A Systematic Review of Mind Maps, STEM Education, Algorithmic and Procedural Learning

Abstract

This systematic review investigates the use of mind maps in STEM education, focusing on their application, effectiveness, and contextual factors. The main objectives were to examine whether mind maps are used as learning or assessment tools, the research designs employed, the type of interaction (individual vs. collaborative), and the format (digital vs. paper-based). Studies were identified through systematic searches in ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science, including peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2019 and 2024. The inclusion criteria required empirical research studies using mind maps in STEM contexts with measurable outcomes related to learning or engagement. Studies without empirical data or not focused on STEM education were excluded. Fifty studies met the inclusion criteria. Most employed quasi-experimental designs (n = 29), including 22 with pre–post-test measurements. The mind maps were mainly used as learning tools (n = 40), in individual settings (n = 24), with student-generated (n = 36) and digital formats (n = 21) being most common. The reported outcomes included improved academic performance, conceptual understanding, critical thinking, and motivation and reduced cognitive load. The limitations included inconsistent reporting of the map types and theoretical underpinnings. The findings suggest that mind maps are effective tools for enhancing learning and engagement in STEM education and warrant broader pedagogical integration.

1. Introduction

Algorithmic learning and procedural learning are essential components of STEM education, encompassing students’ ability to understand and follow step-by-step processes, logical sequences, and structured problem-solving approaches. These skills are particularly emphasized in disciplines such as mathematics, computer science, and engineering [1,2]. Mind maps—by visually representing the relationships between concepts, steps, and sub-processes—offer a powerful way to scaffold these skills. Studies have shown that concept mapping supports the development of algorithmic thinking and procedural fluency by enhancing students’ ability to organize sequential information and identify dependencies [3,4].

Mind maps are graphical tools designed to organize and structure information in a non-linear, interconnected manner. Introduced by Tony Buzan in the 1970s, mind maps are often represented as tree-like structures, with a central idea branching out into related subtopics. Each branch may contain keywords, symbols, or images that reinforce learning and memory retention. According to Buzan (2006), mind maps utilize both verbal and visual elements to engage the whole brain, promoting comprehension and long-term recall [5]. These features have been confirmed in more recent empirical studies in STEM education [6]. Similar findings are reported in broader studies on digital learning tools that support cognitive and metacognitive development [7].

Mind maps play a significant role in STEM education by enhancing learning outcomes, fostering cognitive engagement, and improving one’s conceptual understanding. The research indicates that mind maps help students structure their knowledge by visually organizing information, making connections between concepts, and developing problem-solving strategies [1,8]. One of the key benefits of mind maps in STEM education is their ability to improve students’ knowledge retention and comprehension. Studies have shown that incorporating mind maps in mathematics and science courses leads to higher test scores and deeper conceptual understanding, particularly in areas requiring logical reasoning, such as geometry and problem-solving [6,9,10,11].

One of the key benefits of mind maps in STEM education is their ability to improve one’s knowledge retention and comprehension. Studies have shown that incorporating mind maps in mathematics courses leads to higher test scores and a deeper conceptual understanding, particularly in areas requiring logical reasoning, such as geometry [6]. By visually representing relationships between abstract ideas, students can develop stronger analytical skills, which are crucial in problem-solving-based STEM disciplines [12].

From a cognitive perspective, mind maps support the activation of both hemispheres of the brain, engaging students in spatial reasoning and logical analyses simultaneously [6]. This balance is particularly useful in STEM subjects that demand a combination of sequential thinking (e.g., solving equations in mathematics) and holistic understanding (e.g., recognizing patterns in physics or engineering). Additionally, studies have linked concept mapping activities to improvements in metacognitive skills, allowing students to monitor and regulate their learning processes [12,13,14]. These benefits align with broader educational frameworks emphasizing the importance of digital tools in fostering metacognitive growth and emotional engagement in future-oriented learning environments [15].

Furthermore, mind maps enhance students’ engagement and motivation by promoting active learning. In flipped classroom settings, for example, students who used concept maps to guide their learning activities reported higher levels of engagement and improved ability to link prior knowledge to new concepts [14,16,17]. Similarly, in engineering education, cognitive mapping techniques have been found to facilitate knowledge transfer and interdisciplinary thinking, which are essential for tackling complex STEM challenges [18].

Concept maps and mind maps are visual knowledge representation tools that are widely employed in STEM education. Although concept maps typically emphasize hierarchical or network relationships, and mind maps generally focus on radial structures for idea generation, these terms are sometimes used interchangeably or without clear differentiation in educational research [1,2,19,20]. Therefore, when synthesizing the findings from various studies, we took into account this variability in terminology and approach. For the purposes of this review, we adopted an inclusive approach and considered both types under the broader category of graphical knowledge mapping tools.

The integration of mind maps in STEM education has been widely explored, yet several critical aspects remain under discussion [21]. While the existing studies highlight the potential benefits of mind maps for learning, engagement, and cognitive processing [21], variations in their implementation, format, and pedagogical role raise important questions that require further investigation to understand their effectiveness and applicability across different learning environments. For instance, the research comparing digital and paper-based mind maps is still limited, with some studies noting differences in flexibility and user experiences [22]. Similarly, the role of mind maps in collaborative versus individual learning contexts has yet to be systematically evaluated, although the evidence suggests that collaborative mind mapping may offer distinct advantages in fostering deeper engagement and higher-quality student outcomes [23].

To guide this systematic review, the following research questions were formulated:

• What are the primary applications of mind maps in STEM education? Are they predominantly utilized as a learning tool or as an assessment instrument?
• What research designs are most commonly employed to evaluate the effectiveness of mind maps in STEM education?
• To what extent are mind maps implemented in individual learning contexts versus collaborative learning environments?
• Are mind maps in STEM education primarily student-created or are they provided as ready-made resources?
• What is the predominant format of mind maps in STEM education—paper-based or digital—and what implications does the format have for their effectiveness?
• What learning outcomes have been reported in studies examining the use of mind maps in STEM education?

By addressing these questions, this review aims to provide a structured synthesis of the existing literature on mind maps in STEM education, highlighting trends, gaps, and areas for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

To identify pertinent studies on the use of mind maps in STEM education, we conducted a comprehensive search in three primary databases: ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science. ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) was included for its extensive coverage of research and practice in education, making it a crucial source for pedagogical studies [24]. Scopus was selected for its broad, multidisciplinary scope and up-to-date indexing of peer-reviewed journals across the sciences and social sciences. Web of Science complemented these databases with its robust citation-tracking features and coverage of high-impact academic publications in STEM fields [25]. By drawing on these complementary resources, we aimed to capture both the foundational and emerging research on mind maps, ensuring that our review encompassed a diverse range of study designs, educational contexts, and disciplinary perspectives.

The systematic search and selection of studies adhered to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [10]. This framework provided a structured, transparent process for identifying, screening, determining the eligibility of, and ultimately including articles in the review. By following the PRISMA methodology, we aimed to minimize bias and ensure a replicable and rigorous selection process. Each stage—ranging from the initial database searches to the final inclusion of studies—was documented using a PRISMA flow diagram [26] (Figure 1), offering clarity on how many records were retrieved, excluded, and retained for our in-depth analysis.

Inclusion Criteria

• Use of Concept or Mind Maps in STEM Education
  The study must explicitly examine concept maps, mind maps, or similar visual learning tools within a STEM (science, technology, engineering, or mathematics) context.
• Empirical Study with Measurable Outcomes
  The research must involve quantitative or qualitative data collection (e.g., pre–post-tests, surveys, student performance metrics), demonstrating the impact of mind mapping tools on learning or related outcomes.
• Evaluation of Learning, Engagement, or Cognitive Processes
  The study must report at least one measurable aspect such as the learning performance, cognitive or metacognitive effects, engagement, or motivation.
• Recent Peer-Reviewed Publications
  Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2019 and 2024 are included. Conference papers and other forms of grey literature are excluded.
• Relevant Educational Levels
  Studies covering primary, secondary, or higher education settings are included. Studies on teacher training in STEM are also considered if they measure student learning outcomes.

Exclusion Criteria

• No Direct Use of Concept or Mind Maps
  Studies focusing on other digital tools, visualization methods, or unrelated learning techniques without concept/mind maps as a core component are excluded.
• Non-STEM Focus
  Articles that do not address science, technology, engineering, or mathematics education are excluded.
• Professional or Workforce Training Context
  Studies centered on professional development, workforce training, or corporate learning contexts rather than formal education are excluded.
• Lack of Empirical Data
  Opinion pieces, theoretical papers, systematic reviews, or any study that does not report measurable learning or engagement outcomes is excluded.
• Duplicates/Redundant Records
  Any duplicate entries identified across the searched databases are excluded from the final dataset.

All search results from ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science were imported into Mendeley, which served as the primary tool for managing references. Duplicate citations identified within Mendeley were systematically removed before proceeding with the screening process. In the first screening phase, titles and abstracts were reviewed against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., focus on mind mapping in STEM education, empirical data). Articles that clearly did not meet these criteria were discarded. Potentially eligible studies were then retrieved in full text for a second, more detailed review. During this stage, any lingering uncertainties regarding a study’s eligibility were resolved through discussion among the research team. This two-step approach ensured that only articles conforming to the specified criteria remained in the final pool for the data extraction and analysis.

A structured spreadsheet was used to document key information from each included study. For every article, we recorded basic metadata—such as the title, educational level, STEM subject, publication year, participants, and journal name—to establish the context. We then captured the primary use case (e.g., classroom instruction, assessment), the evaluation methodology (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, qualitative case study), and whether the study reported on cognitive load or other theoretical underpinnings. Additionally, we classified the intended outcomes as either learning-focused (e.g., facilitating comprehension, improving performance) or assessment-focused (e.g., evaluating student understanding through mind mapping). Finally, the key findings were noted to facilitate their later synthesis.

With regard to the mind-mapping interventions themselves, the mind map type indicated whether the mind map was pre-made (supplied by the instructor or software) or student-generated. The mind map format captured whether the mind maps were produced digitally (using specialized software) or on paper, while the interaction type distinguished between individual versus collaborative activities. This approach ensured that each study’s unique characteristics and instructional strategies were documented consistently.

To maintain consistency, one reviewer extracted data from all included studies, while a second reviewer randomly sampled a subset of articles to verify the accuracy of the extracted information. Any discrepancies identified were resolved by re-examining the original full text and discussing the differences until consensus was reached. By recording these variables systematically, we established a robust foundation for analyzing patterns, trends, and gaps within the existing literature on mind maps in STEM education.

Quality Appraisal and Risk of Bias Assessment

To assess the methodological quality and internal validity of the included studies, a quality appraisal process was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, version 2018). This tool was selected due to its suitability for evaluating diverse empirical research designs, including quantitative (randomized and non-randomized), qualitative, and mixed-methods studies [27]. Each included article was classified according to its methodological design and appraised using the corresponding set of five MMAT criteria.

For every study, a score was calculated by counting the number of criteria that were clearly met (e.g., 4/5 or 5/5), and a corresponding level of risk of bias was assigned. Studies that met all five criteria were classified as having low risk of bias, those with three or four met criteria were marked as having moderate risk, and those meeting two or fewer were considered to have high risk, following the guidance outlined in recent systematic reviews using the MMAT framework [28]. In cases where the design was descriptive or not explicitly stated, the evaluation was adapted using the MMAT’s descriptive study criteria. All appraisals were independently verified by a second reviewer (author 2) to ensure consistency, and disagreements were resolved through discussion.

The appraisal results, including the MMAT score and overall risk of bias judgment for each study, are summarized in Appendix A (

Table A1. Quality appraisal of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, version 2018). The MMAT score (out of 5) reflects the number of criteria met for the relevant study design. The risk of bias was categorized as low, moderate, or high based on scoring thresholds and methodological transparency.

Title	Research Design	Primary Applications	Learning Context	Predominant Format	Score (Yes/Total)	Quality (Risk of Bias)
Effects of Employing Mind Mapping Techniques in Geometry Instruction on Logical Thinking Abilities [6]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Ιndividual	Not Stated	5/5	Low
The Significance of Technology-Enhanced Learning towards Enhancing Engineering Education [8]	Descriptive	Learning Tool	Individual	Digital	3/5	Moderate
Lessons for Sustainable Science Education: A Study on Chemists’ Use of Systems Thinking across Ecological, Economic, and Social Domains [1]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Individual	Paper-Based	4/5	Moderate
The Role of Scientific Language Use and Achievement Level in Student Sensemaking [2]	Mixed Methods	Learning Tool	Individual	Not Stated	5/5	Low
Investigating The Transformative Effects of Active Learning Methodologies in The Field of Engineering Education to Improve Learning Outcomes in Students by Unleashing Their Potential [43]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Mixed	Not Stated	5/5	Low
Validation of the Use of Concept Maps as an Evaluation Tool for the Teaching and Learning of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering [29]	Mixed Methods	Learning Tool	Mixed	Both	5/5	Low
Optimizing Inquiry-Based Science Education: Verifying the Learning Effectiveness of Augmented Reality and Concept Mapping in Elementary School [37]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Collaborative	Not Stated	5/5	Low
Concept Maps as Assessment for Learning in University Mathematics [12]	Quasi-Experimental	Assessment Tool	Individual	Digital	5/5	Low
Learning with Interactive Knowledge Representations [17]	Case Study	Learning Tool	Mixed	Digital	5/5	Low
Square Pegs and Round Holes: Pedagogy for Autistic Students in Computing Education [52]	Descriptive	Learning Tool	Mixed	Not Stated	4/5	Moderate
Conceptual Modeling Enables Systems Thinking in Sustainable Chemistry and Chemical Engineering [9]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Collaborative	Paper-Based	5/5	Low
Empirical Evidence That Concept Mapping Reduces Neurocognitive Effort During Concept Generation for Sustainability [51]	Mixed Methods	Learning Tool	Individual	Not Stated	5/5	Low
Using Immersive and Modelling Environments to Build Scientific Capacity in Primary Preservice Teacher Education [39]	Descriptive	Assessment Tool	Collaborative	Paper-Based	4/5	Moderate
A Novel Methodology for Improving Teaching Learning Process and Its Outcome on 2K Students for Engineering Education [46]	Mixed Methods	Learning Tool	Individual	Not Stated	5/5	Low
Mind Mapping in Learning Models: A Tool to Improve Student Metacognitive Skills [13]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Individual	Not Stated	4/5	Moderate
Experiencing the Essence of Learning Database Management System Course Using C-map Tool [3]	Case Study	Learning Tool	Collaborative	Digital	3/5	High
Concept Mapping in Magnetism and Electrostatics: Core Concepts and Development over Time [40]	Quasi-Experimental	Assessment Tool	Individual	Digital	4/5	Moderate
Using a Concept Map With RECALL to Increase the Comprehension of Science Texts for Children With Autism [47]	Case Study	Learning Tool	Individual	Paper-Based	4/5	Moderate
Measuring the Amorphous: Substantive and Methodological Outcomes from Concept Maps [30]	Quasi-Experimental	Assessment Tool	Individual	Paper-Based	4/5	Moderate
Use of Digital Mind Maps in Technology Education: A Pilot Study with Pre-Service Science Teachers [22]	Case Study	Learning Tool	Mixed	Both	5/5	Low
Are Cross-Border Classes Feasible for Students to Collaborate in the Analysis of Energy Efficiency Strategies for Socioeconomic Development While Keeping CO2 Concentration Controlled? [61]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Collaborative	Digital	4/5	Moderate
Powering Up Flipped Learning: An Online Learning Environment with a Concept Map-Guided Problem-Posing Strategy [16]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Mixed	Digital	4/5	Moderate
Analysis of the Effectiveness of Architectural Creative Learning Methods [34]	Descriptive	Learning Tool	Individual	Paper-Based	4/5	Low
How Do Students Generate Ideas Together in Scientific Creativity Tasks Through Computer-Based Mind Mapping? [60]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Collaborative	Digital	4/5	Moderate
Knowledge Organisers for Learning: Examples, Non-Examples and Concept Maps in University Mathematics [10]	Case Study	Learning Tool	Individual	Paper-Based	5/5	Low
Coalescing Mind Maps as a Learning Aid and Formative Assessment Tool for Effective Teaching and Learning of Computer Architecture and Organization Course [11]	Case Study	Learning Tool	Mixed	Paper-Based	5/5	Low
A Concept Mapping-Based Self-Regulated Learning Approach to Promoting Students’ Learning Achievement and Self-Regulation in STEM Activities [14]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Collaborative	Digital	5/5	Low
The Effectiveness of Collaborative Mind Mapping in Hong Kong Primary Science Classrooms [35]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Collaborative	Paper-Based	5/5	Low
Fostering Computational Thinking and Problem-Solving in Programming: Integrating Concept Maps Into Robot Block-Based Programming [4]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Individual	Digital	4/5	Moderate
Using Concept Maps to Analyze Educators’ Conceptions of STEM Education [62]	Case Study	Learning Tool	Individual	Not Stated	5/5	Low
Knowledge Check-Based Concept Mapping in Digital Games: Impacts on Students’ Learning Performance and Behaviors [41]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Individual	Digital	5/5	Low
Promoting Children’s Inquiry Performances in Alternate Reality Games: A Mobile Concept Mapping-Based Questioning Approach [53]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Mixed	Digital	5/5	Low
Concept Mapping as a Metacognition Tool in a Problem-Solving-Based BME Course During In-Person and Online Instruction [31]	Quasi-Experimental	Assessment Tool	Mixed	Both	4/5	Moderate
Improving Self-Efficacy With Automatically Generated Interactive Concept Maps: DIME Maps [48]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Individual	Digital	5/5	Low
Do Graphic and Textual Interactive Content Organizers Have the Same Impact on Hypertext Processing and Learning Outcomes? [65]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Individual	Digital	5/5	Low
Molecular Orbital Theory—Teaching a Difficult Chemistry Topic Using a CSCL Approach in a First-Year University Course [54]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Collaborative	Digital	4/5	Moderate
What Factors Influence Scientific Concept Learning? A Study Based on the Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis [55]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Collaborative	Paper-Based	5/5	Low
A Concept Map-Based Community of Inquiry Framework for Virtual Learning Contexts to Enhance Students’ Earth Science Learning Achievement and Reflection Tendency [50]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Mixed	Digital	5/5	Low
Does Learning from Giving Feedback Depend on the Product Being Reviewed: Concept Maps or Answers to Test Questions? [32]	Quasi-Experimental	Assessment Tool	Individual	Digital	5/5	Low
The Use of Activity, Classroom Discussion, and Exercise (ACE) Teaching Cycle for Improving Students’ Engagement in Learning Elementary Linear Algebra [56]	Mixed Methods	Learning Tool	Mixed	Paper-Based	5/5	Low
Synthesizing Research Narratives to Reveal the Big Picture: A CREATE(S) Intervention Modified for Journal Club Improves Undergraduate Science Literacy [57]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Mixed	Paper-Based	4/5	Moderate
Comprehension-Oriented Learning of Cell Biology: Do Different Training Conditions Affect Students’ Learning Success Differentially? [58]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Individual	Paper-Based	4/5	Moderate
Online Argumentation-Based Learning Aided by Digital Concept Mapping During COVID-19: Implications for Health Management Teaching and Learning [42]	Case Study	Learning Tool	Mixed	Digital	5/5	Low
Pedagogically-Informed Knowledge Mapping: Representing Contextualised Competences and Technology Implemented [49]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Mixed	Digital	4/5	Moderate
Assessing Concept Mapping Competence Using Item Expansion-Based Diagnostic Classification Analysis [38]	Quasi-Experimental	Assessment Tool	Individual	Paper-Based	4/5	Moderate
The Effectiveness of Collaborative Mind Maps in Learning and Teaching Applied Technologies to Mathematics [63]	Mixed Methods	Learning Tool	Collaborative	Digital	5/5	Low
Determining the Effect of Concept Cards on Students’ Perception of Physics Concepts with Concept Mapping [59]	Mixed Methods	Assessment Tool	Individual	Paper-Based	5/5	Low
Evaluating STEM-Based Sustainability Understanding: A Cognitive Mapping Approach [18]	Mixed Methods	Assessment Tool	Individual	Paper-Based	5/5	Low
From Science Class to Studio: Supporting Transformative Sustainability Learning Among Future Designers [33]	Mixed Methods	Assessment Tool	Mixed	Paper-Based	5/5	Low
Introducing Mindset Streams to Investigate Stances Towards STEM in High School Students and Experts [45]	Quasi-Experimental	Learning Tool	Individual	Both	5/5	Low

). This assessment provides transparency in evaluating the methodological rigor of the included studies and serves as a foundation for interpreting the reliability of the synthesized findings.

To integrate findings across the diverse set of studies, we employed a narrative synthesis approach. After data extraction, we organized the included articles based on major categories—such as the mind map type (pre-made vs. student-generated), mind map format (digital vs. paper-based), educational level, and intended outcomes (learning vs. assessment). This categorization allowed us to compare studies that shared similar characteristics, highlighting recurring patterns and distinct differences in their reported approaches and findings.

3. Results

This section presents the findings of the systematic review on the use of mind maps in STEM education. The analysis focused on the primary applications of mind maps, the research designs employed, the learning contexts in which they are implemented, the predominant formats used, and the reported learning outcomes. The reviewed studies span various educational levels and STEM disciplines, providing a comprehensive overview of how mind maps contribute to teaching and learning in these fields.

To ensure a structured synthesis, the findings are organized according to the research questions guiding this review. Initially, a summary table is provided (see Appendix A, Table A1), outlining key characteristics of the analyzed studies, including their objectives, methodologies, and main conclusions along with the MMAT scores and the corresponding risk of bias assessments. Following this, a more detailed discussion explores the trends and patterns identified across the selected studies.

The overview of the included studies is presented in Appendix A (Table A1).

3.1. Primary Applications of Mind Maps in STEM Education

A key objective of this review was to determine whether mind maps are predominantly utilized as learning tools or assessment instruments in STEM education. The analysis of the selected studies revealed that mind maps are primarily employed as learning tools (n = 40), whereas a smaller subset (n = 10) focused on their use as assessment instruments (Figure 2). Representative examples include Menouer et al. [6], Veiga et al. [29], and Petrun Sayers et al. [18] for learning tools, and Evans and Jeong [12] and Foley et al. [30] for assessment tools.

The majority of studies emphasize the role of mind maps in supporting knowledge organization, conceptual understanding, and problem-solving skills [6,9,29]. Mind maps serve as visual aids that enable students to structure information, identify relationships between concepts, and enhance their comprehension of complex STEM topics [10,30]. Several studies highlight their effectiveness in fostering active learning, promoting student engagement, and facilitating metacognitive reflection [14,16,31].

A smaller but significant body of research examines the use of mind maps as assessment tools. These studies demonstrate that concept mapping can serve as an alternative assessment method for evaluating student comprehension and cognitive structures [11,12]. Some research studies suggest that mind maps provide insights into students’ thought processes and misconceptions, making them valuable for formative assessments [11,32].

3.2. Research Designs for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Mind Maps in STEM Education

The reviewed studies employed a variety of research designs to investigate the impact of mind maps in STEM education. The most prevalent approach was quasi-experimental research (n = 29), as seen in studies such as those by Menouer et al. [6], Fang et al. [14], and Hwang et al. [16], with the majority (n = 22) incorporating pre- and post-test measurements to assess learning gains. This suggests a strong emphasis on quantifying the effectiveness of mind maps in improving student outcomes. Additionally, case studies (n = 8) were also employed, including in the studies by Sagarika an Syedkhamruddin [3] and Bredeweg et al. [17], allowing for in-depth qualitative insights. Mixed-methods research (n = 9), such as in the studies by Veiga et al. [29] and Chen et al. [33], combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to capture broader outcomes. A smaller number of studies (n = 4) adopted descriptive designs, such as for Waghmare et al. [8] and Dewi et al. [34], focusing on observational insights without intervention.

The widespread use of quasi-experimental and mixed-methods approaches highlights a growing trend toward evidence-based evaluations of mind maps’ effectiveness in STEM education (Figure 3). The full distribution of the studies by research design is provided in Appendix A, Table A1.

3.3. Individual vs. Collaborative Learning Contexts

The implementation of mind maps in STEM education varies between individual and collaborative learning contexts. Mind maps are most commonly used in individual learning settings (n = 24), as seen in the studies by Menouer et al. [6], Debbag et al. [22], and Jeong and Evans [10], where students independently constructed mind maps to organize knowledge and for improved understanding. Collaborative applications (n = 11) were employed in studies such as those by Krab-Hüsken et al. [9] and Fung and Liang [35], highlighting the group co-construction of maps to foster peer interaction and problem-solving. A mixed approach (n = 15), combining both individual and group activities, was found in the studies by Hwang et al. [16] and Susithra et al. [11], where students began mapping individually and later collaborated to refine their ideas. Overall, while individual use remains the dominant approach, the increasing application of collaborative and mixed methods suggests a shift toward more interactive and socially engaged learning experiences in STEM education (Figure 4). The complete list of studies by learning context is presented in Appendix A, Table A1.

3.4. Student-Created vs. Ready-Made Mind Maps

An important consideration in the use of mind maps in STEM education is whether they are constructed by students or provided as ready-made resources. The findings indicate that student-created mind maps are the predominant approach (n = 36), as illustrated in studies such as those by Fang et al. [14], Chen and Chung [4], and Astriani et al. [13], suggesting a strong emphasis on active engagement, knowledge construction, and self-regulated learning. In contrast, ready-made mind maps (n = 9) in the studies by Debbag et al. [22] and Krab-Hüsken et al. [9] were typically used to scaffold instructions and provide pre-structured knowledge frameworks. Additionally, 5 studies did not explicitly state whether their mind maps were student-created or ready-made, indicating a gap in the reporting of this methodological aspect. The full classification of the studies based on map origin is available in Appendix A, Table A1.

Student-generated mind maps are often associated with higher cognitive engagement, as they require learners to actively organize information and establish connections between concepts. On the other hand, ready-made mind maps can be beneficial for scaffolding learning, particularly when introducing complex topics or supporting students with limited prior knowledge. The choice between these two approaches may depend on the learning objectives, student proficiency levels, and instructional design considerations (Figure 5). This aligns with previous research highlighting the importance of adapting digital learning tools, such as mind maps, to support the diverse needs of students, including gifted learners [36].

3.5. Predominant Format of Mind Maps

The format of mind maps—whether paper-based or digital—can influence their effectiveness in STEM education. The findings indicate that digital mind maps are slightly more prevalent (n = 21), as shown in studies such as those by Chen and Chung [4], Hwang et al. [16], and Veiga et al. [29], where digital tools supported interactivity and multimedia integration. Paper-based formats (n = 18) were used in the studies by Krab-Hüsken et al. [9] and Jeong and Evans [10], often favoring traditional sketching for conceptual organization and spatial memory retention. Some studies (n = 4) combined both formats, as in the study by Debbag et al. [22], while 9 studies did not specify the format employed (Figure 6). Digital mind maps offer advantages in flexibility, interactivity, and ease of modification, making them particularly useful for dynamic learning environments and collaborative activities [4,16,29]. Many digital tools also integrate features such as hyperlinks, multimedia elements, and automatic structuring, which can enhance students’ engagement and comprehension [22]. On the other hand, paper-based mind maps are still widely used, particularly in traditional classroom settings where students sketch out their ideas manually [9,10]. Some research suggests that the physical act of drawing mind maps may strengthen students’ cognitive processing and support spatial memory retention [10]. However, paper-based maps lack the ease of revision and organization offered by digital alternatives [22].

The studies that used both formats (n = 4) indicate that hybrid approaches may provide the best of both worlds, allowing students to brainstorm on paper before transferring ideas into digital tools for refinement and sharing [22].

3.6. Learning Outcomes in Mind Mapping for STEM Education

In the studies we examined, various learning outcomes were reported as a result of using mind maps in STEM education. These outcomes were categorized to help better understand the impacts of mind maps on student learning and achievement. The categories are discussed below.

3.6.1. Academic Performance and Problem-Solving

The use of concept maps in STEM education has been shown to significantly improve students’ academic performance and problem-solving abilities [6,30]. Studies report notable improvements in test scores, problem-solving efficiency, and engagement. For instance, students’ analysis and conclusion skills were significantly enhanced, with their reasoning skills showing marked improvements [6]. Concept maps also contributed to more complex individual maps, which in turn positively influenced students’ academic performance [29]. Furthermore, concept mapping reduced students’ textbook reading time and boosted their problem-solving efficiency, with the experimental group scoring significantly higher in the post-tests [37]. Students who used concept maps also demonstrated better end-of-semester exam performance and found the tool effective for visualizing complex topics and connecting prior knowledge with new concepts [30]. In engineering education, concept maps helped students integrate social and technical dimensions of sociotechnical systems, making them a valuable tool for assessing learning outcomes [3]. Additionally, in the context of computational thinking, concept maps helped students structure programming logic, debug errors, and increase engagement [4]. Knowledge mapping also supported students’ personalized learning and competence development, although the initial cognitive load was higher for unfamiliar students [38].

3.6.2. Conceptual Understanding and Knowledge Organization

Concept maps in STEM education have been shown to significantly enhance students’ conceptual understanding and their ability to organize knowledge [8,10]. Studies have highlighted that concept maps help students visually organize and connect ideas, fostering clarity, creativity, and accuracy in their learning [8]. Concept maps were particularly effective in representing complex systems, such as sustainability systems, and helped students develop systems thinking by linking various elements such as leverage points and delays [1]. However, not all students were able to produce structured maps; while high-achieving students showed precise language use, they did not always create well-structured sensemaking maps, and contextual factors played a role in these outcomes [2]. The use of concept maps also improved students’ understanding of ecology concepts, promoting a shift from surface learning to a deeper understanding [39]. Over time, the concept maps have grown more integrated, with abstract terms becoming more central, reflecting a nonlinear process of conceptual change [40]. Concept maps also facilitated deeper connections between mathematical concepts, helping students support relational reasoning and achieve higher scores by spending more time on tasks [10]. The alignment between formative and summative assessments showed that mind maps effectively enhanced students’ ability to connect and integrate concepts for exam preparation [11]. In sustainability education, cognitive mapping improved the interconnectedness of sustainability concepts among STEM students, revealing significant improvements in conceptual complexity [18]. Moreover, design-centric courses that incorporated concept mapping fostered more transformative learning experiences, although the students needed further engagement beyond conceptual mastery for real-world application [33].

3.6.3. Critical Thinking and Higher-Order Skills

Mind mapping has proven to be an effective tool for enhancing critical thinking and higher-order thinking skills in STEM education [41,42]. Studies have indicated that concept maps positively impacted not only critical thinking but also motivation and teamwork skills [43]. Additionally, mind mapping was linked to significant improvements in metacognitive skills, such as the ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate learning processes, with post-test scores showing substantial gains [13]. These findings are in line with metacognitive models highlighting the role of visual tools such as mind maps in enhancing memory operations and self-regulated learning strategies through digital environments [44]. The use of concept maps also helped students engage more deeply in problem-solving and critical thinking, especially in group settings, where scaffolding from concept maps enhanced students’ learning outcomes and reduced problem-posing challenges [16]. In [41], the use of concept mapping through the KC-CMG strategy improved students’ learning achievement, problem-solving awareness, and critical thinking, with the students showing a greater tendency to revisit concept maps after mistakes, which in turn improved their motivation and reflection. Furthermore, concept mapping facilitated the development of higher-order thinking skills in structured debates and a healthcare argument synthesis, promoting a transition from passive to active learning [42]. Although some students initially struggled with structuring their arguments, the overall cognitive load was reduced over time, allowing the students to engage more effectively in higher-order thinking tasks.

3.6.4. Motivation, Engagement, and Self-Efficacy

Mind mapping has been found to significantly enhance motivation, engagement, and self-efficacy in STEM education [12,45]. Several studies have demonstrated that concept maps not only improve academic outcomes but also boost students’ emotional resilience and confidence. One study showed that concept mapping explained a significant variance in final exam scores, while also being linked to emotional regulation, suggesting its potential to enhance students’ self-efficacy during learning [12]. Other tools, such as DynaLearn, Minds-On, and ICC, were also found to enhance learner engagement and students’ conceptual understanding, particularly in systems thinking, although further scaffolding was needed for optimal use [17]. Additionally, students using mind maps showed higher concept understanding and better retention, with increased motivation and confidence in exams, indicating that mind mapping served as an effective study aid [46]. Another study found significant improvements in comprehension scores, along with positive feedback from parents on increased interest and engagement in reading, further demonstrating the effectiveness of mind maps in motivating students [47]. Further evidence revealed that concept mapping significantly boosted self-efficacy and self-regulation, with students displaying better goal-setting and time management skills, as well as increased participation and motivation in STEM projects [14]. Another study showed that DIME maps had a strong positive impact on self-efficacy, with female students particularly benefiting, although some found the maps overwhelming initially due to their information density [48]. Finally, knowledge mapping was found to support personalized learning and competence development, leading to better project performance, although the initial cognitive load was high for unfamiliar students [49]. A previous study also highlighted how students associated STEM with anxiety and negativity, indicating the potential of mindset-focused interventions to improve engagement with STEM [45].

3.6.5. Cognitive Load and Information Processing

Mind mapping has been shown to significantly affect the cognitive load and information processing in STEM education [50]. Several studies have indicated that concept maps help reduce the cognitive load by organizing complex ideas and improving information retrieval. For example, concept mapping was found to reduce the neurocognitive effort compared to traditional brainstorming, with students reporting higher satisfaction and effectiveness in organizing ideas and generating innovative solutions [51]. However, physical computing, unplugged computing, and PRIMM were highly rated for autistic students due to their emphasis on hands-on and visual learning, while concept maps ranked lower due to challenges in their implementation and perceived difficulty [52]. Another study highlighted the advantages of PBMM (physical-based mind mapping) for psychomotor development and collaborative learning, while DMM (digital mind mapping) was preferred for its multimedia capabilities, such as easy editing and the addition of images and videos [22]. The study also found that combining methods such as biodrawing followed by mind mapping helped to maximize the learning outcomes, even though the mind maps were valuable mainly for early-stage brainstorming [34]. In terms of learning achievement, one study revealed that ARG-CMQ (augmented reality game-based concept mapping) significantly improved students’ learning outcomes in single-player phases, although it led to a higher cognitive load and struggles with complex information processing in multiplayer phases [53]. Similarly, in another study, students reported that concept maps helped identify knowledge gaps and improve their problem-solving approaches, although there was no significant impact on the final performance [31]. Concept maps improved students’ navigation coherence and helped them engage more deeply in the learning process but they could also be overwhelming for some students, especially early on [54]. In collaborative learning settings, concept mapping helped improve students’ conceptual understanding, although structured guidance was needed to reduce the cognitive overload. The combination of augmented reality (AR) and concept mapping also improved students’ learning performance, particularly for those students with low prior knowledge, as it helped to reduce the cognitive load and improve their knowledge retention [55]. Furthermore, in virtual reality (VR) contexts, concept maps enhanced students’ learning achievement and reflection, although some students preferred more interactive feedback mechanisms [50]. Another study showed that higher-quality feedback was a stronger predictor of learning success compared to the product type, such as concept mapping [32]. Concept mapping also facilitated a shift from surface learning to deeper learning strategies, improving student engagement and reducing rote memorization [56]. Additionally, in science literacy, synthesis maps were found to improve learning outcomes, with students performing better in journal club presentations by structuring research narratives with improved logical flow [57]. Finally, concept mapping training was shown to improve long-term retention and reduce the cognitive load, with students outperforming control groups and showing enhanced organizational skills and error detection accuracy [58]. Lastly, concept cards were found to enhance the concept mapping performance by helping students recall concepts faster and making learning more engaging, especially for low-scoring students [59].

3.6.6. Collaboration and Communication Skills

Mind mapping has been shown to significantly enhance collaboration and communication skills in STEM education [9,60]. Studies have indicated that concept maps support conceptual modeling, which helps students structure their ideas and promotes systems thinking. This also led to improved collaboration in group projects, fostering engagement and openness to diverse perspectives, with students recommending additional scaffolding and feedback to support the process [9]. In cross-border discussions, concept maps were used to effectively summarize ideas, capture connections, and facilitate collaboration, fostering critical thinking. The cross-border format revealed gaps in the conceptual understanding, such as proportional reasoning, which were identified during collaborative learning [61]. Furthermore, high-performing groups were more effective in divergent thinking strategies and regulative discussions, which led to enhanced idea generation and improved collaborative discussions. In contrast, lower-performing groups struggled with integrating divergent thinking and mind mapping [60]. The integration of concept mapping into STEM projects led to significant improvements in self-efficacy, self-regulation, and project outcomes, helping students develop better goal-setting, task strategy, time management, and reflection skills, all of which contributed to increased participation and motivation [35]. In computational contexts, students using concept maps demonstrated better problem-solving and computational thinking, with higher engagement reported [62]. Finally, collaborative mind mapping was found to improve organization and engagement, particularly in mathematics education. It enhanced students’ information retention and critical thinking, although some students experienced cognitive overload when organizing large datasets. The study suggested that students engaged in the continued use of mind maps would benefit from further training in structuring such maps effectively [63].

Figure 6 visually represents the key outcomes identified across the studies, providing a clearer understanding of how mind maps influence different aspects of student performance and skills in STEM education. In order to provide transparency regarding the distribution of studies across the six outcome categories presented in Figure 7,

Table 1. Mapping of reviewed studies to learning outcome categories.

Learning Outcome Category	Studies
Academic Performance and Problem-Solving	[3,4,6,29,30,37,38]
Conceptual Understanding and Knowledge Organization	[1,2,8,10,11,18,33,39,40]
Critical Thinking and Higher-Order Thinking Skills	[13,16,41,42,43]
Motivation, Engagement, and Self-Efficacy	[12,14,17,45,46,47,48,49]
Cognitive Load and Information Processing	[22,23,31,32,34,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58],
Collaboration and Communication Skills	[9,35,60,61,62,63]

below lists the specific articles associated with each category.

4. Discussion

The validity and generalizability of the findings in this review are shaped by the methodological quality of the included studies. As indicated in the quality appraisal using the MMAT (2018), the majority of studies (n = 31) were rated as having low risk of bias, while 18 studies were classified as moderate-risk and 1 as high-risk (Appendix A, Table A1). Although this distribution suggests that the overall evidence base is relatively strong, the presence of studies with moderate or high risk of bias—particularly those lacking control groups, using small samples, or providing limited methodological transparency—may affect the robustness of some conclusions. For example, several descriptive studies and case studies did not clearly specify the type or format of the mind maps used, limiting their replicability. Consequently, while the findings highlight the positive impacts of mind maps on learning and engagement in STEM education, they should be interpreted with caution. Further research employing more rigorous experimental designs and transparent reporting is needed to enhance the reliability and transferability of the results across different educational contexts.

The results of this systematic review on the use of mind maps in STEM education reveal several important findings regarding their application and effectiveness and the various factors that influence their use in educational settings. The following discussion will provide an interpretation of these results, highlighting their implications for educational practice, and suggesting directions for future research.

The findings show that mind maps are predominantly employed as learning tools rather than assessment instruments. This is evident in studies such as those Menouer et al. [6] and Fang et al. [14], where mind maps were used to support knowledge construction and problem-solving. The widespread use of mind maps in individual learning contexts emphasizes their role in organizing knowledge, improving one’s conceptual understanding, and supporting problem-solving skills [8,10]. However, the smaller subset of studies using mind maps as assessment tools, including those by Evans and Jeong [12] and Susithra et al. [11], indicate their potential in evaluating students’ cognitive structures and comprehension. These findings contribute to the growing body of research suggesting that concept mapping can serve as a formative assessment tool, providing insights into students’ thought processes and misconceptions [31,50].

The majority of studies employed quasi-experimental designs, often incorporating pre- and post-test measurements, as shown in the studies by Huang et al. [30] and Hwang et al. [16], suggesting a strong emphasis on measuring the effectiveness of mind maps in improving learning outcomes. The use of case studies (e.g., Sagarika and Syedkhamruddin [3]; Bredeweg et al. [17]) and mixed-methods designs (e.g., Veiga et al. [29]; Chen et al. [38]) further highlights the value of combining quantitative and qualitative data. The predominance of quasi-experimental designs reinforces the importance of using evidence-based approaches in educational research. However, several studies call for more robust longitudinal investigations to better explore the long-term effects of mind maps on student learning outcomes and retention [32,57].

The results indicate that student-created mind maps are the dominant approach, supporting the view that active engagement in knowledge construction leads to higher cognitive engagement [4,14,38]. This aligns with the constructivist theory, which emphasizes the importance of learners actively building their own knowledge. On the other hand, ready-made mind maps serve as valuable scaffolds, particularly in studies such as those by Krab-Hüsken et al. [9] and Debbag et al. [22], which provided s structure for complex content or novice learners. The mixed approach reported in studies such as the one performed by Hwang et al. [16] suggests that a hybrid model might offer the best of both worlds, allowing students to begin with their own representations and refine them using pre-structured maps.

The results show a slight preference for digital mind maps, which offer greater flexibility and interactivity and the ability to integrate multimedia elements. These findings reflect the growing trend of using technology-supported tools in education, which aligns with previous research that emphasizes the advantages of digital tools in enhancing students’ engagement and conceptual understanding [7,36,64]. However, the continued use of paper-based maps suggests that traditional tools still play a significant role in education, particularly in settings where digital access is limited. Studies that use both formats indicate the potential of a hybrid approach, where students begin with paper-based maps to facilitate brainstorming and then transfer their ideas into digital tools for further development and sharing. This hybrid model provides a balanced approach, combining the tactile benefits of paper with the organizational advantages of digital tools.

The results demonstrate that mind mapping significantly improves students’ academic performance, as evidenced by improvements in test scores, exam performance, and problem-solving efficiency. These findings align with previous research that has shown the effectiveness of visual tools such as concept maps in helping students organize and retain complex information [3,37,38]. The positive correlation between concept map quality and learning outcomes suggests that these tools can be particularly effective for exam preparation [11]. Furthermore, the reduction in textbook reading and increased problem-solving efficiency indicate that concept maps allow students to internalize knowledge more effectively, promoting deeper cognitive processing. These findings align with the principles of algorithmic and procedural learning, where students must follow structured steps and logical sequences to arrive at solutions. Mind maps can support this process by helping learners break down complex problems into manageable components and visualize dependencies between steps. In programming and mathematical contexts, such structured visual thinking is particularly beneficial for developing algorithmic fluency and procedural accuracy.

Future research should aim to investigate the long-term effects of mind mapping on learning retention through longitudinal studies, as well as explore its differentiated impacts across STEM disciplines. Comparative studies between digital and paper-based mind maps—especially in collaborative versus individual learning settings—could offer deeper insights into their context-specific effectiveness. In addition, the development of standardized evaluation tools for measuring cognitive, metacognitive, and affective outcomes in mind-map-based interventions would enhance the consistency and comparability across studies.

Limitations

This review combined studies using both concept maps and mind maps, despite their acknowledged structural and methodological differences. While this reflects common usage patterns in the reviewed literature, it may have introduced some variability in the synthesis of the findings. Future research could benefit from explicitly distinguishing between these tools to further clarify their specific impacts on learning outcomes.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review highlights the multifaceted role of mind maps in STEM education, emphasizing their effectiveness as both learning and assessment tools. The majority of studies demonstrate that mind maps significantly enhance students’ academic performance, conceptual understanding, critical thinking, and engagement. Student-generated maps, in particular, appear to support active learning and cognitive development, while digital formats offer greater interactivity and adaptability to modern educational contexts. Furthermore, mind mapping has been associated with increased motivation and self-efficacy, especially when integrated into collaborative or mixed learning environments. While most studies reported reductions in cognitive load, some noted that unfamiliarity with the technique or excessive complexity could cause temporarily increased mental effort. Despite these positive outcomes, the review also reveals gaps in the literature, particularly regarding the long-term effects of mind mapping, its use across different STEM subjects, and the comparative impacts of digital versus paper-based formats. Future research should aim to standardize the assessment approaches, explore the scalability of mind maps across diverse educational settings, and further examine their role in promoting self-regulated and interdisciplinary learning. Mind maps offer a promising, research-supported strategy for enriching STEM education. Their continued integration—guided by empirical evidence and thoughtful instructional design—can support deeper, more connected, and more personalized learning experiences for students at all levels.