Blog #6: Mind Mapping and the KWHL Table
As we mentioned in our last post, we had our students revisit Shelley v. Kraemer and Jones v. Alfred Mayer with some visual thinking and design research methods.
We approached Shelley using a mind mapping exercise (pictured above) intended to brainstorm and establish connections using a visual process (Professor Laker insisted on sharpies — no light pens or pencils!). To begin the process, we divided the class into two groups of eight students each and asked each group to come up with one group or phrase that to them represented the core of Shelley. From there, we asked them to write out connections—with words and lines—of any ideas that came to mind. The key to this process is to write quickly without much thinking, and then to observe what connections and new ideas emerge. At the end of this process, we invited students to describe the key themes of Shelley as situated through this exercise.
In the following class, we revisited Jones using a KWHL table that asks participants to consider: (1) what do you know?; (2) what do you not know?; (3) how can you find out what you don’t know?; and (4) what did you learn from this process? (Hint: the answer to #3 is not “google it”). We again divided the class into two groups of eight students each and begin by asking each student to take a few minutes individually writing out what they considered to be the key facts of the case (the first column of the KWHL table). We then had them work in their groups to complete the table and begin to make connections.
Shelley and Jones are both important and somewhat complex cases, but it is also useful to compare and contrast the two cases. Jones comes twenty years after Shelley, in a different social and cultural context. Jones involves the interplay between two federal statutes (Shelley does not involve an issue of statutory interpretation). And Shelley is a unanimous opinion (though three justices recused themselves—can you guess why?) while Jones includes a concurrence from Justice Douglas and a dissent from Justice Harlan, joined by Justice White.