Technology Reviews
Using Mindomo to engage students in higher-order thinking

Brandon M. Sabourin
University of Windsor, CanadaAbstract
Mindomo (www.mindomo.com) is a web-based tool designed to aid in the creation of digitalconcept maps. This article provides an overview of concept mapping and Mindomo, followed byreflections on implementing Mindomo in a digital technology course for pre-service teachers. ASWOT analysis of Mindomo is presented in concept-map format, the goals being to provide
information helpful to anyone considering using Mindomo and to encourage instructors toconsider how concept mapping might facilitate higher-order thinking in their classes.

Keywords: Bloom’s Taxonomy, concept map, online collaboration, pedagogical design

Introduction
A concept map is a multimodal document created to represent the relationships between
connected ideas. Traditionally created using analog materials, several digital applications havebeen designed for – or could be repurposed to allow – concept maps to be created digitally.
This article introduces Mindomo (www.mindomo.com), a web-based application designed tocreate digital concept maps and other graphical representations of ideas. Mindomo is a webbased program designed to assist in the creation of digital concept maps and mind maps, whichhave been identified as effective strategies for learners to demonstrate an understanding ofconcepts and information while also making connections (Novak, 2010).
Mindomo was developed in 2007 and re-built in 2016 (Expert Software Applications, 2019);
since then, I have found that its functionality has greatly improved. Users begin with a map
template or can create from scratch one of many styles of maps. Maps are created using aseries of editing tools which can customize font, colour, size, shape, and background. Additionalfeatures include the ability to embed in a map images, audio, video and hyperlinks. Sharing ispossible across the platform and maps may be saved and downloaded in PDF format. Mindomo
operates on a freemium model: full tool functionality is free for students, teachers and thegeneral public to construct three maps. Various paid subscription tiers for educators range from
$3 to $9 USD per month – I use the middle ‘teacher’ tier ($5/month) – and offer increases to thenumber of maps, publishing formats and Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) integration into
various learning management systems (LMS). Recently, an offline editing version of theprogram has been released.

Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 13, No 2, 20201

Technology Reviews
Concept mapping as a pedagogical tool
Concept mapping is a technique whereby interconnected ideas related to a topic, idea or belief
are represented in a visual way. Unlike traditional content-driven activities designed formemorization of content and recall, concept mapping asks learners to represent theirknowledge visually by showing connections between seemingly disparate pieces of content.
That reading and creating concept maps can be difficult at first may cause confusion about theirfunction; explicit instruction on the format of a concept map is usually necessary.
As a pedagogical tool, concept mapping encourages deep learning, promotes creativity andpromotes the connection between content, theory and practice. Concept mapping is
documented as an effective pedagogical strategy regardless of age, level of study or discipline(Novak, 2010; Schwendimann, 2015). Additionally, concept maps can be employed for a varietyof assessment and evaluation needs (Turns, Atman and Adams, 2000), including demonstrating
understanding of a given text and as a means of collaborative presentation of ideas. For
example, a psychology student could construct a concept map addressing Freudian theories
and show the theoretical connections between psychoanalytic theory and psychosexual stages
and break down psyche into the id, ego and superego, in addition to connecting examples frommass media that correspond to those theoretical concepts. There is no one ‘correct’ conceptmap for a given topic.
Concept mapping has been identified as an activity that engages students in higher-order
thinking skills (Novak, 2010). What distinguishes a concept map from other graphic organizers(e.g., mind map, t-chart, Venn diagram, etc.) is the logical nature of a concept map. Unlike mind
mapping, which suggests summarization or a series of consistent relationships, concept
mapping supposes a depth to the levels and types of relationships depicted. In this way,concept mapping moves students beyond lower-order thinking skills (i.e., summarizing, defining,classifying and memorizing) and engages them in higher-order thinking actions (i.e., justifying,analyzing, defending and hypothesizing). Student creation of a concept map usually involves
negotiating and clarifying ideas in ways that traditional assessment practices do not. Thesechoices made by a student characterize what Ausubel (2000) called meaningful learning,whereby new information is fit into a learner’s existing knowledge structure.
A Novakian concept map (Kinchin, 2015) can be read in a logical way, owing to the following
technical elements included in its construction:
1. ideas or concepts outlined in some sort of shape;
2. non-crossing lines that connect all concepts to at least one other;
3. directional arrowheads on the connecting lines to denote the direction the relationshipbetween two or more concepts;
4. words written on each line to describe the relationship.
The design of Mindomo allows students to use this rigid structure or to use a more organic
structure, depending on the task.

How I have used MindomoOver the past three years, I have taught a pre-service teacher education course called Digital
Technology and Social Media Applications a total of nine times. In each iteration of the course, I
have included variations of concept-mapping assessment activities. During the 2018-19
Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 13, No 2, 20202

Technology Reviews
academic year, the students (training to be K-12 teachers) worked in randomized groups tocreate multiple different concept maps, some of which were completed manually (i.e., using
chart paper, post-it notes, pens, markers etc.) and others created digitally, using Mindomo.
These activities were designed to engage my students in deeper thinking about theories (e.g.,technological pedagogical content knowledge [TPACK; Mishra and Koelher, 2006], substitutionaugmentation-modification-redefinition [SAMR; Puentedura, 2013], etc.) and issues (e.g.,access, student collaboration, critical digital pedagogy, learning management etc.) related toteaching using technology. Their concept maps were graded using a rubric which included thetechnical elements listed earlier as well as categories related to connection to course activities
and the level of integration of digital media into the concept map.

Reflection on practice
Brookfield (1995) suggests that effective teaching and learning involves the practice of criticalreflection. What follows is a snapshot of the unpacking of the use of Mindomo from myperspective as the instructor and from the perspectives of some of my students.
Instructor’s reflection
My first engagement with concept maps was as a doctoral student. A former professor of mine
had been using them as a form of assessment for a number of years and encouraged me tothink about the ways in which concept maps might promote more meaningful learning. Now, as
an educator, I strive to make connections between theory and practice in a way that will equip
my students to think critically once they leave my class. The work my students have done has
challenged me to think critically about my own perceptions of the course content as well as mypedagogical decisions. Figure 1 shows a comment I made on a particularly striking concept map
where students suggested that creativity in the classroom could (a) be promoted through selfdirected activities and (b) foster a sense of community.

Figure 1: Snippet of a student-created concept map which suggested connections I had not considered were related

Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 13, No 2, 20203

Technology Reviews
Student Feedback on Mindomo
Throughout my years using Mindomo in digital technology courses for pre-service teachers, I
have received feedback on Mindomo as a tool to create digital concept maps. A more detailed
research project (Sabourin, 2019) explored the perceptions of pre-service teachers in relation todigital concept mapping. The majority of pre-service teachers who have provided feedback tome describe positive experiences while using the software. Many of them have suggested thatconcept mapping allowed them to engage with course content in a more meaningful way:
“For the Mindomo concept mapping activity, I learned a lot more in depth into the article“The Kind of Schools We Need” because I worked with a group that took some different
things from the article than when I read it. This allowed me to remember the article a lot
better. I feel like I’ve retained the ideas in the article a lot better even a week later today
than I would have if I had just taken notes and not done a digital concept map with agroup of my peers.” (An intermediate-senior-level pre-service teacher)
Others appreciated how the complex ideas and connections of their group can connect withmedia beyond what can be represented in physical space and time:“One advantage to using Mindomo to create our concept map is that we were lessrestricted than when we made the paper concept map. We didn’t need to conform to thesize of the page, and it was easier to keep lines from overlapping because you canmove them unrestrictedly anytime you have a new idea. It’s also a lot easier to add moredetail, such as different coloured lines, pictures, and videos.” (A primary-junior level preservice teacher)
Alternatively, some were critical of how Mindomo might sacrifice authentic discussion in favourof productivity:“A problem with making the concept map using Mindomo is that although you’re stillcommunicating with the people you’re working with, you don’t get the same amount offeedback as you do when you’re working with a group in person. In person, you’re able
to bounce your ideas off one another. One person comes up with a concept, forexample, and then the rest of the group adds in their opinion on if they think it’s a mainconcept and how to word it…Online, a lot of the conversation was very much to thepoint.” (A primary-junior level pre-service education student)
This last point highlights the need for educators to consider the trade-off between theadvantages educational technology can provide and the degradation of other forms ofcommunication that remain important. This is especially true in the concept-mapping process,as the process itself is a significant learning experience. A poor process, from my observation,
often results in a poorly designed concept map.

Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 13, No 2, 20204

Technology Reviews
SWOT Analysis
Mindomo is one of many tools designed to create digital concept maps. I have used a number ofother desktop-based (e.g., CmapTools, Microsoft Visio) and online tools (e.g., Coggle,MindMeister etc.), but I find Mindomo offers the best user experience for teachers and students.
The included concept map (figure 2) illustrates a breakdown of Mindomo by way of a SWOTanalysis (i.e., strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats). I have identified internal
strengths and weaknesses of the platform and the external opportunities and threats as they
relate to my specific use, as well as more generally, regardless of the discipline. Note how theconcept map format allows for connections across the four categories of SWOT and how theconcept map inherently requires active interaction by the reader.

Figure 2. Concept map illustrating a SWOT analysis of Mindomo. The concept map should be read fromthe middle outwards, and along each branch as indicated by the arrowheads.

In general, Mindomo’s strengths and opportunities rest in its treatment of users as learners who
can use the tool to engage in meaningful learning experiences. Although not a novel approachby any means, Mindomo’s decision to allow full tool functionality in the free version allows users
to complete tasks without annoying pop-ups asking the user to upgrade. Additionally,
considerable flexibility is built into the platform to allow users to share only limited personal
information before first use.

Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 13, No 2, 20205

Technology Reviews
Conclusion
Throughout many implementations of Mindomo, I have found it to be a useful tool for mystudents to use to show how they uniquely conceptualize ideas and examples discussed in thecourses I teach. Student feedback generally supports the pedagogical use of Mindomo, butraises concerns about whether using technology usurps the development of other importantlearning processes. As with all new digital tools, I recommend those interested in using
Mindomo should decide if concept mapping indeed aligns with the goals and outcomes of thelearning experience they are looking to provide. In short, the adaptability of concept mapping asa pedagogy makes it suitable in a variety of disciplinary contexts and Mindomo is an effective
digital tool to aid in creation.

Acknowledgement
I would like to express my thanks to Dr. Darren Stanley for introducing me to concept mappingand for the numerous pedagogical and theoretical discussions we have had since.

Reference list
Ausubel, D.P. (2000) The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9454-7 (Accessed: 25April 2020).
Brookfield, S. (1995) Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ISBN: 978-0787901318.
Expert Software Applications (2019) History. Available at: https://www.exswap.com/about.html(Accessed: 12 August 2019).
Kinchin, I.M. (2015) ‘Editorial: Novakian concept mapping in university and professional
education.’ Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 7(1), 1-5. Available at:https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2015.07.001 (Accessed: 10 August 2019).
Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. (2006) ‘Technological pedagogical content knowledge: Aframework for teacher knowledge.’ Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x (Accessed: 10 August 2019).
Novak, J.D. (2010) ‘Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools
in schools and corporations.’ Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 6(3), 21-30.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/441 (Accessed: 10 August 2019).

Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 13, No 2, 20206

Technology Reviews
Puentedura, R.R. (2013, May 29) ‘SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation.’ Weblog post. Available at: http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html (Accessed: 12August 2019).
Sabourin, B.M. (2019) ‘Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in the K-12classroom.’ Available at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/research-result-summaries/80 (Accessed:12 August 2019).
Schwendimann, B.A. (2015) ‘Concept maps as versatile tools to integrate complex ideas: Fromkindergarten to higher and professional education.’ Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 7(1),73-99. Available at: https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2015.07.006 (Accessed: 12 August 2019).
Turns, J., Atman, C.J. and Adams, R. (2000) ‘Concept maps for engineering education: A
cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions.’ IEEE Transactions on
Education, 43(2), 164-173. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/13.848069 (Accessed: 12August, 2019).

Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 13, No 2, 20207