Though concept maps can take many forms, they commonly include both ‘n — Concept map

"The focus of this investigation is on the use of thinking maps as tools for students and teachers in classrooms from kindergarten through graduation. Thinking maps are eight fundamental thinking processes represented and activated by semantic maps [Circle, Bubble, Double Bubble, Tree, Brace, Flow, Multi-Flow and Bridge]... This distinct set of visual tools is used for inter-actively connecting, sharing and reflecting on information for personal, interpersonal, and social understandings. ...[S]tudents who are taught how to use this set of tools will be helped in becoming independent and interdependent learners. [T]hey... [will] have a common visual language in the classroom for connecting and seeing what they are thinking, for deepening dialogue, and for assessing how they are thinking and learning. ...This investigation of thinking maps as student-centered tools is... a practical response to a continuing educational problem... defining the relationship between teachers and students... Since the advent of public school education this relationship has been securely entrenched in teacher lecture and the rote repetition of lessons by students. ...[T]he teacher-talk and student-listen relationship that had been criticized by progressive educators for generations has finally become recognized to be at the heart of our educational problem."

"[I]n addition to showing what knowledge a student holds, concept maps also illustrate how that knowledge is arranged in the student’s mind."

"An important issue is the virtual nature of the concept map. ...[T]he “map” can exist in n-dimensional space. ...[There are] two “laws” of concept maps. [C]oncept models are: "L1: represented using the least number of concept labels and relationships - for the current understanding". This leads to a second law: "L2: each and every concept label signifies an indeterminate number of other related concept labels". Concept maps have to be seen in virtual space – not planar or Cartesian space. The relationships between nodes can be thought of as "deep" as opposed to "surface" linkages. The relationship of concepts - one to another - can be understood in terms of structural knowledge. ...Dave Jonassen has made a plausible case that concept maps provide a measure of structural knowledge. Such... "knowledge of the interrelationships of ideas with a knowledge domain”... suggests that there may be an isomorphic relationship between what is known by the learner and... the external representation - the map. Jonassen, et al (1998) seem to say that the map is a dynamic construction that comes about as a result of the experience of mapping. ..."mindtools represent a constructivist use of technology... the process of how we construct knowledge"... [I]n another paper [he] claims "...concept maps ...are the spatial representations of concepts and their interrelationships that are intended to represent the knowledge structures that humans store in their minds..." (Jonassen et al 1993...) This is the "representational" view."

"Concept maps can be classified into three types: object maps, verbal maps, and spatial maps corresponding to three distinct styles of learning and communication. According to neuropsychologists Olysa Blazhenkova and Maria Kozhevnikov, object learners and communicators are found among artists and multi-media persons who process information through colorful, concrete, multi-dimensional, and multi-sensory images. The verbal style of communicating and processing of information, according to the media scholar, Marshall McLuhan, has dominated Western learning for centuries... This cognitive style is opposed to the object style and a third type, spatial style in that spatial learners, as in the case of object learners, process information non-verbally, and through images."

"Because meaningful learning proceeds most easily when new concepts or concept meanings are subsumed under broader, more inclusive concepts, concept maps should be hierarchical; that is, the more general, more inclusive concepts should be at the top of the map, with progressively more specific, less inclusive concepts arranged below them. ...[I]t is sometimes helpful to include at the base of the concept map specific objects or events to illustrate the origins of the concept meaning ..."

"David Nelson Hyerle, "Thinking Maps as Tools for Multiple Modes of Understanding" (1993) PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley."