning resources, helping to build a complete knowledge system. This approach will contribute to improving students’ abilities of comprehensive analysis, resulting in a more scientifically rigorous and effective learning process. 17

At the intervention stage, clinical educators guide nursing students in acquiring comprehensive and systematic knowledge and skills. These students can in turn provide patients with integrated professional health services including basic nursing, condition observation, rehabilitation guidance, and health education. 18 At the internship stage, on-duty nursing students are full of intellectual curiosity and eager to apply their professional knowledge. Hence, this is a stage during which nursing students can attain a sense of accomplishment and responsibility. In our study, training in mind mapping helped nursing students adapt to new internship environments. 9 , 19 The training possessed a good guidance function in professional knowledge mastery for students during their short internship period. 20 Thus, the dimensions of open-mindedness, inquisitiveness, cognitive maturity, and systematicity were obviously improved in our participants. However, the dimensions of analyticity, self-confidence, and truth-seeking did not show improvement. This may be because the clinical educators in this study were unfamiliar with mind mapping and thus, could not provide adequate guidance for students in these dimensions.

Positive attitude toward the application of mind mapping in teaching nursing students

In this study, we surveyed and interviewed participants and found that applying mind mapping in teaching has become a popular learning method among nursing students at the research hospitals in this study. Students reported that mind mapping helped to enhance their memory, to better acquire knowledge and analytical abilities and to systematically organize information. Students reported that they can adapt to mind mapping in clinical education that combines theory with practice, to acquire and improve their critical thinking abilities. In the present study, nursing students freely designed mind maps rather than being provided with a pre-drawn example. In this way, students’ initiative for learning can best be mobilized. 21 , 22

Despite our positive findings, we revealed that mind mapping was ineffective in improving participants’ problem-solving abilities. This is possibly related to the stronger emphasis on memory and learning efficiency of mind maps, with less emphasis on solving practical problems. In our study, nursing students reported that they might have less initiative to draw mind maps while learning because the process is time-consuming.

In conclusion, teaching using mind mapping can cultivate the critical thinking ability of nursing students. Furthermore, clinical educators can apply mind mapping during the training of these students in the internship process. This approach will help nursing students to acquire comprehensive skills and improve their initiative to learn.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

This study was supported by the Projects of Educational and Teaching Reform of Universities in Fujian Province (No. J15035).

Hang-Zhou Wu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1354-0527

What is a mind map? Tips, examples, and templates

Producing new ideas can be a challenge. If you place a blank page in front of your team members, give them a prompt, and ask them to produce something awesome, there will likely be a lot of frustration. It’s intimidating to jump straight into a fully formed, innovative concept. 

Mind maps can help ease that intimidation factor and get you and your team unstuck. Whether you’re brainstorming ideas to solve a specific problem, trying to put together big-picture plans, or just want to get those creative juices flowing, mind mapping is a great place to start.

What is a mind map?

A mind map is a brainstorming technique used to visually organize information into a hierarchy. They feature one main idea as the central point of the diagram, with subtopics branching out and connecting to supporting ideas. First popularized by Tony Buzan, an author and educational consultant, mind maps are a visual way to generate new ideas and solve complex problems. Individuals or teams start by naming a problem or central topic and then adding relevant subtopics.

Mind map diagrams follow a hierarchical structure where the most important ideas are the closest to the center, and each additional tier rolls up to the one before it. This structure helps you see a broad overview of the concept, understand its complexities and connections, and make decisions effectively.

What makes mind maps so powerful is not just the diagrams themselves, but also the process that goes into creating them. The inside-out structure makes it easy to get all your thoughts and ideas down in one place and draw connections between them. They encourage lateral thinking, pushing you to explore and investigate a topic from every angle.

Mind maps vs concept maps

You may hear people conflate mind maps with concept maps, and it’s easy to understand why. Both are diagrams that use nodes and links to visualize how ideas are connected. The key difference is that mind maps are hierarchical, while concept maps are not. 

While a mind map has one central theme, a concept map illustrates how a variety of different topics or ideas are connected, with no tiers or levels.

When to use a mind map 

Mind maps are best suited for creative thinking and brainstorming that happens in real time. However, there are other ways that mind maps can be useful throughout your workday. These include:  

• Brainstorming and ideation : Mind maps help you quickly create associations and map out related ideas in a way that can spark new, creative ideas. 
• Note-taking during meetings : A mind map helps you quickly add and organize thoughts in a visual way that is easy to refer back to and build upon. 
• Project management and planning : When you have a big project, you can break down complex tasks into smaller components to better visualize the steps needed to achieve your objectives.
• Decision-making : Mind maps can help you weigh the pros and cons of a decision or lay out all of the possible options and then narrow down to your ultimate decision.  
• Presentations and educational materials : A mind map can be a visual aid during presentations or when teaching people something new. It helps make complex information more accessible to the audience.

However you use mind maps, you’ll find that they allow you to discover hidden complexities and connections to facilitate better brainstorming, exploration, decision-making, and project planning.

Benefits of mind mapping 

The obvious benefit of mind mapping is that it’s an effective brainstorming technique. It helps you generate new ideas or solve complex problems and makes your job easier when you’re stuck on a challenge. But there are a few additional benefits of mind mapping that can positively impact your whole team and work performance.

• It reduces the pressure or stress that can occur when problem-solving or trying to develop creative ideas.  
• It increases memory retention and recall due to the visual and spatial arrangement of the mind map. 
• It gives you a holistic view of your project or thought process. 
• It reduces information overload and keeps things organized. 
• It enhances communication and clarity as visual representations are more engaging, flexible, and direct. 
• It helps you think more critically and analytically .

How to create a mind map: A step-by-step guide

Before you get started building out your mind map, you’ll need to choose a mind mapping tool. If you’re working with a team, use a digital whiteboard or mind mapping software so your team can contribute and access the mind map after the working session . The important thing is to not to let the blank space scare you; your mind map will naturally grow once you get going.

1. Identify the primary topic

In the middle of your workspace, add the main topic for this exercise. It could be a single word or a short phrase like “improving team morale,” or it could be a central idea like “work culture.” You could even use a central image or graphic to inspire ideas. 

For example, say your team is working on a new product. You could include an image from a competitor whose work you admire and want to build on or outperform. You could also add a few short phrases or words to describe the goal.

2. Branch out into subtopics

Next, identify subtopics and smaller themes related to your central concept — we recommend starting with three to five. These will be the starting branches for your mind map. Then, you can continue branching out and adding additional layers of related ideas. Ultimately, there aren’t any limits to the number of levels you can include in your mind map.

Remember, these ideas don’t have to be fully formed or polished, just associations that you’ll later build off of or develop further.

3. Connect related topics

Next, draw lines or use colors to connect related ideas. This visual representation allows you to see patterns and connections that might have been less apparent in a traditional linear outline or list. Examine your ideas and identify categories or themes that pop up. Add sticky notes, images, or text, or use different colors to illustrate these common themes. 

Taking our team building example, your team may notice that there are many ideas having to do with getting out of the office and participating in activities in nature. To produce a coherent theme, you might then highlight these as part of an overall theme called “nature retreats.”

4. Select the top themes and categories

Determine which themes are the most relevant and beneficial to your main objective. Then reorganize your mind map to reflect these categorical choices and steer your ideas in a specific direction.

5. Delve deeper into niched-down ideas 

Next, expand and refine each idea with more research and detail. Add important context and resources to make the mind map more informative for your team and external stakeholders. Each idea or piece of information you add ensures that no critical details are overlooked.

Mind mapping tips and techniques

The process of creating a mind map is simple enough, but it takes some practice to get the most out of it. Use these tips and techniques to improve the mind mapping process and make it easier to draw conclusions from your diagram.

Mind map design

Because mind maps are such a visual medium, it’s helpful to focus on how you design them. You by no means need to be a professional designer to make good-looking, easy-to-use mind maps — you just need to keep these tips in mind. ‍

Colors and shades ‍

Use a different color for each branch off your main point to make it easy to see different sections at a glance. You can also use lighter shades of that same color for subsequent levels as you continue to build out the branches of your mind map. ‍

Lines and arrows

Consider using different line widths to indicate how strong the connection is between certain elements. You can also use different colors, dashed or dotted lines, and other visual cues to indicate the relationship between ideas. If you’re sharing your mind map with others, make sure you include a key so they can understand how to read it. ‍

Images and icons

Don’t be afraid to play around with photos, drawings, icons, emojis, and other visuals. They can help you communicate abstract ideas, orient the viewer, and provide inspiration as you go through the mind mapping process.

Collaborative mind mapping

When it comes to mind mapping as a team, the whole is definitely greater than the sum of its parts. Collaborating in real-time makes it easy to get into a flow of free associations and building upon each other’s ideas — something that’s tough to do asynchronously. Here are some quick mind mapping guidelines for more impactful collaboration.

• Start with a warmup to get everyone in a creative mindset
• Timebox the activity to add some positive pressure
• Keep an open mind and a non-judgmental attitude
• When brainstorming, think quantity over quality
• Set aside time to build on each other’s ideas
• End the session with clear takeaways and next steps ‍

Mind map examples and templates to get you started

Rather than starting from scratch, use one of these templates to jumpstart your mind mapping process.

Basic mind mapping

Organize your ideas into a structured diagram to see an overview of the concept, understand its complexities and connections, and make decisions effectively. This basic mind mapping template gives you space to brainstorm, collaborate, and visually structure your ideas. It includes handy tips as well as different examples of mind maps, so you can choose the one that best fits your needs.

‍ Get started with the mind map template ‍

Basic mind map example

Mind map brainstorming

Use this mind map template to brainstorm big ideas, identify new patterns, or quickly organize your thoughts. ‍

Get started with the mind mapping brainstorm template

Mind map brainstorming example

A sitemap is a specialized type of mind map that serves a critical purpose in every website build or redesign project. It helps to visualize the website’s structure to optimize navigation, map the user experience, and determine page hierarchies. It can also be used to identify gaps in content or accelerate the design process.

Get started with the sitemap template

Sitemap example

Also called a hierarchy chart, an org chart is the perfect way to show the organizational structure of your company. A visual representation helps people quickly understand where they fit in the organization, what tasks they need to accomplish, and key stakeholders for projects. ‍

Get started with the org chart template

Organization chart example

Collaborative mind mapping made easy with Mural

So, now that you’re ready to get started on mind mapping, do you have the right tools to make it happen? There are so many mind map examples out there, but it’s important to find one that works for everyone in your business, whether you work remotely or in-office. A mind map you can customize for your needs is crucial for an innovative brainstorming session.

With Mural’s mind map template , you’ll not only spur creativity within your team but also simplify complex ideas and concepts. You can then transform your mind maps into infographics that communicate ideas more effectively with stakeholders. Get started today with a Free Forever plan , and invite your whole team so everyone can get involved in your next brainstorming session.

Get started with mind mapping and diagramming in Mural.

About the authors

Shauna Ward

Tagged Topics

Related blog posts

10 Brainstorming Techniques for Developing New Ideas

What is a flowchart? — tips, examples, and templates

How to Facilitate a Brainstorming Session

Related blog posts.

20 top strategic planning tools and frameworks [templates & examples]

How to make a digital vision board: A complete guide

5 ways visual task management benefits your team

Get the free 2023 collaboration trends report.

Extraordinary teamwork isn't an accident

Productivity

Productivity tips

How to Make Mind Maps: Visualize Your Ideas for Better Brainstorming

It’s inspiring that such massively successful blockbusters started on napkins, but that’s the first step for any good idea, right? Getting ideas out of your head and putting it into the world in some tangible way is how you turn them into reality.

Most people don’t sketch the next great animated movie characters on napkins, but we all need a way to tease out our ideas, think through concepts, and put them into a usable format. That's essential for creativity, in our personal lives and in business. Lists, outlines, and notes can help, but they don’t always lend themselves to radical innovation, learning, or problem-solving.

There’s a better way: mind maps.

What Are Mind Maps?

Mind maps are a visual way to organize your thoughts around one topic using words, colors, images and numbers to highlight ideas and draw connections. Invented by Tony Buzan in the 1960s, mind mapping is much more than drawing: It’s a framework to help you fully think through ideas, and show how topics and ideas are connected and allowing with more flexibility than an outline or list affords.

Mind mapping can be a solo or team activity, and they can be used for all types of tasks: learning, thinking through ideas, strategic planning, mapping out processes or organizing overwhelming amounts of information. I’ve even come across mind maps made to plan weddings or organize Thanksgiving dinner.

Roy Grubb, Managing Director at G&A Management Consultants Ltd and creator of the Visual Thinking Center , told me mind maps are of two types: "Maps where the benefit is mainly in the process of making the map, the thinking process, the memory jogging, the stimulation of new ideas and associations; and maps where the benefit is the map as a reference and communication point."

Why Use Mind Maps Instead of Lists or Outlines?

You don't have to make a mind map—you could just jot a note down on that napkin, or use an outlining app to list the things you're thinking about. So why mind maps?

"Lists always get long, and they assign importance in terms of where the item is on the list," explained MeisterLabs co-founder Michael Hollauf. "If something is further down, it’s inherently less important. If you have topics that are on a similar level, it’s hard to show that in a list. Mind maps can reorganize really easily if you decide something belongs to something else."

In other words, instead of capturing information linearly by default, mind maps can show--and help you discover--connections between different topics, the way your mind works.

List or outlines can be great for small tasks, but Grubb told me fresh ideas are more likely to pop up when creating a mind map because of the free format. "When I’m planning a project, a mind map helps me capture my ideas without having to lay out steps in a linear fashion. I find that a linear list, or even an outline, hems me in and stops me thinking freely."

How to make a mind map

Mind maps are pretty simple to create, and you can build them on a whiteboard, sketch them on a piece of paper, or use a mind mapping app to create them. These basic steps apply in any medium:

1. Start in the Middle With a Central Idea

This can be a word or an image/picture that represents the central topic you’re going to map.

2. Create Branches to Represent Sub-topics

These should be limited to words or short phrases. Keep a good amount of space between your ideas to leave room to add on later.

3. Add Details to Your Mind Map

You can vary colors, word cases, font styles, and even the thickness of your branch lines to separate or group different topics or ideas. Or, you can add photos, notes, and more to add more detail to your map.

4. Make Connections

You can draw lines or arrows between ideas in the map that you want to connect.

Keep expanding for as long as you need to. You might feel done with your map after one sitting, but it could also be something you keep and adjust or add to over time.

Other Mind Mapping Tips

If you’re a beginner

For mind mapping beginners, it can be helpful to have a pro guide your first few maps.

"Look for someone who often uses mind maps and ask their opinion," Grubb told me. "This can help to remove blocks to mastering the technique in the early days."

If you’re not artistically inclined

Don’t worry if you’re not an artist; that’s not the point of a mind map.

"One of the things we hear often is ‘I can’t draw,’" says Raphaela Brandner, marketing manager at MeisterLabs , creators of mind-mapping tool MindMeister. "It’s not about making it beautiful, it’s about making it memorable."

You don’t need to make a masterpiece: "They’re thinking tools, not works of art," Grubb says.

If you’re mapping with your team

When mapping with others, it helps to set some ground rules first. "What we do here is we come to some fort of agreement for how the map is going to be used," Brandner says. "We say we’ll ‘add comments here’ or ‘use these icons for this.’"

With technical teams, Grubb opts for mind mapping software on a laptop with the map projected onto a screen. For teams who are new to mind maps, he maps on large sheets of paper or a whiteboard.

"It helps to be in front of the map, talking as I add to it while the ideas bounce back and forth," he says. "I can explain what I’m doing as we go along, and at the end, capture images of the maps on a phone before erasing them."

As the meeting progresses, Grubb gets people more involved: "I look for opportunities to hand over the marker so that everyone has ownership of the mind map."

If you’re working remotely

Mind mapping tools make it easy for distributed teams make maps together.

"When working with others who may be in distant offices, online mind mapping services, like MindMeister or Mindmup , are indispensable," Grubb says. "Several people can work on a map simultaneously and they can chat online or in the app. Both MindMeister and Mindmup have project planning capabilities, allowing dates and resources to be added to individual items."

Other mind mapping tools include Mindjet , Coggle , XMind , FreeMind and MindNode .

When to Use Mind Maps

Mind maps are often used in schools, so people tend to associate them mainly with learning and studying. But there are a ton of business applications for mind maps, too.

"Many students are shown how to make mind maps to help with learning but never take the skill on into their business careers," Grubb says. "Those that do find they have a tool that is good for much more than just understanding school work."

Grubb told me he sees businesses using mind maps for ideation, product design, website design, project planning, management, report writing, and planning software testing.

Here are just a few business-focused tasks mind maps can help with:

When Absorbing What You Read

Reading is an important way to grow as a professional, but with busy schedules, it can be hard to digest a book or resource enough to apply it to your work.

Mind maps can help you truly absorb what you read. For example, Grubb used a MindMap to summarize the book Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath. First, he read the book and highlighted words and phrases that caught his attention. When he was done reading, he went back and made a mind map from the highlighted sections and was able to use that mind map to successfully guide his next project.

Learn how to read more, faster, with our guide to reading 50 books each year .

When Preparing for a Speech or Presentation

Students turn to mind maps—especially hand-written maps—when studying because they help with memorization.

"That tactile experience works a lot better for memorizing," Brandner says. "That’s what I did in school. Once you have mind map and you’re about to go into the exam, you redraw the mind map by hand to get it into your brain."

You could use a similar process to prepare for a speech or presentation. You’ll feel more confident about the content and might not have to rely on notes as much during the presentation.

Need a presentation app? Check out our roundup of the 20 best PowerPoint alternatives

When Managing a Project

Some project managers use mind maps to take notes in meetings. Instead of pages of linear notes, you can put the meeting topic in the middle and create branches for each major sub-topic discussed.

"When I do this, it’s amazing to me how I see things differently," writes business analyst and marketer Tim Walker . "I pay more attention during the meeting, and I leave with a much better idea of what I could do next to move the work forward."

Making mind maps can also help prioritize project tasks.

"When you map things radially, you take away the rank order and chronology that’s inherent in an outline or Gantt chart," Walker writes . "Instead of prematurely worrying about which part of your project comes first in sequence, or which part deserves the most resources, you can focus on getting the right issues surfaced in a way that promotes dialogue, understanding, and problem-solving"

Learn how to effectively manage projects—and find the tools you need to help you out—with Zapier's Ultimate Guide to Project Management .

When Trying to Generate New Ideas

Use mind maps to combat writer's’ block, think up new product ideas, or generate possible solutions to a problem you’re facing.

"Generating a starting point for innovation can be one of the most productive uses of mapping," Grubb writes . "Ideas can tumble out of control. Writing them in a list easily kills the inspiration, but organizing them in a mind map not only gives the freedom to wander ‘all over the map,’ but encourages grouping, thus often bringing ideas together that give birth to new thoughts."

For more ways to spark new ideas, check out GV's design sprints which help Google's teams turn moonshots into reality.

Automate Your Mind Maps

Your mind maps can be put to even more use if you connect your content in them with your favorite apps. With Zapier, an app automation tool, you can send tasks or topics from MindManager Enterprise to many other apps, such as Google Docs, Trello, Asana, and Evernote.

For example:

Send MindManager content to Google Docs

Send MindManager tasks to Trello

Send MindManager topics to Box

Send MindManager tasks to Asana

Send MindManager content to Evernote

See other MindManager Enterprise app integrations or create your own.

Who knows, maybe you are planning to pitch an idea to Pixar for Hollywood’s next loveable robot, clown fish, or furry monster. If so, ditch the napkins, and try a mind map.

And the next time you want to make sense of information, successfully plan a big project, run a meeting, learn something new, streamline the way you work or even plan Thanksgiving, mind maps can work for you, too.

Mind Map Examples and Further reading

How to Use Mind Maps to Unleash Your Brain's Creativity and Potential

Mind Mapping for the Project Manager

Meeting Management With Mind Maps

The best brainstorming tools

Still want to use notes or outlines to organize your thoughts? Check out our roundups of the best notes software and outlining apps to find the tools you need.

Mind Map photo by INPIVIC Family via Flickr . Mind map example by Roy Grubb . Mind map screenshots via MindMeister .

Get productivity tips delivered straight to your inbox

We’ll email you 1-3 times per week—and never share your information.

Genevieve Colman

Genevieve Colman is a User Experience Manager who enjoys uncomplicating complex language and finding the perfect GIF for every situation.

• Personal productivity
• MindManager

Related articles

14 morning and evening routines that will set up each day for success

14 morning and evening routines that will...

How to manage your perception of time

10 iPhone automation ideas—and how to set them up

10 iPhone automation ideas—and how to set...

How to boost productivity based on your Enneagram personality type

How to boost productivity based on your...

Improve your productivity automatically. Use Zapier to get your apps working together.

Mapping the Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Design Thinking

• Published: 02 February 2021
• Volume 13 , pages 406–429, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Jonathan D. Ericson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9076-0596 1  

2409 Accesses

11 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Critical thinking has been a longstanding goal of education, while design thinking has gradually emerged as a popular method for supporting entrepreneurship, innovation, and problem solving in modern business. While some scholars have posited that design thinking may support critical thinking, empirical research examining the relationship between these two modes of thinking is lacking because their shared conceptual structure has not been articulated in detail and because they have remained siloed in practice. This essay maps eleven essential components of critical thinking to a variety of methods drawn from three popular design thinking frameworks. The mapping reveals that these seemingly unrelated modes of thinking share common features but also differ in important respects. A detailed comparison of the two modes of thinking suggests that design thinking methods have the potential to support and augment traditional critical thinking practices, and that design thinking frameworks could be modified to more explicitly incorporate critical thinking. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for the knowledge economy, and a research agenda for researchers, educators, and practitioners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Design Thinking

Introduction: Design Thinking—Tensions and Opportunities

Looking Inside the Box to Think Outside It: Contextualizing Design Thinking

Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., & Guzey, S. (2019). Productive thinking in middle school science students’ design conversations in a design-based engineering challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , (January). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09498-5 .

Association for Computing Machinery. (2018). ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct . Retrieved from https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics .

Bailin, S. (1987). Critical and creative thinking. Informal Logic, 9 (1), 23–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bailin, S. (1988). Achieving extraordinary ends: An essay on creativity . Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Banfield, R., Lombardo, C. T., & Wax, T. (2015). Design sprint: A practical guidebook for building great digital products . Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.

Google Scholar  

Benson, J., & Dresdow, S. (2014). Design thinking: A fresh approach for transformative assessment practice. Journal of Management Education, 38 (3), 436–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913507571 .

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Wilner, S., & Micheli, P. (2015). Reconciling the tension between consistency and relevance: design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (5), 589–609.

Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1) . Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Brown, A. (2015). Developing career adaptability and innovative capabilities through learning and working in Norway and the United Kingdom. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6 (2), 402–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0215-6 .

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., Duguid, P., & Seely, J. (2007). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032 .

Brown, T. (2021). Design thinking. Accessed 4 January 2021. http://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking

Callaway, M. R., & Esser, J. K. (1984). Groupthink: Effects of cohesiveness and problemsolving on group decision making. Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 157–164.

Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5 (2), 212–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0185-8 .

Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14 (4), B141–B214.

Colzato, L. S., Szapora, A., Lippelt, D., & Hommel, B. (2017). Prior meditation practice modulates performance and strategy use in convergent- and divergent-thinking problems. Mindfulness, 8 (1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0352-9 .

Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (3), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13 .

Cross, N, Dorst, K. & Roozenburg, N. (Ed.). (1992). Research in design thinking . Delft: Delft University Press.

Cross, N. (1993). A history of design methodology. In M. J. de Vries, N. Cross, & D. Grant (Eds.), Design methodology and relationships with science (pp. 15–27). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8220-9_2 .

Crossan, M. M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organization Science, 9 (5), 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.593 .

Davies, M. (2015). A model of critical thinking in higher education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_2 .

Davis, C. M. (1990). What is empathy, and can empathy be taught. Physical Therapy, 70 (11), 707–711. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2011.3225 .

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think . Boston, MA: D.C. Health.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . Lexington, MA: D.C. Health.

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32 (6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 .

Dym, C., Agogino, A., Erics, O., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 103–120.

Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32 (1), 81–111.

Ennis, R. H. (1987a). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and practice . New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Ennis, R. H. (1987b). Critical thinking and the curriculum. Slomianko: In M. Heiman & J.(Eds.), Thinking skills instruction: Concepts and techniques. Building Students’ Thinking Skills Series. (pp. 40–48). National Education Association. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658807250830 .

Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14 (1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil19911412 .

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking : A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction executive summary “ The Delphi Report. American Philosophical Association Delphi Research Report . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.07.002 .

Fisher, A., & Scriven, M. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment . Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.

Gibbons, S. (2018). Empathy Mapping: The first step in design thinking. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/empathy-mapping/ .

Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking . New York: Columbia University Teacher’s College.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education , 7 (1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2 .

Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2201_23 .

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53 (4), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.53.4.449 .

Haupt, G. (2015). Learning from experts: fostering extended thinking in the early phases of the design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25 (4), 483–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9295-7 .

Harley, A. (2018). UX Expert Reviews. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-expert-reviews/

Haupt, G. (2018). Hierarchical thinking: a cognitive tool for guiding coherent decision making in design problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (1), 207–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9381-0 .

Hitchcock, D. (2018). Critical thinking. In E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/critical-thinking/ .

Hogland-Smith. (2017). Critical thinking skills are now in top demand in sales, business. Chicago Tribune . Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-hoagland-smith-problem-st-0723-20170723-story.html .

Hu, Y., Du, X., Bryan-Kinns, N., & Guo, Y. (2018). Identifying divergent design thinking through the observable behavior of service design novices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9479-7 .

Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the Wild . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive . Science, 2 (4), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x .

IDEO. (2015). The field guide to human-centered design (1st ed.). Canada: IDEO.org / DesignKit.

ITEA (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. (2007). In Phi Delta Kappan (3rd ed.). International Technology Education Association (ITEA). https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108200707 .

Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5 (6), 43–46.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Janis, I. L. (2008). Groupthink. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 36 (1), 36.

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., & Woodilla, J. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22 (2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023 .

Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production , 135 (November 2017), 1474–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067 .

Kelley, T. R., & Sung, E. (2017). Sketching by design: Teaching sketching to young learners. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27 (3), 363–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9354-3 .

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2016). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566 .

Kolko, J. (2018). The Divisiveness of Design Thinking. Interactions, 25 (3), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194313 .

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1477405

Kuiper, R. (2002). Enhancing metacognition through the reflective use of self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 33 (2), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.3928/0022-0124-20020301-11 .

Lancione, M., & Clegg, S. R. (2015). The lightness of management learning. Management Learning, 46 (3), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507614526533 .

Levin, J. S. (2018, May). Sharpen your critical thinking skills with these 14 leadership practices. Forbes . Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/05/31/sharpen-your-critical-thinking-skills-with-these-14-leadership-practices/ .

Lloyd, P. (2013). Embedded creativity: Teaching design thinking via distance education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23 (3), 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9214-8 .

Luchs, M. (2016). A brief introduction to design thinking. In M. Luchs, K. Swan & A. Griffin (eds.), Design thinking: new product development essentials from the PDMA (pp. 1–12). Hoboken: (NJ): Wiley.

Lukovics, M., Udvari, B., Nádas, N., & Fisher, E. (2019). Raising awareness of researchers-in-the-making toward responsible research and innovation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10 (4), 1558–1577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-019-00624-1 .

LUMA. (2012). Innovating for People: Handbook of Human-Centered Design Methods (1st ed.). Pittsburg, PA: LUMA Institute LLC.

Mason, T. H., Pollard, C. R., Chimalakonda, D., Guerrero, A. M., Kerr-Smith, C., Milheiras, S. A., & Bunnefeld, N. (2018). Wicked conflict: Using wicked problem thinking for holistic management of conservation conflict. Conservation letters, 11 (6), e12460.

McPeck (1981/2017). Critical thinking and education . New York: Routledge.

Montini, L. (2014, October). The trouble with hiring for “critical thinking” skills. Inc. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/are-you-sure-you-want-to-hire-a-critical-thinker.html .

Moshavi, D. (2001). “Yes and...”: Introducing improvisational theatre techniques to the management classroom. Journal of Management Education , 25 (4), 437–449.

Nodder, C. (2013). Evil by design: Interaction design to lead us into temptation. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703993104 .

Norris, P. E., O’Rourke, M., Mayer, A. S., & Halvorsen, K. E. (2016). Managing the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socioecological systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.008 .

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. In Booksgooglecom (Vol. 30). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39 (6), 751–760.

Park, W. W. (1990). A review of research on groupthink. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 229–245.

Pithers, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42 (3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800440579 .

Price, R. (2016). March) . Business Insider: Microsoft is deleting its AI chatbot’s incredibly racist tweets.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work ? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223–231.

Quitadamo, I. J., Brahler, C. J., & Crouch, G. J. (2009). Peer-led team learning: A prospective method for increasing critical thinking in undergraduate science courses. Science Educator, 18 (1), 29–39.

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82 (3), 330–348.

Reed, L. (2018, January). Building critical thinking skills to solve problems at work. Business.Com . Retrieved from https://www.business.com/articles/building-critical-thinking-skills-at-work/ .

van Reine, P. P. (2017). The culture of design thinking for innovation. Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (2), 56–80.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169.

Rosenberger, C. (2000). Beyond empathy: Developing critical consciousness through service learning. In Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 23–43). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606051-9 .

Rowe (1987). Design thinking . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking (creativity research) . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929 .

Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17 (3), 8–19.

Schleicher, D., Jones, P., & Kachur, O. (2010). Bodystorming as embodied designing. Interactions, 17 (6), 47. https://doi.org/10.1145/1865245.1865256 .

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Critical thinking. 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Spiro, H. M. (1992). What is empathy and can it be taught? Annals of Internal Medicine, 116 (10), 843–846. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-116-10-843 .

Somerson, R. (2013). The art of Critical Making: An introduction. In E. Somerson, M. Hermano, & J. Maeda (Eds.), The Art of Critical Making: Rhode Island School of Design on Creative Practice (pp. 19–31). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams - An analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23 (5), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2 .

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sun, J., Chen, Q., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., Li, H., Wei, D., & Qiu, J. (2016). Training your brain to be more creative: Brain functional and structural changes induced by divergent thinking training. Human Brain Mapping, 37 (10), 3375–3387. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23246 .

Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research . New York, NY: Garland.

Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Waddock, S. (2013). The wicked problems of global sustainability need wicked (good) leaders and wicked (good) collaborative solutions. Journal of Management for Global Sustainability , 1 (1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.13185/JM2013.01106 .

Wells, A. (2013). The importance of design thinking for technological literacy: A phenomenological perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23 (3), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9207-7 .

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9 (4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322 .

Yildirim, B., & Özkahraman, Ş. (2011). Critical thinking in nursing process and education. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1 (13), 257–262.

Zidulka, A., & Mitchell, I. K. (2018). Creativity or cooptation? thinking beyond instrumentalism when teaching design thinking. Journal of Management Education, 42 (6), 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918799797 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Information Design & Corporate Communication, Bentley University, 175 Forest Street, Waltham, MA, 02452, USA

Jonathan D. Ericson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan D. Ericson .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Design Thinking: Challenges and Opportunities

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ericson, J.D. Mapping the Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Design Thinking. J Knowl Econ 13 , 406–429 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00733-w

Download citation

Received : 20 July 2020

Accepted : 19 January 2021

Published : 02 February 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00733-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Critical thinking
• Design thinking
• Entrepreneurship
• Knowledge economy

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Language: English

Mind Mapping for Critical Thinking

Export reference.

Request Access

You do not own this content. Please login to recommend this title to your institution's librarian or purchase it from the IGI Global bookstore .

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

What you need to know—and read—about one of the essential skills needed today..

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• In research for "A More Beautiful Question," I did a deep dive into the current crisis in critical thinking.
• Many people may think of themselves as critical thinkers, but they actually are not.
• Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically.

Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion about who and what to believe.

These are some of the hallmarks of the current crisis in critical thinking—which just might be the issue of our times. Because if people aren’t willing or able to think critically as they choose potential leaders, they’re apt to choose bad ones. And if they can’t judge whether the information they’re receiving is sound, they may follow faulty advice while ignoring recommendations that are science-based and solid (and perhaps life-saving).

Moreover, as a society, if we can’t think critically about the many serious challenges we face, it becomes more difficult to agree on what those challenges are—much less solve them.

On a personal level, critical thinking can enable you to make better everyday decisions. It can help you make sense of an increasingly complex and confusing world.

In the new expanded edition of my book A More Beautiful Question ( AMBQ ), I took a deep dive into critical thinking. Here are a few key things I learned.

First off, before you can get better at critical thinking, you should understand what it is. It’s not just about being a skeptic. When thinking critically, we are thoughtfully reasoning, evaluating, and making decisions based on evidence and logic. And—perhaps most important—while doing this, a critical thinker always strives to be open-minded and fair-minded . That’s not easy: It demands that you constantly question your assumptions and biases and that you always remain open to considering opposing views.

In today’s polarized environment, many people think of themselves as critical thinkers simply because they ask skeptical questions—often directed at, say, certain government policies or ideas espoused by those on the “other side” of the political divide. The problem is, they may not be asking these questions with an open mind or a willingness to fairly consider opposing views.

When people do this, they’re engaging in “weak-sense critical thinking”—a term popularized by the late Richard Paul, a co-founder of The Foundation for Critical Thinking . “Weak-sense critical thinking” means applying the tools and practices of critical thinking—questioning, investigating, evaluating—but with the sole purpose of confirming one’s own bias or serving an agenda.

In AMBQ , I lay out a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you’re thinking critically. Here are some of the questions to consider:

• Why do I believe what I believe?
• Are my views based on evidence?
• Have I fairly and thoughtfully considered differing viewpoints?
• Am I truly open to changing my mind?

Of course, becoming a better critical thinker is not as simple as just asking yourself a few questions. Critical thinking is a habit of mind that must be developed and strengthened over time. In effect, you must train yourself to think in a manner that is more effortful, aware, grounded, and balanced.

For those interested in giving themselves a crash course in critical thinking—something I did myself, as I was working on my book—I thought it might be helpful to share a list of some of the books that have shaped my own thinking on this subject. As a self-interested author, I naturally would suggest that you start with the new 10th-anniversary edition of A More Beautiful Question , but beyond that, here are the top eight critical-thinking books I’d recommend.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , by Carl Sagan

This book simply must top the list, because the late scientist and author Carl Sagan continues to be such a bright shining light in the critical thinking universe. Chapter 12 includes the details on Sagan’s famous “baloney detection kit,” a collection of lessons and tips on how to deal with bogus arguments and logical fallacies.

Clear Thinking: Turning Ordinary Moments Into Extraordinary Results , by Shane Parrish

The creator of the Farnham Street website and host of the “Knowledge Project” podcast explains how to contend with biases and unconscious reactions so you can make better everyday decisions. It contains insights from many of the brilliant thinkers Shane has studied.

Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World , by David Robert Grimes

A brilliant, comprehensive 2021 book on critical thinking that, to my mind, hasn’t received nearly enough attention . The scientist Grimes dissects bad thinking, shows why it persists, and offers the tools to defeat it.

Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know , by Adam Grant

Intellectual humility—being willing to admit that you might be wrong—is what this book is primarily about. But Adam, the renowned Wharton psychology professor and bestselling author, takes the reader on a mind-opening journey with colorful stories and characters.

Think Like a Detective: A Kid's Guide to Critical Thinking , by David Pakman

The popular YouTuber and podcast host Pakman—normally known for talking politics —has written a terrific primer on critical thinking for children. The illustrated book presents critical thinking as a “superpower” that enables kids to unlock mysteries and dig for truth. (I also recommend Pakman’s second kids’ book called Think Like a Scientist .)

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters , by Steven Pinker

The Harvard psychology professor Pinker tackles conspiracy theories head-on but also explores concepts involving risk/reward, probability and randomness, and correlation/causation. And if that strikes you as daunting, be assured that Pinker makes it lively and accessible.

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion , by David McRaney

David is a science writer who hosts the popular podcast “You Are Not So Smart” (and his ideas are featured in A More Beautiful Question ). His well-written book looks at ways you can actually get through to people who see the world very differently than you (hint: bludgeoning them with facts definitely won’t work).

A Healthy Democracy's Best Hope: Building the Critical Thinking Habit , by M Neil Browne and Chelsea Kulhanek

Neil Browne, author of the seminal Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, has been a pioneer in presenting critical thinking as a question-based approach to making sense of the world around us. His newest book, co-authored with Chelsea Kulhanek, breaks down critical thinking into “11 explosive questions”—including the “priors question” (which challenges us to question assumptions), the “evidence question” (focusing on how to evaluate and weigh evidence), and the “humility question” (which reminds us that a critical thinker must be humble enough to consider the possibility of being wrong).

Warren Berger is a longtime journalist and author of A More Beautiful Question .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 16 September 2010

Does the mind map learning strategy facilitate information retrieval and critical thinking in medical students?

• Anthony V D'Antoni 1 , 2 ,
• Genevieve Pinto Zipp 1 ,
• Valerie G Olson 1 &
• Terrence F Cahill 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  10 , Article number:  61 ( 2010 ) Cite this article

40k Accesses

65 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

A learning strategy underutilized in medical education is mind mapping. Mind maps are multi-sensory tools that may help medical students organize, integrate, and retain information. Recent work suggests that using mind mapping as a note-taking strategy facilitates critical thinking. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a relationship existed between mind mapping and critical thinking, as measured by the Health Sciences Reasoning Test (HSRT), and whether a relationship existed between mind mapping and recall of domain-based information.

In this quasi-experimental study, 131 first-year medical students were randomly assigned to a standard note-taking (SNT) group or mind map (MM) group during orientation. Subjects were given a demographic survey and pre-HSRT. They were then given an unfamiliar text passage, a pre-quiz based upon the passage, and a 30-minute break, during which time subjects in the MM group were given a presentation on mind mapping. After the break, subjects were given the same passage and wrote notes based on their group (SNT or MM) assignment. A post-quiz based upon the passage was administered, followed by a post-HSRT. Differences in mean pre- and post-quiz scores between groups were analyzed using independent samples t -tests, whereas differences in mean pre- and post-HSRT total scores and subscores between groups were analyzed using ANOVA. Mind map depth was assessed using the Mind Map Assessment Rubric (MMAR).

There were no significant differences in mean scores on both the pre- and post-quizzes between note-taking groups. And, no significant differences were found between pre- and post-HSRT mean total scores and subscores.

Conclusions

Although mind mapping was not found to increase short-term recall of domain-based information or critical thinking compared to SNT, a brief introduction to mind mapping allowed novice MM subjects to perform similarly to SNT subjects. This demonstrates that medical students using mind maps can successfully retrieve information in the short term, and does not put them at a disadvantage compared to SNT students. Future studies should explore longitudinal effects of mind-map proficiency training on both short- and long-term information retrieval and critical thinking.

Peer Review reports

The amount of information that medical students are expected to master is voluminous[ 1 ]. Yet, there are limited learning strategies available to these students to master the volume of information required to succeed in medical school[ 2 ]. In recent years, the number of publications on learning strategies used in medical education that may help students learn and ultimately integrate information has increased[ 3 – 6 ]. Although these learning strategies may differ in efficacy and applicability, they are all based on a conceptual framework called the constructivist theory of learning, which states that meaningful learning, or learning with understanding, occurs when adult learners assimilate new information within their existing frameworks[ 7 , 8 ].

Constructivist theory is rooted in the subjectivist worldview, which emphasizes the role of the learner within the context of his environment[ 9 ]. The interaction between the learner and his environment results in meaning or understanding; therefore, the two are inextricable[ 9 ]. Many learning strategies, such as case-based learning and PBL, assume the learner is committed to lifelong learning and will integrate previous knowledge with newly acquired knowledge[ 10 , 11 ].

The theoretical basis of constructivism is depicted in Figure 1 . In medical school, academic information is available to the medical student through reading, visualizing, or listening. Irrespective of the mechanism, information enters the mind of the student, who is actively trying to make sense of the information. Because the sensemaking of the student may be very different from that of the professor presenting the information,[ 12 ] one of the assumptions underlying constructivist theory is that the student will integrate the information into a personal framework so that it will be retained,[ 8 ] which results in meaningful learning.

Constructivist theory of learning . Theoretical assumptions that underlie constructivist theory using a bottom-up approach. Academic information is commonly available to the learner through reading, visualizing, or listening. Irrespective of the mechanism, information enters the mind of the learner, who is actively trying to make sense of the information. Adapted from Ausubel [ 7 ].

Critical thinking

Meaningful learning is necessary for critical thinking. The operational definition of critical thinking is a metacognitive, nonlinear process of purposeful judgment that includes self-directed learning and self-assessment[ 13 , 14 ]. How critical thinking should be taught and how it is learned are unclear,[ 15 , 16 ] especially at the medical school level. Willingham[ 15 ] stated that critical thinking occurs when a student penetrates beyond the surface structure of a problem and recognizes how the problem can be solved, and in addition, possesses the content knowledge integral to solving the problem. Without both components, a student may be able to critically analyze one problem, but will falter when given a similar problem in a different context[ 15 ]. Graduating physicians should be able to critically evaluate novel cases that they encounter in the clinic using their previous, albeit limited, clinical experiences[ 17 ].

Concept mapping in medical education

In graduate medical education, West et al[ 17 ] used the concept map learning strategy developed by Joseph Novak[ 18 ] in resident physicians, and studied the validity and reliability of concept mapping assessment (CMA). They found that concept maps could be scored reliably and CMA could measure changes in the conceptual framework of physicians[ 17 ].

Mind mapping in medical education

Mind mapping was developed by Tony Buzan[ 19 ] and the inspiration for this strategy arose from the notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci[ 20 ]. Mind maps, like da Vinci's notes, are multi-sensory tools that use visuospatial orientation to integrate information, and consequently, help students organize and retain information[ 21 , 22 ].

Mind maps can be used as a teaching tool to promote critical thinking in medical education by encouraging students (adult learners) to integrate information between disciplines and understand relationships between the basic and clinical sciences[ 21 ]. The ability to integrate information by finding valid relationships between concepts allows students who construct either mind maps or concept maps to reach a metacognitive level[ 15 ]. However, the added dimensions of pictures and colors that are unique to mind maps have not only been shown to facilitate memory,[ 23 ] but may appeal to a wide range of students withvisual- and linear-oriented learning styles. Consequently, the advantage of using mind maps in medical education is that this strategy may benefit more students with diverse learning styles.

Both mind maps and concept maps allow students to recognize the intra- and inter-relationships between concepts, which reflects the kind of real-world thinking predominant in the clinical setting[ 24 ].

Farrand et al[ 25 ] were the first group to investigate the potential role of mind mapping in medical education. These researchers explored whether the mind map learning technique was superior to traditional note taking in both short- and long-term factual recall of written information in medical students. They found that the mind map technique significantly improved long-term memory of factual information. Additionally, they found significant differences in self-reported motivation with the mind map group having lower levels of motivation than the self-selected study group. Although not supported by other literature, this finding may be explained by the fact that students were not given adequate time to adjust to using the mind map technique, and therefore, may have felt less comfortable using it. Although the results of the study were promising, the authors did not address critical thinking. Consequently, studies exploring the relationship between mind mapping and critical thinking are needed before the usefulness of mind mapping can be fully supported in medical education.

Wickramasinghe et al[ 26 ] were the second group to investigatethe effectiveness of mind maps in medical education. Using a similar study design as that used by Farrand et al,[ 25 ] these authors assigned new entry medical students into 2 groups: mind map and self-selected study groups. The authors also developed a method to score the mind maps based on structure and content; however, they did not describe the method nor did they provide any data to support it[ 26 ]. The authors reported that there was no significant difference in scores between groups[ 26 ]. They did, however, report that all of the subjects in the mind map group perceived that mind maps are useful for memorizing information. Based on their findings, the authors concluded that mind mapping may not be effective in improving retention of short-term information[ 26 ].

Mind maps and concept maps

Although concept maps and mind maps have similar characteristics, they are fundamentally different in design. Concept maps are devoid of color and pictures, and are constructed in a top-to-bottom hierarchy. Mind maps, in contrast, use a central theme in the middle of a page with categories and subcategories that radiate peripherally, thus making them truly non-linear. The cross-links among categories highlight their intrinsic relationships, and allow the student to compare and contrast information. Unlike concept maps, mind maps are multisensory--they include color and pictures, which facilitate the conversion of information from short- to long-term memory[ 23 , 27 ]. An example of a mind map created by a medical student in this study can be found in Figure 2 .

Student mind map . An example of a mind map from one of the medical students in this study. Note the judicious use of pictures and colors, along with hierarchical organization positioned radially. Note how different colors were used to indicate different hierarchies (eg, green is primary hierarchy, blue is secondary, aqua is tertiary, etc.). In addition to the above example, other student mind maps have been published elsewhere[ 22 , 28 ].

Since critical thinking is dependent upon both content (domain) knowledge and problem familiarity,[ 15 ] mind mapping may facilitate critical thinking because it fosters student retention of factual information, as well as relationships between concepts[ 25 ]. Currently, however, there are no data to support the hypothesis that mind maps facilitate critical thinking in medical students.

Purpose of the study

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether a relationship existed between the mind map learning strategy and critical thinking, as measured with the Health Sciences Reasoning Test (HSRT), and whether this relationship was stronger than one between the preferred learning strategy of standard note-taking (SNT) and critical thinking.

The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether mind maps were superior to SNT in the short-term recall of factual information. Mind map depth was assessed using the previously published Mind Map Assessment Rubric[ 28 ].

Study setting and sample

After full approval by an Institutional Review Board, this study was conducted during the 2008-2009 academic year at a US medical school located in a large metropolitan area.

An a priori power analysis[ 29 ] using a one-tailed t -test revealed a minimum sample size of 70 subjects. This calculation was based on the following: effect size d = 0.8, alpha = 0.05, and power = 0.95. The large sample size ( N = 131) assumes a normal distribution of the population, and therefore, parametric statistics were used to analyze the data. The sample of convenience consisted of first-year medical students who voluntarily participated in this study.

The independent variable in this study was the note-taking strategy used by the medical students. Subjects were randomly assigned to 2 note-taking groups: a standard note-taking (control) group and mind map (experimental) group. The design of the study is outlined in Figure 3 .

Study design . Research procedure.

Subjects in both note-taking groups were asked to learn information contained in a 394-word text passage—on the topic of cacti and other succulent plants—from the verbal ability section of a previously published Graduate Record Examination (GRE). This topic was chosen to reduce the chance that the medical students would have previous advanced knowledge of this field. The GRE is a standardized entrance examination used as part of the US graduate-school admissions process. The exam is used by faculty to decide which students will be admitted to graduate school and who will be awarded academic fellowships. A GRE text passage was used in this study because the GRE is taken by students who are, in general, of a similar age to those entering US medical schools. Consequently, the text passage was at an appropriate cognitive level for medical students. A post hoc analysis of the medical students in the study revealed that none of them majored in botany at the undergraduate level.

Subjects in the control group used standard note-taking (SNT) strategies that they used throughout their academic careers to learn the text passage. SNT is defined as any study strategy that does not rely on reorganizing information using architecture commonly seen in a concept map or mind map[ 25 ]. SNT is a process whereby notes are arranged in a hierarchy from the top of a page to the bottom, or from left to right, without any hierarchy[ 30 ]. Subjects in the experimental (mind map) group were given a 30-minute presentation on mind maps and then instructed to create mind maps in order to take notes on the material in the text passage.

There were two dependent variables in this study. The first one was the score on the text passage quiz, of which there were two. These two quizzes, which were based on the content of the GRE text passage, were administered to all subjects after assignment to the groups. All subjects were simultaneously (but in different rooms) exposed to the passage for 5 minutes and were not permitted to write any notes. The passage was collected and followed by the administration of math quiz 1. This quiz was used to "blank" the minds of the subjects by preventing the simple recall of information that could result in a higher quiz score and confound the results[ 25 ].

After math quiz 1, all subjects were administered text passage quiz 1. The purpose of this 5 multiple-choice question quiz was to test the students' factual understanding of the passage without any note-taking strategy. This baseline quiz was used as a covariate to account for potential differences between the groups prior to initiating any note-taking strategy.

After taking text passage quiz 1, subjects in the mind map group were given a presentation on mind maps and how to construct them, while at the same time, subjects in the control group were sequestered for a break and could not leave the lecture hall. After 30 minutes, all subjects were then re-exposed to the text passage and instructed to take notes using either standard note-taking (SNT) or mind maps (MMs), depending on their group assignment. All subjects were given 25 minutes for note-taking and at the end of this time period, all passages and notes were collected. This was followed by the administration of math quiz 2 in order to again discourage the simple recall of information by the subjects. After math quiz 2, all subjects were simultaneously administered text passage quiz 2 based upon the passage. This quiz consisted of 10 multiple-choice questions: the same 5 questions from quiz 1 plus an additional 5 questions. This was done to see if the students retained the factual information and to address potential testing effects (ie, higher scores due to repeated testing exposure).

The second dependent variable of this study was the HSRT score. The HSRT consists of 33 multiple-choice questions that measure critical thinking by challenging students to form reasoned judgments based on textually presented information consisting of a number of vignettes[ 31 ]. The information presented in the vignettes includes diagrams, charts, and other data related to health care scenarios. The HSRT does not test domain knowledge (ie, subject-specific knowledge such as that found in anatomy and biochemistry); therefore, subject-specific knowledge is not needed by the students taking the exam. The HSRT has been extensively studied in health professional students and working professionals[ 14 , 31 ].

The HSRT reports an overall numerical score and 5 subscales: analysis, inference, evaluation, deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning. The operational definitions of these subscales, adapted from a previous Delphi study, [ 14 ] follow: analysis (ability to identify the intended and actual inferential relationships among statements, questions, concepts, descriptions or other forms of representation intended to express beliefs, judgments, experiences, reasons, information or opinions); inference (ability to identify and secure elements needed to draw reasonable conclusions; to form conjectures and hypotheses, to consider relevant information and to educe the consequences flowing from data, statements, principles, evidence, judgments, beliefs, opinions, concepts, descriptions, questions, or other forms of representation); evaluation (ability to state the results of one's reasoning; to justify that reasoning in terms of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological and contextual considerations upon which one's results were based; and to present one's reasoning in the form of cogent arguments); deductive reasoning (assumed truth of the premises purportedly necessitates the truth of conclusion and this includes traditional syllogisms, as well as, algebraic, geometric, and set-theoretical proofs in mathematics); and inductive reasoning (an argument's conclusion is purportedly warranted, but not necessitated, by the assumed truth of its premises and this includes scientific confirmation and experimental disconfirmation)[ 31 ].

Mind maps were scored using the Mind Map Assessment Rubric (MMAR). The interrater reliability of the MMAR is strong and has been reported to be 0.86[ 28 ]. Face validity of the MMAR has been investigated, and the entire rubric is available online (see reference [ 28 ]).

Sample characteristics

A total of 131 subjects ( N = 131) participated in the study (Table 1 ). All subjects were matriculated, first-year medical students and the study was conducted on a half-day during their orientation. Prior to the study, subjects were queried and it was found that none of them used mind maps as their preferred learning strategy. The SNT group consisted of 65 subjects ( n = 65) and the MM group consisted of 66 subjects ( n = 66).

Sex and ethnicity distributions were similar in both groups as demonstrated in Table 1 . The mean age of subjects in both groups was also similar. In the SNT group, the mean age of subjects was 24.45 years ( SD = 3.26) and in the MM group, the mean age of subjects was 24.74 years ( SD = 3.91). Using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), no significant difference in mean age between groups was found. Subjects in the SNT group had a mean total SAT score of 1285.71 ( SD = 112.06) and those in the MM group had a mean total SAT score of 1254.46 ( SD = 110.20). No significant difference in total SAT score between groups was found. In addition, no significant differences in SAT verbal and math subscores between groups were found. The mean total MCAT score of subjects in the SNT group was 27.26 ( SD = 3.04) and the mean total MCAT score of subjects in the MM group was 27.05 ( SD = 3.17). No significant difference in total MCAT score between groups was found. In addition, no significant differences in MCAT biology, physics, and verbal subscores between groups were found.

Quiz assessment of domain knowledge

The mean score of the pre-quiz (quiz 1) among subjects in the SNT group was 3.15 ( SD = 1.22) and the mean score of the pre-quiz (quiz 1) among subjects in the MM group was 3.42 ( SD = .84). A two-tailed independent samples t test revealed no significant difference between the means: t (129 df) = -1.47, p = .14.

The mean score of the post-quiz (quiz 2) among subjects in the SNT group was 7.85 ( SD = 1.40) and the mean score of the post-quiz (quiz 2) among subjects in the MM group was 7.64 ( SD = 1.22). A two-tailed independent samples t test revealed no significant difference in means between the groups: t (129 df) = .912, p = .36. Figure 4 is a bar chart depicting these data.

Quiz scores between groups . Both quizzes were based on a 394-word text passage. There are no significant differences in mean scores between groups on both the pre-quiz (quiz 1) and post-quiz (quiz 2).

A comparison of the means of the pre-quiz (quiz 1) scores and post-quiz (quiz 2) scores between groups revealed no significant differences (SNT pre-quiz mean = 3.15, MM pre-quiz mean = 3.42, SNT post-quiz mean = 7.85, and MM post-quiz mean = 7.64). However, the difference between means of the pre-quiz (quiz 1) and post-quiz (quiz 2) scores in each group differed. In the SNT group, this difference was 4.70 (7.85 - 3.15 = 4.70) and in the MM group, this difference was 4.22 (7.64 - 3.42 = 4.22).

In order to further analyze these results and control for the fact that the quiz scores themselves were slightly skewed (ie, a long tail created by a few students who did very poorly), a standardized z score was used. A difference z score was created between the standardized quiz scores so that the degree to which the variability in each quiz affected the outcome would be the same. Unlike the quiz scores, the difference z score conforms to a Gaussian distribution as demonstrated in Figure 5 . The difference z score is standardized with a mean of 0 and a SD of 1.08. On the average, subjects in the MM group had lower scores on the second quiz (-.2061 SD ), while those in the SNT group increased by about the same amount (.2093 SD ). This represents about two-tenths of a SD . The fact that the scores of the groups vacillated by almost the same amount is not by chance. A two-tailed independent samples t test revealed a significant difference between the means of the z score difference: t (129 df) = 2.241, p = .027.

Differences between quiz scores using a standardized z score . A difference score was created between the standardized quiz scores so that the degree to which the variability in each quiz affected the outcome would be the same. The difference score is standardized with a mean of 0 and a SD of 1.08. On the average, subjects in the MM group had lower scores on the second quiz (-.2061 SD ), while those in the SNT group increased by about the same amount (.2093 SD ). This represents about two-tenths of a SD and the difference was found to be significant ( p = .027).

HSRT assessment of critical thinking

Descriptive statistics of pre-HSRT scores for all subjects ( N = 131) were as follows: total ( M = 23.75, SD = 3.38), analysis ( M = 4.85, SD = 1.06), inference ( M = 3.82, SD = 1.25), evaluation ( M = 5.30, SD = .84), induction ( M = 7.97, SD = 1.20), and deduction ( M = 7.59, SD = 1.76). Descriptive statistics of post-HSRT scores for all subjects ( N = 131) were as follows: total ( M = 23.73, SD = 3.78), analysis ( M = 4.84, SD = 1.05), inference ( M = 3.74, SD = 1.24), evaluation ( M = 5.28, SD = .88), induction ( M = 7.96, SD = 1.24), and deduction ( M = 7.69, SD = 1.91). Descriptive statistics comparing pre-HSRT scores between subjects in the SNT group and MM group are found in Table 2 . Similarly, descriptive statistics comparing post-HSRT scores between subjects in the SNT group and MM group are found in Table 3 .

ANOVA was used to compare the means of pre- and post-HSRT total scores and subscores between the SNT group and MM group. No significant differences were found among any of the pre- and post-HSRT total scores and subscores. The bar chart in Figure 6 , which displays pre- and post-HSRT total scores, demonstrates no significant differences between pre- and post-HSRT total scores between groups.

HSRT total scores between groups . There are no significant differences in mean total scores between groups on both the pre-HSRT and post-HSRT.

The difference in mean score of the pre-quiz (quiz 1) between subjects in the SNT group and MM group was not significant. This baseline finding suggests that both groups retained the same amount of information equally based upon a single, 5-minute exposure to the text passage.

The post-quiz (quiz 2) was administered to subjects after they were re-exposed to the text passage and instructed to write notes using either their preferred note-taking strategy (SNT) or newly acquired mind mapping (MM) strategy. Although the mean score of the post-quiz (quiz 2) was slightly higher among subjects in the SNT group (7.85, SD = 1.40) compared to those in the MM group (7.64, SD = 1.22), the difference was not significant. This result suggests that mind mapping is not superior to standard note-taking for the short-term recall of domain-based information, an outcome that concurs with the results of Wickramasinghe et al.[ 26 ]. However, it should be emphasized that subjects in the MM group did not score significantly less than those in the SNT group even though they were only given a single, brief overview of the mind map learning strategy without a practice period to increase proficiency in creating mind maps. The fact that no significant difference was found between groups may lend support to the utility of mind mapping in medical education. Subjects in the SNT group had the benefit of using their preferred note-taking strategy and by allowing them to do so, these subjects were able to cognitively organize, integrate, and learn the information based on a system that has been firmly reinforced throughout their academic careers. A post hoc analysis of the notes written by SNT subjects revealed that none of them wrote notes remotely similar to mind maps or concept maps. In fact, most of their notes were written in a traditional categorical way with information starting at the top of the page and ending at the bottom. Consequently, subjects in the SNT group focused on learning the material in a short period of time without being distracted to write notes in a new way. In contrast, subjects in the MM group were forced to use the unfamiliar mind map learning strategy (based on a brief introductory learning session) that may have distracted them from optimally learning the material. Yet, despite the lack of exposure to mind maps and their novice status, subjects in the MM group were able to integrate, and ultimately, retain enough information so that they did not score significantly less than subjects in the SNT group. This important finding suggests the strength of mind mapping even after a single, 30-minute introductory session in promoting critical thinking in the novice learner, and supports the notion of adult learner capability[ 7 ].

As mentioned previously, there were 10 questions on quiz 2: the first 5 were the same questions found on quiz 1 and questions 6 through 10 were new. When looking at questions 6 through 10 on quiz 2, the mean score among subjects in the SNT group was 3.95 ( SD = .87) and the mean score among subjects in the MM group was 3.79 ( SD = .86). This difference was not found to be significant. Similar to responses for questions 1 through 5 on quiz 2, the mean score in the SNT group was slightly higher on quiz 2 (questions 6 through 10) than the MM group, but not significant. Again, this finding may have been due to the fact that subjects in the SNT group were using a familiar note-taking strategy, whereas those in the MM were using an unfamiliar strategy.

Further analysis of the difference between mean total scores of the pre-quiz (quiz 1) and post-quiz (quiz 2) in each group was calculated using a standardized z score (Figure 6 ). The SNT group revealed an increase of about two-tenths of a SD (.2093 SD ), while the MM group decreased by about two-tenths of a SD (-.2061 SD ). Using a two-tailed independent samples t test, this difference was found to be significant . This result suggests that mind mapping did not enhance short-term memory in this novice group of subjects who were only exposed to a brief overview of how to construct mind maps.

The results of the present study support those of Wickramasinghe et al,[ 26 ] who found that the mean quiz score of subjects in their mind map group was 31.3% and the mean quiz score of subjects in their self-selected study group was 37.6%. These authors reported that there was no significant difference in scores between groups[ 26 ]. However, the results of the present study are in contrast to those of Farrand et al,[ 25 ] who reported that recall was only slightly higher in the mind map group after the second quiz. After adjusting for baseline performance and motivation, this difference was significant. Without the adjustment, the difference was not significant, which is consistent with the findings of the present study. Farrand et al[ 25 ] reported a robust difference in recall in favor of subjects in the mind map group after one week.

The mean total score on the pre-HSRT for subjects in the SNT group was 23.41 ( SD = 3.69) and the mean total score on the pre-HSRT for subjects in the MM group was 24.07 ( SD = 3.04). This difference was not significant and this finding demonstrates that both groups had similar baseline critical thinking abilities as measured by the HSRT.

The mean total score on the post-HSRT for subjects in the SNT group was 23.47 ( SD = 3.82) and the mean total score on the post-HSRT for subjects in the MM group was 23.97 ( SD = 3.75). Subjects in the MM group did not score significantly different than those in the SNT group on the post-HSRT, a finding that suggests the power of mind mapping even when it was introduced to a novice group of subjects during a brief introductory session. The fact that subjects in the MM group scored worse on the post-HSRT compared to their pre-HSRT total scores could be explained by their unfamiliarity in creating mind maps or fatigue from the testing process. Additionally, requiring MM subjects to learn mind mapping may have created contextual interference that hampered short-term retention as demonstrated by the results of the post-HSRT; however, this may actually promote long-term retention as noted in the contextual interference literature[ 32 ]. Subjects in the MM group may have been so preoccupied with creating mind maps that they failed to think critically about the information. Therefore, repeated exposure to mind mapping over time may be a necessary requisite in order to better test whether the use of mind mapping increases critical thinking as measured by the HSRT.

Limitations and future research

The SNT group remained in the lecture hall during the break while the MM group was concomitantly exposed to a 30-minute mind map presentation. A potential limitation, therefore, is that during the break subjects in the SNT group could have mentally reviewed the text passage. These subjects were observed during this time and were not permitted to view the text passage. The possibility that they were able to accurately recall the text passage during the break (while the MM group listened to the presentation) is unlikely because they were exposed to the text passage 20 minutes before the break and had also taken an intervening math quiz (see Figure 3 ).

Because critical thinking takes time to develop, short-term changes in critical thinking was another limitation of the current study. Multiple mind-map sessions may be necessary for students to gain proficiency in the strategy before significant changes in the acquisition of domain-based knowledge and critical thinking emerge. Recently, Srinivasan et al[ 24 ] reported that concept map scores significantly increased in physicians who created concept maps on two separate occasions. They recommended that future concept map studies should allow subjects to create concept maps on multiple occasions. This may also be true of mind maps because, although not investigated in medical students, researchers have demonstrated that mind map depth increases as students gain proficiency in their construction over time[ 13 , 30 ].

Future studies should be designed to allow subjects to create multiple mind maps so that they can gain proficiency in the technique. This would enable them to move from novice to expert regarding the creation of mind maps, and therefore, could ultimately allow them to emphasize critical thinking. Additionally, these studies could also measure longitudinal changes in HSRT scores as students become more proficient at mind mapping.

The results of this study demonstrate that the mind map learning strategy does not result in a significant gain in short-term, domain-based knowledge (assessed using multiple-choice quizzes) compared to standard note-taking in medical students. However, in subjects who were unfamiliar with mind mapping, a short 30-minute presentation on the strategy allowed them to score similarly to subjects in the SNT group who used strategies that have been firmly established. By using preferred note-taking strategies, subjects in the SNT group were able to rely on previous note-taking experiences that helped shaped their current understanding and learning of the material in the text passage,[ 10 ] while those in the MM group could not rely on prior mind map note-taking experiences as they were novices. Subjects in the MM group may have relied on previous knowledge of other non-mind map note-taking strategies, which could explain why they were able to score similarly. The similarity in mean scores between groups lends support to adult learning theory[ 7 , 8 , 11 ].

This study demonstrates that mind mapping can be easily taught to medical students who have no previous background in mind mapping and doing so requires no cost or expensive equipment [ 22 , 33 ]. Thus, mind mapping may be an attractive resource to add to the study-strategy repertoire of entering medical students to help them learn and organize information. As discussed by Daley and Torre [ 34 ] in a recent analytical review, the effects of mapping need to be investigated longitudinally. The data of the present study build upon those of previous studies [ 25 , 26 ] and should provide a springboard for those interested in investigating the effect of mind mapping on critical thinking and clinical reasoning during medical school and beyond.

Abbreviations

analysis of variance

concept map

concept map assessment

Graduate Record Examination

Health Sciences Reasoning Test

Medical College Admissions Test

mind map assessment rubric

problem-based learning

standard deviation

standard error of the mean

standard note-taking

Anderson J, Graham A: A problem in medical education: Is there an information overload?. Med Educ. 1980, 14: 4-7. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1980.tb02604.x.

Article   Google Scholar  

Rye PD, Wallace J, Bidgood P: Instructions in learning skills: An integrated approach. Med Educ. 1993, 27: 470-473. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00305.x.

Barrows HS: Practice-based Learning: Problem-based Learning Applied to Medical Education. 1994, Springfield: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Google Scholar  

Dolmans DH, De Grave W, Wolfhagen IH, van der Vleuten CP: Problem-based learning: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ. 2005, 39: 732-741. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02205.x.

Kim S, Phillips WR, Pinsky L, Brock D, Phillips K, Keary J: A conceptual framework for developing teaching cases: A review and synthesis of the literature across disciplines. Med Educ. 2006, 40: 867-876. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02544.x.

Zajaczek JE, Gotz F, Kupka T, Behrends M, Haubitz B, Donnerstag F, Rodt T, Walter GF, Matthies HK, Becker H: eLearning in education and advanced training in neuroradiology: Introduction of a web-based teaching and learning application. Neuroradiology. 2006, 48: 640-646. 10.1007/s00234-006-0108-x.

Ausubel DP: Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. 1978, New York, NY: Holt Rinehart and Winston

Bodner GM: Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. J Chem Educ. 1986, 63: 873-878. 10.1021/ed063p873.

Burrell G, Morgan G: Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. 1979, London, England: Heinemann

Forrest SP, Peterson TO: It's called andragogy. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2006, 5: 113-122.

Knowles M: The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy. 1977, New York, NY: Association Press

Mezirow J: A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Educ Q. 1981, 32: 3-24. 10.1177/074171368103200101.

Daley BJ, Shaw CR, Balistrieri T, Glasenapp K, Piacentine L: Concept maps: A strategy to teach and evaluate critical thinking. J Nurs Educ. 1999, 38: 42-47.

APA: Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. ERIC document: ED. 1990, 315-423.

Willingham DT: Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?. Am Educator. 2007, 31: 8-19.

Taconis R, Ferguson-Hessler MGM, Broekkamp H: Teaching science problem solving: An overview of experimental work. J Res Sci Teach. 2001, 38: 442-468. 10.1002/tea.1013.

West DC, Pomeroy JR, Park JK, Gerstenberger EA, Sandoval J: Critical thinking in graduate medical education: A role for concept mapping assessment?. JAMA. 2000, 284: 1105-1110. 10.1001/jama.284.9.1105.

Novak JD, Gowin DB: Learning How to Learn. 1984, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press

Book   Google Scholar  

Buzan T, Buzan B: The Mind Map Book. 1993, London, England: BBC Books

Gelb MJ: How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Every Day. 1998, New York, NY: Dell

McDermott P, Clarke DN: Mind Maps in Medicine. 1998, Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone

D'Antoni AV, Pinto Zipp G: Applications of the mind map learning technique in chiropractic education: A pilot study and literature review. Journal of Chiropractic Humanities. 2006, 13: 2-11.

Day JC, Bellezza FS: The relation between visual imagery mediators and recall. Mem Cogn. 1983, 11: 251-257.

Srinivasan M, McElvany M, Shay JM, Shavelson RJ, West DC: Measuring knowledge structure: Reliability of concept mapping assessment in medical education. Acad Med. 2008, 83: 1196-1203. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31818c6e84.

Farrand P, Hussain F, Hennessy E: The efficacy of the 'mind map' study technique. Med Educ. 2002, 36: 426-431. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01205.x.

Wickramasinghe A, Widanapathirana N, Kuruppu O, Liyanage I, Karunathilake I: Effectiveness of mind maps as a learning tool for medical students. South East Asian J Med Educ. 2007, 1: 30-32.

Bellezza FS: The spatial arrangement mnemonic. J Educ Psychol. 1983, 75: 830-837. 10.1037/0022-0663.75.6.830.

D'Antoni A, Pinto Zipp G, Olson V: Interrater reliability of the mind map assessment rubric in a cohort of medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2009, 9: 19-10.1186/1472-6920-9-19.

Faul F, Erdfelder E: GPOWER: A priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analysis for MS-DOS computer program. 1992, Bonn, Germany: Bonn University Department of Psychology, 3

Pinto Zipp G, Maher C, D'Antoni AV: Mind Maps: Useful schematic tool for organizing and integrating concepts of complex patient care in the clinic and classroom. J Coll Teaching Learning. 2009, 6: 59-68.

Facione NC, Facione PA: The Health Sciences Reasoning Test: Test Manual. 2006, Millbrae: The California Academic Press

Lee TD, Magill RA: Locus of contextual interference. J Exp Psychol Learn. 1983, 9: 730-746. 10.1037/0278-7393.9.4.730.

Degirmenci Ü, Kreil S, Burk S, Breuer G, Kornhuber J, Weih M: Anteil stigma-assoziierter themen im psychiatrie-konzept von medizinstudierenden in der einführung in die klinische medizin: Eine mind-map studie. GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 2010, 27: 1-5.

Daley BJ, Torre DM: Concept maps in medical education: An analytical literature review. Med Educ. 2010, 44: 440-448. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03628.x.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/10/61/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Eileen D Chusid, PhD, for her assistance during the data-acquisition phase of this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Graduate Programs in Health Sciences, School of Health and Medical Sciences, Seton Hall University, 400 South Orange Avenue, South Orange, NJ, 07079, USA

Anthony V D'Antoni, Genevieve Pinto Zipp, Valerie G Olson & Terrence F Cahill

Division of Pre-clinical Sciences, New York College of Podiatric Medicine, 53 East 124th Street, New York, NY, 10035, USA

Anthony V D'Antoni

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony V D'Antoni .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

AVD conceived the design of the study, performed the statistical analyses, scored the mind maps, and drafted the manuscript. GPV participated in the design of the study, scored the mind maps, and drafted the manuscript. VGO participated in the design of the study, scored the mind maps, and helped draft the manuscript. TFC participated in the design of the study and helped draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Authors’ original file for figure 2, authors’ original file for figure 3, authors’ original file for figure 4, authors’ original file for figure 5, authors’ original file for figure 6, rights and permissions.

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

D'Antoni, A.V., Zipp, G.P., Olson, V.G. et al. Does the mind map learning strategy facilitate information retrieval and critical thinking in medical students?. BMC Med Educ 10 , 61 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-61

Download citation

Received : 18 November 2009

Accepted : 16 September 2010

Published : 16 September 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-61

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Medical Student
• Critical Thinking
• Text Passage
• Contextual Interference

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Get IGI Global News

• All Products
• Book Chapters
• Journal Articles
• Video Lessons
• Teaching Cases
• Recommend to Librarian
• Recommend to Colleague
• Fair Use Policy

• Access on Platform

Export Reference

• Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design
• e-Book Collection
• Education e-Book Collection
• e-Book Collection Select
• Education Knowledge Solutions e-Book Collection

Mind Mapping for Critical Thinking

Introduction.

Critical thinking, as defined by Scriven and Paul at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, is the “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action” (1987, n.p.). We also recognize these activities as those articulated in Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy of learning, in the cognitive domain, as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation (1984, p. 18). One can conceive that “critical thinking” is “learning” and, as such, can benefit from the many modes and techniques that facilitate the reasoning and connecting so important to learning, thinking and the emergence of new ideas—not just those of others but also those of our own.

The most important steps in learning and critical thinking are the collecting and connecting of information to create knowledge that can then be analyzed, evaluated and remembered. In critical thinking, this is achieved by a process of questioning and probing. While free-writing and note-taking are common verbal tools for doing this, increasingly, attention is being given to visual modes that involve imagery and spatial displays. The graphic nature of visual symbols and displays helps speed up the processes of information absorption, recall and retention as they exploit the brain’s ability to rapidly parallel process sensory information like color, shape, size, orientation, and texture. We are, in essence pattern-seekers that use the visual to link mental and emotional associations that arrange information into patterns we can use (Caine & Caine, 1994; Ware, 2008; Kosslyn, Thompson, & Ganis, 2006; Kosslyn, 1988). Hyerle writes, “These visual-spatial-verbal displays of understanding support all learners in transforming static information into active knowledge , thus offering a complementary representational system to more traditional literacies grounded in speaking, writing, and numerating” (2009, p. xix). Mind mapping, developed by learning expert, Tony Buzan in the early 1970s, is one visual technique that excels in helping the learner/thinker to collect and connect information, focus on key points, explore alternatives “at one view” 1 and “see” the patterns that turn information into knowledge that is more easily retained and recalled. In addition, sustained practice in mind mapping fosters a habit of thinking that exploits the brain’s “almost unlimited capacity for images” (Wolfe & Sorgen, 1990, p. 8).

Buzan observed that the linear process for note-taking and analysis practiced in organizations, both educational and professional, was ineffectual at helping people gather, absorb and retain information. Moreover, the linear outline method crippled thinking for discovery, for creating and exploring new ideas, for finding breakthrough solutions to complex problems (1974). While maps and diagrams have been used for millennia to graphically illustrate the relationships between concrete things, mind mapping is a visual technique for capturing concepts and ideas that exploits the way we actually think—through synaptic connections and non-linear associations. To mind map a problem or an idea, we start with a central focus: a word or image placed in the middle of the workspace. We then create lines radiating out with words or images on them, branching out with each association until we fill the workspace with connections to all aspects related to the central focus. A mind map looks quite similar to a real brain cell (neuron) with its synaptic connections (see Figure 1). The use of color, images, doodling and shading further emphasize possibilities. Although various mind mapping computer applications exist, the haptic and synaesthetic qualities of doing mind maps by hand with paper and colored markers are what make this technique so effective as a method for creative and critical thinking. The uses of both manual and computer methods for mind mapping will be discussed briefly at the end of this chapter.

A neuron with synapses. Courtesy of Dr. Gerry Shaw.

Complete Chapter List