Mind map
Diagram to visually organize information A mind map is a diagram used to visually organize information into a hierarchy, showing relationships among pieces of the whole.[1] It is often created around a single concept, drawn as an image in the center of a blank page, to which associated representations of ideas such as images, words and parts of words are added. Major ideas are connected directly to the central concept, and other ideas branch out from those major ideas. Mind maps can also be drawn by hand, either as "notes" during a lecture, meeting or planning session, for example, or as higher quality pictures when more time is available. Mind maps are considered to be a type of spider diagram.[2] Differences from other visualizations [edit] Joeran Beel and Stefan Langer conducted a comprehensive analysis of the content of mind maps.[15] They analysed 19,379 mind maps from 11,179 users of the mind mapping applications SciPlore MindMapping (now Docear) and MindMeister. Education portal
Visualization (computer graphics)
See also Information graphics Visualization or visualisation is any technique for creating images, diagrams, or animations to communicate a message. Visualization through visual imagery has been an effective way to communicate both abstract and concrete ideas since the dawn of man. Visualization today has ever-expanding applications in science, education, engineering (e.g., product visualization), interactive multimedia, medicine, etc. Charles Minard's information graphic of Napoleon's march Computer graphics has from its beginning been used to study scientific problems. Most people are familiar with the digital animations produced to present meteorological data during weather reports on television, though few can distinguish between those models of reality and the satellite photos that are also shown on such programs. Scientific visualization is usually done with specialized software, though there are a few exceptions, noted below.
Argument map
Visual representation of the structure of an argument Argument maps are commonly used in the context of teaching and applying critical thinking.[2] The purpose of mapping is to uncover the logical structure of arguments, identify unstated assumptions, evaluate the support an argument offers for a conclusion, and aid understanding of debates. Argument maps are often designed to support deliberation of issues, ideas and arguments in wicked problems.[3] A number of different kinds of argument maps have been proposed but the most common, which Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe called the standard diagram,[5] consists of a tree structure with each of the reasons leading to the conclusion. There is no consensus as to whether the conclusion should be at the top of the tree with the reasons leading up to it or whether it should be at the bottom with the reasons leading down to it.[5] Another variation diagrams an argument from left to right.[6] According to Douglas N. [edit] Diagramming written text
‘Dream Team’ of Behavioral Scientists Advised Obama Campaign
Chris Keane/Reuters DOOR TO DOOR Ricky Hall, an Obama volunteer, in Charlotte, N.C., last week. “He said, ‘Bring the whole group; let’s hear what you have to say,’ ” recalled Dr. Fox, a behavioral economist at the University of California, Los Angeles. So began an effort by a team of social scientists to help their favored candidate in the 2012 presidential election. “The culture of the campaign had changed,” Dr. This election season the Obama campaign won a reputation for drawing on the tools of social science. Less well known is that the Obama campaign also had a panel of unpaid academic advisers. “In the way it used research, this was a campaign like no other,” said Todd Rogers, a psychologist at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a former director of the Analyst Institute. When asked about the outside psychologists, the Obama campaign would neither confirm nor deny a relationship with them. In addition to Dr. “A kind of dream team, in my opinion,” Dr. For example, Dr. Mr.
Narrative and Intertextuality : Working the PastNarrative and Institutional Memory Oxford Scholarship Online
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195140286.003.0008 This chapter investigates the relation between institutional stories and the ways in which members tell their own stories within this field of prior texts. It examines the notions of intertextuality and textual communities, showing how stories are shaped in relation to prior texts: direct citation and quotation, use of similar values in the evaluation of stories, critique of and rejection of prior texts. Keywords: intertextuality, prior text, conversion narrative, textual community, identity, narrative canon, canon formation Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service.
Intertextuality
Intertextuality is the shaping of a text's meaning by another text. Intertextual figures include: allusion, quotation, calque, plagiarism, translation, pastiche and parody.[1][2][3] An example of intertextuality is an author’s borrowing and transformation of a prior text or to a reader’s referencing of one text in reading another. Intertextuality and poststructuralism[edit] More recent post-structuralist theory, such as that formulated in Daniela Caselli's Beckett's Dantes: Intertextuality in the Fiction and Criticism (MUP 2005), re-examines "intertextuality" as a production within texts, rather than as a series of relationships between different texts. Some postmodern theorists [7] like to talk about the relationship between "intertextuality" and "hypertextuality"; intertextuality makes each text a "living hell of hell on earth" [8] and part of a larger mosaic of texts, just as each hypertext can be a web of links and part of the whole World-Wide Web. Competing terms[edit] See also[edit]
