The Effects of Mind Mapping Activities on Students' Motivation

Abstract

We examined how students" motivation differed when they participated in three different types of mind mapping activities: one activity that was completed individually outside of class time, one that was completed individually in class with the instructor available for help, and one that was completed in class with other students and the instructor available for help. Using the MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation (Jones, 2009) as a framework, we implemented a concurrent mixed methods design using identical samples whereby the quantitative component was dominant over the qualitative component. Participants included 40 undergraduate students enrolled in an educational psychology course at a U.S. university. After each of the mind mapping activities, study participants completed questionnaires that included open-and closed-ended items. Although the three activities had similar effects on students" motivation-related beliefs, some differences were documented in their preferences of mind mapping activities. Instructional implications are provided.

Full text

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
1
The Effects of Mind Mapping Activities on Students’ Motivation
Brett D. Jones
brettjones@vt.edu
Chloe Ruff
Jennifer Dee Snyder
Britta Petrich
Chelsea Koonce
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Abstract
We examined how students‟ motivation differed when they participated in three different
types of mind mapping activities: one activity that was completed individually outside of
class time, one that was completed individually in class with the instructor available for
help, and one that was completed in class with other students and the instructor available
for help. Using the MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation (Jones, 2009) as a framework, we
implemented a concurrent mixed methods design using identical samples whereby the
quantitative component was dominant over the qualitative component. Participants included
40 undergraduate students enrolled in an educational psychology course at a U.S.
university. After each of the mind mapping activities, study participants completed
questionnaires that included open- and closed-ended items. Although the three activities
had similar effects on students‟ motivation-related beliefs, some differences were
documented in their preferences of mind mapping activities. Instructional implications are
provided.
Keywords: mind map, concept map, motivation, socially mediated learning, MUSIC Model
of Academic Motivation
Introduction
Interest in understanding the use of concept maps for instructional purposes has grown
significantly in the past three decades (Nesbit & Adesope, 2006). Yet, many questions
remain unanswered related to how concept maps can be used most effectively to promote
students‟ motivation and learning in higher education courses (e.g., Doorn & O‟Brien, 2007).
Although there are many ways to use concept maps in educational settings (see Novak &
Gowin, 1984), we were most interested in how they could be used to extract meaning from
textbooks. Further, we wanted to investigate the use of a type of concept mapping called
“mind mapping” (Buzan & Buzan, 1993). Given the importance of social interactions in
learning settings (Saloman & Perkins, 1998), we questioned whether socially mediated
learning experiences were important in the mind mapping process. As a result, the primary
purpose of our study was to examine whether different types of socially mediated mind
mapping activities would have different effects on factors related to students‟ motivation
and effort.

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
2
Background
Mind Mapping
The means of representing ideas in diagrams with node-link assemblies has been termed
concept mapping (Novak & Gowin, 1984), knowledge mapping (O‟Donnell, Dansereau, &
Hall, 2002), and mind mapping (Buzan & Buzan, 1993). When used as a part of instruction,
these types of mapping techniques have been shown to increase students‟ achievement
scores (Horton et al., 1993) and knowledge retention (Nesbit & Adescope, 2006). Nesbit
and Adesope (2006) defined a concept map as “a type of graphic organizer that is
distinguished by the use of labeled nodes denoting concepts and links denoting relationships
among concepts” (p. 415). Typically, when used in an instructional setting, students who
complete a concept map place concepts or ideas in ovals (or any shape), organize the ovals
in some type of logical manner that shows the relationship among them (which may or may
not be hierarchical), and connect the concepts to one another with lines that might or might
not be labeled (Novak & Gowin, 1984). Mind mapping is slightly different from concept
mapping in that the mind mapping process starts with a topic at the center of the graphic
(Buzan & Buzan, 1993). Important concepts and phrases are then linked to the center topic
on branches which can continue to branch into other concepts and phrases. In addition, the
text can be accompanied by images, and color can be used for emphasis or to faciliatate
organization.
Mind maps help students learn information by forcing them to organize it and add images
and color to it (see Figure 1 for an example mind map that is shown without color). These
maps have been shown to lower extrinsic cognitive load because students are creating a
two-dimensional space to tie in ideas and concepts that relate together (Nesbit & Adesope,
2006). Mind maps allow students to create a visual image to enhance their learning (Budd,
2004) and can be used as a metacognitive tool that allows them to make connections to
material in meaningful ways. For example, Farrand, Fearzana, and Hennessy (2002) found
that mind maps not only aided medical students in studying, but also encouraged a deeper
level of learning, especially when paired with a problem-based learning curriculum. Mind
maps have also been used as reflective tools that allow for broader associations to be made
to the material (Budd, 2004). Using mind maps also helps teachers vary their teaching
methods which may be more likely to reach diverse learners (Nesbit & Adesope, 2006).

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
3
Figure 1. Example mind map
Socially Mediated Learning
Mind mapping activities require students to actively engage in their learning, often by
connecting their prior knowledge to new information. When creating a mind map, a student
frequently interacts with a textbook, notes from class, an instructor, classmate, or study
group. Viewed from a sociocultural perspective, the student‟s learning in all of these
interactions would be mediated by a social agent: an individual, group, or a cultural tool
such as a textbook or set of class notes (Salomon & Perkins, 1998). The concept of socially
mediated learning has been highly influenced by Vygotsky‟s (1978) belief that that society
greatly influences learning and that “every function in the child‟s cultural development
appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level” (p. 57). Thus from
a sociocultural perspective, learning is not a transfer of information from teacher to student,
but the process of participating in the active construction of knowledge and meaning
through interactions with others and with the environment (Saloman & Perkins, 1998).
When constructing a mind map, students are actively engaged with cultural tools in a way
that, even when a student is working alone, his or her learning is socially mediated.
However, as Saloman and Perkins (1998, p. 17) note, an individual‟s learning can be
socially mediated at different levels, from a lower level of social mediation (e.g., when an
individual student interacting with a textbook and set of drawing materials creating a mind
map), to a medium level of social mediation (e.g., when a teacher or tutor engages with the
student to scaffold an activity or ask a question; Mariage, Englert, & Garmon, 2000), to a
high level of social mediation (e.g., when a group of peers work collaboratively to complete
a project; Ching & Kafai, 2008; de Abreu & Elbers, 2005; Gladwin & Stepp-Greany, 2008;
Huong, 2007). In all of these examples, the focus is on the individual‟s learning within a
social context.
The MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation
The MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation (Jones, 2009) consists of five primary components

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
4
that have been derived from research and theory as ones that are critical to student
engagement in academic settings, including: empowerment, usefulness, success, interest,
and caring (see www.MotivatingStudents.info). The name of the model, MUSIC, is an
acronym based on the second letter of “eMpowerment” and the first letter of the other four
components. It is sometimes useful to divide the interest and caring components further
into two sub-components each (i.e., situational interest, individual interest, academic
caring, and personal caring), for a total of seven components in the model (Jones, 2010a,
2010b; Jones & Wilkins, 2011). The MUSIC model was developed to help instructors better
understand how current motivation research and theories can be applied to instruction
(Jones, 2009, 2010b). The model has also been used as a theoretical framework to examine
the impact of instruction on students‟ motivation (e.g., Jones, Bryant, Epler, Mokri, &
Paretti, 2011; Matusovich, Jones, Paretti, Moore, & Hunter, 2011). In this section, we
provide a brief overview of the MUSIC model components that are described in more detail
in Jones (2009).
The first component of the MUSIC model, empowerment, refers to the amount of perceived
control that students have over their learning. When students are empowered, they believe
that they have the ability to make choices. Much of the research related to empowerment
has been conducted by researchers studying attribution theory (Weiner, 2000) and self-
determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Empowering students
fulfills their need for autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991). The usefulness component of
the MUSIC model involves the extent to which students believe that the content material is
useful to their short- or long-term goals. Students‟ goals are important because their
motivation is affected by their perceptions of the usefulness of what they are learning for
their future. Research related to the usefulness construct has been conducted by future time
perspective theorists (De Volder & Lens, 1982; Kauffman & Husman, 2004; Tabachnick,
Miller, & Relyea, 2008), as well as Eccles and her colleagues who have studied utility value
as part of their work on the expectancy-value model of motivation (Eccles et al., 1983;
Eccles and Wigfield, 1995; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
The success component of the MUSIC model is based on the idea that students need to
believe that they can succeed if they put forth the appropriate effort. Students feel
successful when they perceive that they are competent in the course requirements. Self-
perceptions of competence (i.e., one‟s beliefs about one‟s abilities) are central to many
motivation theories, such as self-concept theory (Marsh, 1990), self-efficacy theory
(Bandura, 1986), self-worth theory (Covington, 1992), goal orientation theory (Ames,
1992), and expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
The interest component of the MUSIC model can be separated into two theoretically distinct
components: situational interest and individual interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). For the
situational interest component, students‟ positive emotion and engagement is activated
through a context-specific environment that causes students to be interested in the content
material for at least a brief period of time. Students who enjoy a class activity would have a
situational interest if this enjoyment was short-lived and did not endure much past the class
activity. In contrast, students who find a topic to be of interest over time and believe that
the topic is personally important would have an individual interest in the topic.
The caring component of the MUSIC model specifies that students have a need to establish
and sustain caring interpersonal relationships, either with an instructor or other students. It
is derived from research in the areas of belongingness, relatedness, connectedness,
affiliation, involvement, attachment, commitment, bonding, and sense of community (e.g.,
Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The caring component can be divided into

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
5
two components: academic caring and personal caring (Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson,
1983). Academic caring specifies that students need to believe that their instructor cares
about whether or not they successfully meet the course objectives. For personal caring,
students need to perceive that their instructor cares about their general well-being and
welfare.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to answer the question: How do three types of socially
mediated learning activities that involve mind mapping affect factors related to students‟
motivation? We placed the mind mapping activities on a spectrum from low social mediation
(the activity was completed individually outside of class time), to medium social mediation
(the activity was completed individually in class with the instructor available for help), to
high social mediation (the activity was completed in class within a group with other students
and the instructor available for help). We addressed the following research questions within
the context of an undergraduate course that used mind mapping activities to help students
learn content knowledge from a textbook.
1. For each level of social mediation, how highly do students rate the MUSIC model
components and their effort?
2. Is there a statistical difference in students‟ scores for the MUSIC model components
and effort ratings among the levels of social mediation?
3. To what extent are students‟ scores on MUSIC model components statistically
correlated with their effort?
4. Why do students prefer certain mind mapping activities over others?
Method
Mixed Methods Research Design
To achieve the goals of our study, we implemented a concurrent mixed methods design
using identical samples whereby the quantitative component was dominant over the
qualitative component (Onwuegbuzie, & Collins, 2007). Using Collins, Onwuegbuzie, and
Sutton‟s (2006) typology, the purpose of our mixed methods analysis was significance
enhancement: to elaborate, illustrate, enhance, and clarify the findings from the
quantitative results; and to compare the results from the quantitative data with the
qualitative findings (i.e., to provide triangulation).
Participants
Participants included undergraduate students enrolled in one of two sections of an
undergraduate educational psychology course at a large university in the southeastern
United States. A total of 40 students participated in the study, including 16 students
(40.0%) from one course section and 24 students (60%) from another section. Most of the
participants were female (n = 34, 85%), with 22 (55%) juniors and 18 (45%) seniors
participating. The majority of the students reported that they were Caucasian (n = 34,
85%), whereas four students (10%) reported that they were Asian or Pacific Islander, and
two students (5%) reported that they were Hispanic.
Procedure
Participants were solicited from an introductory educational psychology course that covered
topics such as learning theories, problem solving, metacognition, motivation, and

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
6
assessment. The course was divided into two sections that were taught by different
instructors. The instructors worked collaboratively to develop a common syllabus to ensure
that students in both sections received similar course experiences.
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the university where the study
was conducted. Students were introduced to the study and invited to participate during one
of the classes by two of the authors who were not the course instructors. Students were told
that their participation in the study was voluntary, that their decision to participate would
not have any effect on their course grade, and that their participation would involve allowing
the researchers to use their responses to three questionnaires that assessed their beliefs
about the mind map assignments used in the course. Students provided their consent to
participate in the study by signing an Informed Consent form that two of the authors
collected during class.
Participants completed a total of three online questionnaires, one after each of the three
mind mapping activities that occurred in three consecutive weeks. Two of the questionnaires
contained similar questions, whereas the third questionnaire included additional opened-
ended items that asked students to reflect on and compare the three mind mapping
activities. Students completed the online questionnaires outside of class time after they
completed the mind map assignment and prior to starting the next mind map assignment.
Mind Mapping Activities
The three mind mapping activities were grouped into three levels of social mediation as
follows: the individual out of class mind map (Map 1, lowest level of social mediation), the
individual in class mind map for which students could seek help from the instructor (Map 2,
middle level of social mediation), and the group in class mind map for which students
worked in groups to create a mind map (Map 3, highest level of social mediation). For Map
1, students were given the assignment during class time, but were required to complete the
map outside of class time using their textbook and class notes. For Map 2, students were
given one hour in class to complete the map and hand it in to the instructor at the end of
the class. The instructor was available during the class to answer students‟ questions.
Students were told not to work with other students in the class on their map. For Map 3, the
instructor placed students into groups of three or four and students were told to work
together to create one map. The content material for each of the maps was based on a
chapter that students read from the textbook. The instructors gave students the instructions
(see Appendix A) and discussed how the grading rubric would be used (see Appendix B).
The instructors assigned the three mind maps in different orders to reduce the likelihood
that differences between groups could be attributed to (a) a novelty effect in which students
rated the first activity differently from the second and/or third activities because it was new
to them, and (b) the fact that students had learned strategies for creating mind maps after
their experiences in creating the first one or two maps, and therefore, were more adept at
creating maps. One instructor assigned the mind maps in the order of Map 1, Map 2, and
Map 3; the other instructor assigned the maps in the order of Map 2, Map 3, and Map 1.
Quantitative Instruments, Items, and Analysis
The quantitative data were analyzed using SPSSTM (version 18.0) a statistical software
package for the social sciences. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, a t-test,
ANOVAs, and correlations, as described in the Results section.
MUSIC model components and effort
To measure the six MUSIC model components and effort, we used the same instruments as
those presented in Jones (2010). These seven instruments consisted of items that were

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
7
rated on 7-point Likert-format scales. The items in each instrument were averaged to create
a mean score for each instrument. All of the instruments were found to have acceptable
reliability estimates as documented by the following Cronbach alpha values: empowerment
(5 items, α = .92), usefulness (3 items, α = .90), success (4 items, α = .92), situational
interest (3 items, α = .92), individual interest (3 items, α = .91), and academic caring (4
items, α = .97). Personal caring was not measured because we expected that by the middle
of the semester (when these activities took place), students would have already formed a
strong belief about the instructor‟s personal caring that would not likely differ across the
three mind mapping activities. Because the items in the Jones (2010) study were targeted
at the course level and we were interested in the determining students‟ beliefs at the
activity level in the present study, we changed the word “course” in the Jones (2010) items
to “mind mapping activity” in the present study. One example item from each instrument
follows: for empowerment, “My instructor encouraged me to ask questions during the mind
mapping activity” (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree); for usefulness, “In general,
the mind mapping activity was useful to me” (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree);
for success, “During the mind mapping activity, I felt confident in my ability to complete the
activity” (1 = very untrue; 7 = very true); for situational interest, “How much did you enjoy
participating in this mind mapping activity” (1 = strongly disliked; 7 = enjoyed a lot);
individual interest, “Doing well on the mind mapping activity was very important to me” (1
= strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree); academic caring, “During the mind mapping
activity, I believe that my instructor cared about how much I learned” (1 = never; 7 =
always); and effort, “I put a lot of effort into this mind mapping activity” (1 = very untrue;
7 = very true).
Ranking of activities for preference, enjoyment, and learning
In the third questionnaire, students were asked to rank the three mind mapping activities
from 1 to 3 based on preference, enjoyment, and which activity helped them learn the
content the best. Students were forced to assign only one ranking (ties were not permitted)
to each of the three activities for preference, enjoyment, and learning.
Qualitative Items and Analysis
Qualitative data was gathered through the open-ended questionnaire items. Two questions
asked them about the things that they liked best and least about creating their mind map.
Additionally, in the final questionnaire, after students ranked the three mind mapping
activities (based on preference, enjoyment, and which activity helped them learn the
content the best), they were asked to explain their rationale for why they ranked the
activities as they did.
Open-ended best and least items
Two of the authors independently developed an initial open coding of participants‟ responses
to the questions: “What are some of the things you liked best about creating your mind
map?” (which led to 140 codes) and “What are some of the things you liked least about
creating your mind map?” (which led to 84 codes). The researchers then sorted the open
codes into the MUSIC categories of eMpowerment, Usefulness, Success, Interest, and
Caring. Once the codes for each question were sorted, the researchers developed a shorter
list of subcategories to describe the main groups of codes within each MUSIC category.
Next, they coded both questions separately using the MUSIC subcategories. When the sets
of codes were compared, it was determined that the researchers agreed on 45% of the
codes for the “Best” question and 42% of the codes for the “Least” question. Because the
percentage of agreements was low, the two researchers met to review the coding and to
come to a consensus regarding the most appropriate codes for each response where
differences occurred. As a further validity check, the two authors met with a third author

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
8
(who had not initially coded the responses) and they all verified that the final coded
responses were consistent with the MUSIC model categories. One author then summed the
number of codes for each sub-category and for each MUSIC category at each level of social
mediation to develop an understanding of the level at which each MUSIC category was
represented at each level of social mediation.
Open-ended ranking items
Students were asked to explain their activity rankings for their preferences, enjoyment, and
learning. Two of the authors read all of the explanations for the students who ranked each
map first for preference, enjoyment, and learning, and they identified the common themes.
Results
Research Questions 1 & 2: Mean Ratings of the MUSIC Model Components & Effort
To address the first and second research questions, we computed descriptive statistics for
each level of social mediation and compared the differences for each of the MUSIC model
components and effort. The first research question asked: For each level of social
mediation, how highly do students rate the MUSIC model components and their effort? The
means and standard deviations for each level of social mediation, MUSIC model component,
and effort are provided in Table 1. The mean value for empowerment for Map 1 is not
shown because the items asked about the instructor‟s role during the mind map activity
which did not make sense for an activity that was completed outside of class time without
access to the instructor.
Table 1. Comparison of Mean Values for Each MUSIC Model Component and Effort by
Level of Social Mediation
Level of social mediationa
ANOVA
Variable
Map 1
M (SD)
Map 2
M (SD)
Map 3
M (SD)
F(2)
ή2P
Empowerment
---
5.52 (0.86)
5.52 (0.96)
---
---
Usefulness
5.10 (1.16)
4.89 (1.21)
4.79 (1.16)
0.72
.02
Success
5.72 (1.10)
5.84 (0.88)
5.98 (0.76)
0.81
.02
Interest Situational
4.75 (1.09)
4.94 (1.21)
4.88 (1.27)
0.27
.01
Interest Individual
5.05 (1.02)
5.12 (1.13)
4.92 (1.05)
0.35
.01
Caring Academic
5.88 (1.34)
6.28 (0.90)
6.03 (1.07)
1.36
.03
Effort
5.08 (1.25)
5.18 (1.05)
4.99 (1.16)
0.26
.01
Notes. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert-format scale. Empowerment was not measured for Map 1.
a Map 1 is the individual out of class map, Map 2 is the individual in class map, and Map 3 is the group in class map
* p ≤ .05
To determine whether students rated one or more of the MUSIC model components higher
or lower than the others within any one level of social mediation (i.e., to compare the mean
values of the components in any one column in Table 1), we used a repeated measures
ANOVA to compare the means of the MUSIC model components for the three levels of social
mediation. We conducted one repeated measures ANOVA for each of the three groups of
students followed by post-hoc tests of pairwise comparisons (using a Bonferroni adjustment
for multiple comparisons). We found a statistical difference among the six MUSIC
components for Map 1 (F[3.3] = 10.16, p < 0.001, ή2P = 0.21), Map 2 (F[3.1] = 19.10, p <
0.001, ή2P = 0.33), and Map 3 (F[2.8] = 22.76, p < 0.001, ή2P = 0.37). The post-hoc tests
revealed that, for all of the groups, academic caring was rated statistically higher than all of

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
9
the other MUSIC components except for success, which was rated as highly as caring, but
not higher than some of the other components. Although there were some statistical
differences among some of the variables in the groups, there was considerable overlap
among the other four variables (empowerment, usefulness, situational interest, and
individual interest). Figure 2 shows a graphical representation of the data from Table 1.
Figure 2. Mean ratings for the six MUSIC model components and effort
To answer the second research question and determine whether there were mean
differences among the three groups (i.e., to compare the mean values in any one row in
Table 1), we conducted one repeated measures ANOVA for the MUSIC model components
(excluding empowerment) and effort. There were no statistical significances among the
three levels of social mediation for any of the MUSIC model components or effort (see Table
1). We used a paired-samples t-test to compare the mean values for empowerment for Map
2 and Map 3 and found no statistical difference between them, t(39) = 0.00, p = 1.00. The
similarities in the mean values for the three map activities can be seen in Figure 2 (i.e., the
bars in Figure 2 for any one MUSIC component, and effort, are similar in height).
Research Question 3: Relationships Between MUSIC Model Components and Effort
We computed Pearson correlation coefficients to answer the third research question: To
what extent are students‟ scores on MUSIC model components statistically correlated with
their effort? As shown in Table 2, all of the MUSIC model components, regardless of level of
social mediation, are statistically correlated with effort except for empowerment in Map 2
and for success in Map 1.
Table 2. Intercorrelations Among Levels of Social Mediation
Effort
Variable
Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
1. Empowerment
---
.28
.52***
2. Usefulness
.69***
.65***
.74***
3. Success
.23
.37*
.48**
4. Situational interest
.67***
.77***
.68***
5. Individual interest
.83***
.81***
.83***

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
10
6. Academic caring
.46**
.38*
.32*
Note. Empowerment was not measured for Map 1.
* p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001
Research Question 4: Preference of Mind Mapping Activities
Research Question 4 asked: Why do students prefer certain mind mapping activities over
others? To address this research question, we asked them to consider the three mind
mapping activities and rank them according to which they preferred the most, enjoyed the
most, and learned the content the best from; additionally, we asked them to explain their
answers. We also asked students what they liked best and least about creating the mind
maps.
Students’ Ranking of Preferences, Enjoyment, and Learning Content. On the third
(i.e., final) questionnaire, we asked students to rank the three mind mapping activities from
1 to 3 with respect to how much they preferred the activity, enjoyed the activity, and
learned content from the activity. The results are presented in Table 3. No clear pattern
emerged from these rankings, indicating that students‟ perceptions of preferences,
enjoyment, and learning differed. The only ranking that more than half of the students
agreed on was that Map 3 was more enjoyable than Map 1 or 2.
Table 3. Students‟ Rankings of Mind Map Activities
Ranking
Item
Map
1
2
3
Preferred
1. Individual out of class
14 (35.0%)
12 (30.0%)
14 (35.0%)
2. Individual in class
9 (22.5%)
16 (40.0%)
15 (37.5%)
3. Group in class
17 (42.5%)
12 (30.0%)
11 (27.5%)
Enjoyed
1. Individual out of class
10 (25.0%)
12 (30.0%)
18 (45.0%)
2. Individual in class
4 (10.0%)
20 (50.0%)
16 (40.0%)
3. Group in class
26 (65.0%)
8 (20.0%)
6 (15.0%)
Learned the most
1. Individual out of class
16 (40.0%)
12 (30.0%)
12 (30.0%)
2. Individual in class
11 (27.5%)
19 (47.5%)
10 (25.0%)
3. Group in class
13 (32.5%)
9 (22.5%)
18 (45.0%)
Note. Students ranked the social levels on a scale using 1 (preferred/enjoyed/learned most), 2
(preferred/enjoyed/learned second most), and 3 (preferred/enjoyed/learned least).
We decided that it was important to determine whether the students who preferred a
particular map the most also enjoyed it the most and learned the most content from it. Of
the 14 participants who ranked Map 1 first as their preferred activity, nine also ranked it
first for enjoyment (four ranked it second and one ranked it third); nine also ranked it first
for learned the most (five ranked it second). Thus, most students who preferred Map 1 the
most also enjoyed it the most and learned the most content from it. Of the nine students
who ranked Map 2 first as their preferred activity, only three also ranked it first in most
enjoyed (three ranked it second and three ranked it third). However, six of these students
also ranked it first for learned most (two ranked it second and one ranked it third). All 17 of
the participants who ranked Map 3 first as their preferred activity also ranked it first as their
most enjoyed activity. Only eight of the 17 who ranked Map 3 first for preferred also ranked
it first in learned the most from (three ranked it second and six ranked it third). Therefore,
even though some students preferred and enjoyed Map 3 the most, less than half believed
that they learned the most from it when compared to Map 1 and 2.

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
11
Ranking Explanations
We asked students to explain why they ranked the activities the way that they did and we
read all of the explanations for the students who ranked each map first for preference,
enjoyment, and learning. The themes we identified are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Themes of Responses for Students who Ranked Each Map First
Item
Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Preference
More time to try harder
More resources
More comfortable working
at home
Fewer distractions
Do not have to do it on
own time
Instructor available to help
Can learn from others‟
ideas
Liked the interactions with
others and the social
aspect
Enjoyment
Liked working on own
More efficient
Freedom as to when to
complete it
More freedom
Enjoyed hearing new ideas
Enjoyed the interaction and
conversing
Able to ask peers questions
Able to ask instructor
questions
Learning
Active practice
Connected ideas on own
Chance to reflect
Forced to read and learn
Had time to connect ideas
Fewer distractions led to
more focus
More learning in class
setting
Had new ways of looking at
ideas
Did not have to think out
connections
Did not have to do all the
parts
Able to get help
Things Students Liked Best About Creating Mind Maps
When we asked students what they liked best about Map 1, usefulness (39% of the codes),
situational interest (35% of the codes), and empowerment (23% of the codes) were the
main categories that emerged, together accounting for 96% of the codes (see Figure 3).
Success (4% of the codes) was reported much less frequently and caring was not reported
at all for Map 1. Students described both the immediate usefulness of the activity, “I liked
seeing how the information was connected,” and longer term usefulness, “I liked that it
helped me organize my thoughts and I can always look at it for a quick review.” The
majority of responses for situational interest described the students‟ interest in the
creativity and use of color in the activity such as, “I love being able to use color and
drawings to help convey the message and add meaning to the words.” Students‟ responses
related to empowerment were focused on the level of control and freedom they felt when
completing their mind map. As one student noted, “I was comforted knowing that I had
complete control over the design of my mind map.”

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Figure 3. Frequency of codes for students‟ responses to things
that they liked best about creating mind maps
Similar to Map 1, usefulness (43% of the codes) and situational interest (36% of the codes)
were the categories that emerged the most when students described what they liked best
about Map 2 (see Figure 3). Fewer responses were coded into empowerment (13% of the
codes), success (8% of the codes), and caring (0% of the codes). Students described the
activity as useful because completing the mind map helped them to learn and recall the
concepts, to organize, and to see connections between the concepts. One student explained,
“I believe that this activity made me think deeper then [sic] I normally would about a
subject;” whereas another reported that “it made me really think about how each
component connected to the main concept and relate it to my life.” Students‟ responses
related to situational interest were similar to Map 1: they enjoyed having the opportunity to
use color and draw. As one student noted, “I got to use colorful markers and paper so it
made the activity more stimulating and exciting.”
The responses for Map 3 were somewhat different than Map 1 and 2. Situational interest
(41% of the codes) and success (26% of the codes) emerged as the main categories
describing what students liked best about Map 3 (see Figure 3). Students provided fewer
responses coded into usefulness (18% of the codes), empowerment (7% of the codes), and
caring (6% of the codes). The majority of situational interest codes were related to the
enjoyment of working in a group; for example, “I liked being able to be in the group instead
of having it be an individual effort.” Similarly, when student responses related to their
feelings of success, they described the benefits of collaborating with group. As one student
noted, “I liked working within a group. It helped bring important aspects that I myself might
not have picked up on and brought into the mind map on my own.”
Things Students Liked Least About Creating Mind Maps
Success (56% of the codes) emerged as the key category through which students
expressed what they liked least about all levels of social mediation. The other categories
had fewer responses, including interest (14% of the codes), empowerment (12% of the
codes), usefulness (9% of the codes), and caring (10% of the codes) (see Figure 4).
Students had several main concerns related to the success component because the maps
challenged their abilities by making them be artistic, include images, come up with ideas,
and combine individual‟s ideas (when working in their group on Map 3). One concern that
was expressed by some students for all the maps was that they were not an effective
learning tool for the individual student. A student working on Map 3 noted: “I study and
remember better with making organized listings” (as opposed to making a mind map of the

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
13
information). With respect to Map 2, a student reported: “I thought there were more
effective study tools I have used in order to comprehend information.” After creating Map 3,
one student responded: “I am not a huge fan [of the mind mapping], I prefer to write out
more linear outlines.” However, for Map 1 (compared to Maps 2 and 3), students were more
likely to describe challenges related to coming up with ideas, for example: “There is so
much information that can go into something like this is it‟s hard to condense it and choose
what really relates to my topic.” When working individually on Maps 1 and 2 students
remarked that they were concerned about the expectation to be creative. In response to
Map 1, one student noted: “I am not creative and I felt it required you to be so. That was
semi-difficult and made me not so excited about completing this activity.” Similarly, with
respect to Map 2, a student replied: “I have more of an analytical personality, so to attempt
to be creative/inventive/artistic was very challenging to me.” Students expressed concerns
with the time constraints related to completing the mind map in class for Maps 2 and 3. For
Map 2, one student noted: “I didn‟t have enough time to finish, and finishing what I start is
important to me.” This feeling was repeated by another student about Map 3: “Time
constraints are always hard to deal with, especially when in a group activity and everyone
has ideas to add but not everything can be done.” However, for Map 3 the largest amount of
codes related to success was related to students‟ concerns with working in a group. One
student noted: “It was the hardest mind map because it was a task of trying to combine
four different people‟s approaches to mind maps which is harder than you think!”
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Figure 4. Frequency of codes for students‟ responses to things that
they liked least about creating mind maps
Discussion
Research Questions 1, 2, and 3
The first research question asked: For each level of social mediation, how highly do students
rate the MUSIC model components and their effort? The mean values for the six MUSIC
model components were all above the mid-point of the Likert-format scales, indicating that
students believed that: the mind mapping activities were somewhat empowering and
somewhat useful, they were capable of succeeding, they were somewhat interested in the
activities, they found the activities to be somewhat important, and that the instructor
almost always cared about whether they succeed academically. Because all of these MUSIC
components are important to students‟ motivation (Jones, 2009), we can generally state
that these mind mapping activities were somewhat motivating to students. This is also

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
14
evidenced by the fact that students reported that they put some effort into the activities.
Given the range of students‟ responses, and the fact that the standard deviations were
about 1.1 for most of these components, we also know that there was variation in students‟
responses: some students found the activities more motivating and some found them less
motivating. Academic caring and success were rated higher than most of the other
components and the mean scores across activities for these two components were about a 6
on a 7-point scale. Thus, we conclude that many students felt that the instructor cared
about their success and that they could succeed at these types of mind mapping activities.
Success was a concern for students though, as evidenced by the fact that several students
discussed that they were worried that they would not be as artistic as they needed to be or
that they would not be able to come up with ideas for their map. In the end, students felt
successful or they would not have rated the success items so highly.
The second research question asked: Is there a statistical difference in students‟ scores for
the MUSIC model components and effort ratings among the levels of social mediation? We
documented no statistical differences in average scores for the MUSIC model components or
effort across the three mind mapping activities. Thus, based on this information alone, it
appears that the three activities are equally as effective at motivating students. We provide
a more complete discussion of these results with the qualitative findings in the sections that
follow.
The third research question asked: To what extent are students‟ scores on MUSIC model
components statistically correlated with their effort? The fact that all of the components
correlated with effort provided some validity for our choice of using the MUSIC Model of
Academic Motivation as a framework to examine the mind mapping activities. In other
words, it would be useless to examine students‟ perceptions of the MUSIC components if
they were not correlated with students‟ effort or some other important outcome. The MUSIC
model predicts that higher scores on the MUSIC components should be associated with
increased student effort (Jones, 2009), which was what we documented in this study.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked: Why do students prefer certain mind mapping activities over
others? The ranking data related to students‟ preferences, enjoyment, and learning showed
some patterns, especially when we analyzed the data related to how students who preferred
certain maps enjoyed them and learned from them. Although students had a variety of
perceptions, students tended to prefer Maps 1 (individual out of class) and 3 (group in
class) more than Map 2 (individual in class). One reason that students preferred Maps 1 and
3 more than Map 2 might be that these activities are more common in other university
courses than the Map 2 activity which required students to work on the assignment
individually during class time, but did not allow them to talk to the other students. Students
might have felt less comfortable completing the Map 2 activity than working with others in
class or out of class independently. Nonetheless, the quantitative results in Table 1 indicated
that students were as equally motivated to engage in all of the mapping activities.
To explain students‟ preferences, we examined how students who preferred each map rated
their enjoyment and content learned. The majority of students who preferred Map 1 also
enjoyed it the most and felt that they learned the most content from it. The students who
preferred Map 2 seemed to prefer it more because they believed that they learned from it
rather than because they enjoyed it. It is possible that enjoyment was not as high because
students felt the pressure of their classmates‟ presence in the same classroom without the
benefits of working with them. That is, they could see the progress that other students were

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
15
making as they sat in the classroom, but they could not ask their classmates for help or
suggestions.
All students who preferred Map 3 also enjoyed Map 3 the most. The results presented in
Table 4 indicate that these students enjoyed Map 3 because they found the higher level of
social mediation to be enjoyable. They enjoyed hearing new ideas, interacting and
conversing with peers, and asking peers and the instructor questions. This finding lends
support to the idea that when some students worked in collaborative groups with their peers
to create the mind maps and were in the presence of the instructor for immediate and direct
guidance, they enjoyed the activity the most. This finding is consistent with the emphasis of
sociocultural learning (Salomon & Perkins, 1998) for which the social context of learning
must be taken into consideration when planning instruction.
But unfortunately, over half of the students who selected Map 3 as the one they enjoyed the
most did not select Map 3 as the one they learned the most from completing. This finding
suggests that although students enjoyed working in groups in class, they perceived that
they learned more from working on the maps individually. The results in Table 4 indicate
that students who learned the most from Maps 1 and 2 (which were completed individually),
reported reasons that are consistent with effective learning strategies (see Ormrod, 2008):
they engaged in active practice; they had more time to read, connect ideas, and reflect;
and they were more focused because they experienced fewer distractions. These types of
learning strategies were not prevalent in the responses of students who rated Map 3 their
first choice. Instead, students who reported learning the most from Map 3 stated that they
had new ways of looking at ideas, did not have to think out connections, did not have to do
all the parts, and were able to get help. These responses suggest a lower level of individual
responsibility for students‟ learning; and instead, indicate more reliance on others. Given
the importance of being active during the learning process, we speculate that it is possible
that students did indeed learn more content material when they worked individually; but
more evidence is needed to verify this assertion. Future studies could examine the amount
of student learning that results from working individually versus working in a group for
these types of tasks.
To examine students‟ preferences of mind mapping activities further, it is useful to compare
the results of Figure 3, Figure 4, and Table 4. The primary differences in the percentage of
codes shown in Figure 3 are that students reported more responses that were coded as
usefulness and empowerment for the maps completed individually (Maps 1 and 2) and more
responses coded as success for the map completed in groups (Map 3). These findings are
consistent with the themes presented in Table 4. Students likely found Maps 1 and 2 useful
because they learned more, as discussed previously. It is also clear from the themes in
Table 4 that students felt more empowered for Maps 1 and 2; they discussed liking to work
on their own, that they had freedom as to when to complete the map, and that they had
more freedom in general. Students likely reported more success codes for Map 3 than Maps
1 and 2 for the reasons presented in Table 4: they could learn from others‟ ideas, they had
new ways of looking at ideas, they did not have to do all the parts, and they were able to
get help. When asked what they liked least about the mind maps, students commented
specifically about the fact that they worried that they might not be creative enough or be
able to develop enough ideas. Their concerns would likely be fewer if they worked in groups,
instead of individually, because they would be able to rely on their group members for some
help. Working in groups was not easy though and some students found it challenging to
complete the maps in groups. Others reported feeling less successful completing Map 3
because of the difficulty involved in combining approaches and ideas within a group. Thus,

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
16
although some students enjoyed the social interaction in groups, they worried about
whether they would be successful in completing their map well.
Limitations
The findings of this study must be interpreted within the context of the limitations. First, the
sample size of 40 was sufficient, but not very large. Including more students in the sample
would allow researchers to make more statistical comparisons between sub-groups of
students. Second, the mind map activities were implemented in an educational psychology
course. Perhaps students in courses of different sizes or of a different type (i.e., courses in
different content areas or that use different teaching approaches), or students who might
not choose to enroll in an educational psychology course, would have different beliefs about
the mind mapping activities. Third, all of the data collected were self-reported on a
questionnaire. For many of the constructs, self-report was the only way to obtain the data
because they were beliefs or interests which are hard to observe directly. However, future
researchers should consider other means of data collection, such as interviews, to better
understand the connections between students‟ preferences, enjoyment, and perceived
learning. Future studies could also be strengthened by basing students‟ beliefs about
learning not only on a self-report measure, but also on some type of quantitative measure
(e.g., test scores, objective mind map grades).
Conclusions and Implications
The findings from this study indicate that there were not average differences in students‟
perceptions across three different socially mediated mapping activities for the MUSIC model
components or effort. But when forced to rank the mapping activities, students varied in
their reported preferences, enjoyment, and learning, which allowed us to examine
differences in some subgroups of students. Taken as a whole, the results led us to conclude
that although the average ratings on the three mind mapping activities were similar,
students have a variety of beliefs about the activities and what they can learn from them.
Given the differences in students‟ rankings of the mapping activities, it appears that an
instructor cannot satisfy all students‟ learning preferences with the same mapping activity.
Thus, one implication is for instructors to vary their mapping activities to increase the
likelihood that they will meet the learning preferences of students. Although we are not
advocating for instructors to teach to a particular learning “style,” research does indicate
that varying instructional methods can lead to greater student interest and engagement
(see Bergin, 1999), which is why we recommend implementing different types of activities
when possible.
A second implication of these findings is that instructors should allow students to choose
from among a variety of mapping activity options. By allowing students to choose whether
to complete the map individually out of class, individually in class, or with a group in class,
instructors would give them control over their learning, which in itself should lead to greater
engagement as predicted by the empowerment component of the MUSIC model (Jones,
2009). Our experience as students and instructors leads us to believe that students might
not always make the best choice in terms of what is most beneficial to their learning
because they might be focused on other academic goals (e.g., getting a high grade instead
of learning the most). However, forcing students to complete one activity instead of another
would likely do little to change these goals, but would have the advantage of providing
students with empowerment and allowing them to best meet their learning preferences if
they choose to do so.

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
17
A third implication is that instructors should consider how the mind mapping activities affect
students‟ motivation and learning, not just one or the other. Because of the trend in higher
education to make students more “active” learners, instructors might believe that simply
placing students in groups is sufficient to actively engage them in their learning. The results
of this study suggest that the activities that students perceived as being more preferred or
enjoyable were not always the ones that they perceived they learned the most from.
Students reported that they were actively interacting with their group members, but not all
of them believed that they learned as much from this type of active interaction process as
when they actively constructed the maps on their own. As a result, instructors need to
carefully consider why they are placing students in groups and what the effects of doing so
might be on students‟ motivation and learning.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-
529.
Budd, J. W. (2004). Mind maps as classroom exercises. The Journal of Economic Education,
35(1), 35. doi:10.3200/JECE.35.1.35-46
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1993). The mind map book: How to use radiant thinking to
maximize your brain’s untapped potential. New York: Plume.
Ching, C. C., & Kafai, Y. B. (2008). Peer pedagogy: Student collaboration and reflection in a
learning-through-design project. Teachers College Record, 110(12), 2601-2632
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the
rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education
and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67-100.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and
school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
de Abreu, G., & Elbers, E. (2005). The social mediation of learning in multiethnic schools:
Introduction. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(1), 3-11.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in
personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
18
De Volder, M., & Lens, W. (1982). Academic achievement and future time perspective as a
cognitive-motivational concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(3),
566–571.
Doorn, D., & O‟Brien, M. (2007). Assessing the gains from concept mapping in introductory
statistics. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2),
1-19.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al.
(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA:
Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents‟
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215-225.
Farrand, P., Fearzana, H., & Hennessy, E. (2002). The efficacy of the „mind map‟ study
technique. Medical Education. 36, 426–431.
Gladwin IV, R. F., & Stepp-Greany, J. (2008). An interactive, instructor-supported reading
approach vs. traditional reading instruction in spanish. Foreign Language Annals,
41(4), 687-701.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development.
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn. G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993).
An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool.
Science Education, 77, 95-111.
Huong, L. P. H. (2007). The more knowledgeable peer, target language use, and group
participation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(2), 329-350.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Anderson, A. (1983). Social interdependence and classroom
climate. Journal of Psychology, 114(1), 135-142.
Jones, B. D. (2009). Motivating students to engage in learning: The MUSIC Model of
academic motivation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 21(3), 272-285.
Jones, B. D. (2010a). An examination of motivation model components in face-to-face and
online instruction. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(3),
915-944.
Jones, B. D. (2010b, October). Strategies to implement a motivation model and increase
student engagement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning, Nashville, TN.
Jones, B. D., Bryant, L., Epler, C., Mokri, P., & Paretti, M. C. (2011, May). Engineering
students’ engagement in a problem-based learning project. Poster presented at the
annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Motivation, Washington, DC.

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
19
Jones, B. D., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2011). Testing the MUSIC model of academic motivation
through confirmatory factor analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kauffman, D. F., & Husman, J. (2004). Effects of time perspective on student motivation:
Introduction to a special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 16(1), 1-7.
Mariage, T. V., Englert, C. S., & Garmon, M. A. (2000). The teacher as “more
knowledgeable other” in assisting literacy learning with special needs students.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16(4), 299.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and
empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-172.
Matusovich, H., Jones, B. D., Paretti, M., Moore, J., & Hunter, D. (2011, June). Motivating
factors in problem-based learning: A student perspective on the role of the
facilitator. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for
Engineering Education, Vancouver, Canada.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knjowledge maps: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413-448.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
O‟Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for
cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71-86.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling
designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.
Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Human learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-
78.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of
Research in Education, 23, 1-24. doi:10.2307/1167286
Tabachnick, S. E., Miller, R. B., & Relyea, G. E. (2008). The relationships among students‟
future-oriented goals and subgoals, perceived task instrumentality, and task-oriented
self-regulation strategies in an academic environment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(3), 629-642.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Appendix A
Mind Map Instructions

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
20
Directions: Create a mind map organizing your understanding of the reading.
Remember the steps of mind mapping:
Step one: Brainstorm:
1. Write the topic in the center of a blank page.
2. Use colors, pictures, words, and symbols to record any ideas, topics, researchers, or theories
that are associated with the topic. You can place these anywhere on the page. Associate freely
and do not filter out ideas at this point; anything and everything is okay.
Step 2: Organization:
3. Map the relationships between the ideas or key points using lines, arrows, colors, and words to
link them.
4. Identify the type of relationship between ideas or points, such as: contrasts, similarities, cause
and effect. Write these relationships along the linking lines.
Step 3: Mind Map:
5. Once you are comfortable with the associations and organization in your brainstorm, then use
the ideas that you have developed to draw out your final mind map.
These instructions were adapted from information at the Language and Learning Online
website at Monash University, and are available at
http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/quickrefs/25-brainstorming.xml
Appendix B
Mind Map Grading Rubric
Grade
Rubric
A
Important concepts – are the important concepts included?
Most all of the important concepts are included.
Organization – does the organizational structure make sense?
The organization is clear and makes sense.
Detail – is there enough detail to describe the important concepts?
There is a lot of specific information that describes the important concepts. The
student could use the map to study for a test without using the book and get an “A”
on a test.
Color and Images – are color and images used effectively to help the retention of the
material?
Color is used in an appropriate manner to help with organization and to help foster
retention of the material. Several images are used to facilitate retention.
B
Important concepts – are the important concepts included?
Some of the important concepts are not included.
Organization – does the organizational structure make sense?
The organization is clear and makes sense, but could be better (e.g., it‟s crowded).
Detail – is there enough detail to describe the important concepts?
Specific detail that describes the important concepts is missing in some critical
areas.
Color and Images – are color and images used effectively to help the retention of the
material?
Color is there, but does not really help with organization or help to foster retention
of the material. Only a few images are provided.
C
Important concepts – are the important concepts included?
Some of the important concepts are not included.

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2012)
ISSN 1931-4744 @ Georgia Southern University
21
Organization – does the organizational structure make sense?
The map is not well organized (e.g., it‟s crowded, similar concepts are not grouped
together).
Detail – is there enough detail to describe the important concepts?
Specific detail that describes the important concepts is missing in several areas.
Color and Images – are color and images used effectively to help the retention of the
material?
Color and images are very limited.
D or F
Important concepts – are the important concepts included?
Many of the important concepts are not included.
Organization – does the organizational structure make sense?
The map is not well organized (e.g., it‟s crowded, similar concepts are not grouped
together).
Detail – is there enough detail to describe the important concepts?
Specific detail that describes the important concepts is missing in many areas.
Color and Images – are color and images used effectively to help the retention of the
material?
Color and images are very limited to non-existent.