Online mind mapping activities were incorporated using online activities as a support for face-to- face learning in three blended courses in the math education program at Western University. Three different mind mapping tools – Popplet, Mindmeister, and Mindomo – and different scaffolding techniques in terms of prompts and number of participants per group were explored. Each course will be treated as a case and is described below (see summary in Table 6). It is relevant to note that the focus of this chapter is the mind mapping implementation through the lens of UDL. For a more thorough description of the case studies along with experiential and learning outcomes comparing the three different tools and two different kinds of prompts, the reader may refer to Cendros and Gadanidis (2017).
Table 6. The three cases and their characteristics
Term-Year Course Tool Used Prompt Participants
Case 1 Winter-2016 CT+ Math
Education
Popplet Topics List 143 (Set A)
Case 2 Fall-2016 CT+ Math
Education
Mindmeister Topics List 194 (Set B)
4.2.1 Case 1
The first case was a computational thinking in mathematics education course in the Winter of 2016. It had a duration of nine weeks, two hours per week, where the five odd-numbered sessions were face-to-face and the four even-numbered sessions were online. Participants were 143 teacher candidates (TCs) who agreed to participate in the research, out of a total of 157, distributed among five sections. Each online week included the collaborative knowledge construction and reflection in small groups (4 to 7 participants) of mind maps through Popplet (http://popplet.com/), which replaced the more traditional, text-based discussion forum. Popplet was chosen initially due to its simplicity. The instructor and researchers believed that fewer features would facilitate an easier introduction to the activity.
There was a total of 31 small groups across the five sections. The mind mapping activity was implemented during every online week (Weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8). Prior to each online week, TCs received a link with access to their group’s mind map, which was initially blank. For weeks 6 and 8, each group used only one canvas; so for week 8, students continued ideas and topics within the mind map that they had begun in week 6. The prompts used by the instructor to guide TCs to develop the mind maps included an explanation on how Popplet can help students make connections between the online and in-class activities, a list of suggested topics to address in the mind map, and a video on how to use the tool. Figure 16 shows a mind map created by a group of students in Case 1.
Figure 16. Sample mind map created by participants in Case 1 (http://bit.ly/case1map).
4.2.2 Case 2
The second case was a new cohort of the computational thinking in mathematics education course, in the following fall 2016. Characteristics of this case were the same as in Case 1 in terms of duration, mode of delivery, and contents. However, in this case, the number of
participants was larger than in the first case, with 194 TCs (out of the 240 enrolled) agreeing to participate in the research. In regard to mind map construction, this case included the
collaborative knowledge construction and reflection in larger groups (8 participants, as compared to 4-7 in Case 1) using a different online tool, Mindmeister (https://www.mindmeister.com). The instructor and researchers decided to use Mindmeister after facing technical problems in the previous experience with Popplet. In this case, only weeks 2 and 4 required mind map construction. As a result, a total of 60 mind maps were created (30 from week 2 and 30 from week 4).
As in Case 1, TCs received a link with access to their group’s mind map and a prompt to guide construction that included a list of suggested topics to address. In addition, an instructor-led live presentation was added in each section to provide opportunities for students to ask questions
about how to use the tool. Additionally, tutorial videos about the use of Mindmeister were made available for students in their online course site. Figure 17 shows a mind map created by a group of students in Case 2.
Figure 17. Sample mind map created by participants in Case 2 (http://bit.ly/case2map)
4.2.3 Case 3
In the Winter of 2017, instructors decided to include the mind map activity in the math methods course for TCs. Since students in this program register for the entire year in sets of courses for the subject of their choice, participants of the mathematics education stream were simultaneously enrolled for the CT in mathematics education and the math methods courses. So, participants from Cases 2 and 3 belong to the same cohort (194 participants that gave permission, out of 240 enrolled). The math methods course had a total duration of 17 weeks, using mainly a face-to-face delivery mode coupled with an online learning component that included discussion groups and mind map development. The mind map activity was used during Weeks 9 to 11.
Collaborative knowledge construction and reflection was done in groups of 6 to 8 participants using a third online tool, Mindomo (https://www.mindomo.com/). In this case, the tool was chosen by the instructors because it is provided to teachers for free by the Ontario’s Ministry of
Education. A total of 96 mind maps were obtained from this case (32 for each week). Figure 18 shows a mind map created by a group of students in Case 3.
Figure 18. Sample mind map created by the participants in Case 3 (http://bit.ly/case3map). Since this group of participants had prior familiarity with collaborative mind maps, instructors only provided a video about the tool and prompted TCs to create their own mind maps and invite the instructors to view them (rather than the instructors creating blank canvases and sending the links to the TCs). In this case, instructors decided to use questions as prompts to guide the activity.