SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

0.0

H-Index

GeoEdu Insight Journal: Geography and Education Geography

an Open Access Journal

Implementation of Mind Mapping in Social Studies Learning to Improve Junior High School Students' Conceptual Understanding: A Classroom Action Study

Wa Ode Lismawati
State Junior High School 15 Bau Bau
Indonesia
Lismawati11@gmail.com
Mohamad Fajar
Universitas Muslim Buton
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to examine the effectiveness of implementing Mind Mapping in Social Studies learning to improve junior high school students’ conceptual understanding through a structured classroom action research framework conducted in iterative instructional cycles.

    Methodology: This study employed Classroom Action Research based on the Kemmis and McTaggart cyclical model. The research was conducted in two cycles at State Junior High School 15 Bau Bau involving 34 Grade VII students. Instruments included observation sheets, performance assessment rubrics for mind maps, and written achievement tests. Data were analyzed using descriptive percentage and mean score comparison techniques.

    Main Findings: The findings show a substantial improvement in students’ conceptual understanding and participation. Mastery levels increased from 20.59% in the pretest to 85.29% in Cycle I and reached 100% in Cycle II. The mean score improved from 68.1 to 77.9. The quality of students’ mind maps became more structured and conceptually coherent. Student participation in questioning, responding, presenting, and constructing visual representations increased consistently across instructional cycles.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study integrates Mind Mapping as a central instructional strategy within a cyclical classroom action research design to systematically strengthen conceptual understanding. Unlike studies focusing primarily on achievement outcomes, this research emphasizes iterative refinement and conceptual representation quality, thereby contributing a structured model for embedding visual learning strategies into reflective Social Studies pedagogy.

  • How to cite

    Implementation of Mind Mapping in Social Studies Learning to Improve Junior High School Students’ Conceptual Understanding: A Classroom Action Study. (2026). GeoEdu Insight Journal: Geography and Education Geography, 1(2), 117-123. https://doi.org/10.37251/gedij.v1i2.3547

    More Citation Formats

  • 13
    Abstract views
    13
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. Q. Ayaz, M. Abubakari, and J. Hussain, “A policy and institutional analysis of urban transport system: the case of Pakistan’ s Lahore in the context of COVID-19,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2406638.
    2. L. A. Rivera-flórez et al., “Community mapping based on Milton Santos as a tool for disaster response and risk management in self-built communities: case study of El Pacífico, Medellin, Colombia,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2307181.
    3. Y. Wang and Y. Zhu, “Unlocking futures literacy: Essential skills for students for an evolving world,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 2588021, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2588021.
    4. G. Ika Sari, S. Winasis, I. Pratiwi, U. Wildan Nuryanto, and Basrowi, “Strengthening digital literacy in Indonesia: Collaboration, innovation, and sustainability education,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 10, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101100.
    5. J. Zeng, S. Parks, and J. Shang, “To learn scientifically, effectively, and enjoyably: A review of educational games,” Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 186–195, Apr. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.188.
    6. L. K. Allen and P. Kendeou, “ED-AI Lit: An interdisciplinary framework for AI literacy in education,” Policy Insights from Behav. Brain Sci., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3–10, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1177/23727322231220339.
    7. H. Nurasa, A. Abdillah, and Q. M. Adikancana, “Organization ecosystem for inclusive development in Indonesia: a bibliometric analysis and literature review,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2368949.
    8. A. Barcaui, “ChatGPT as a cognitive crutch: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial on knowledge retention,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 12, p. 102287, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102287.
    9. F. Garcia I Grau, C. Valls, N. Piqué, and H. Ruiz-Martín, “The long-term effects of introducing the 5E model of instruction on students’ conceptual learning,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1441–1458, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2021.1918354.
    10. H. Dack and N. Triplett, “Novice social studies teachers’ implementation of differentiation: A longitudinal multicase study,” Theory Res. Soc. Educ., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 32–73, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1080/00933104.2019.1640149.
    11. D. G. Krutka, S. A. Metzger, and R. Z. Seitz, “‘Technology inevitably involves trade-offs’: The framing of technology in social studies standards,” Theory Res. Soc. Educ., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 226–254, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1080/00933104.2022.2042444.
    12. P. Capin, E. A. Stevens, A. A. Stewart, E. Swanson, and S. Vaughn, “Examining vocabulary, reading comprehension, and content knowledge instruction during fourth grade social studies teaching,” Read. Writ., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1143–1170, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11145-020-10106-5.
    13. C. Cho, “Use of photovoice in pre-service geography teachers’ conceptions of geography,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2023, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2235171.
    14. J. Tooley, “Spatial influences on first impressions: a case study on how stranger behavior is judged in urban transitional spaces,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2354968.
    15. M. Fanguy, M. Baldwin, E. Shmeleva, K. Lee, and J. Costley, “How collaboration influences the effect of note-taking on writing performance and recall of contents,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 4057–4071, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1950772.
    16. L. J. Ball and B. T. Christensen, “Chapter 2 - How sticky notes support cognitive and socio-cognitive processes in the generation and exploration of creative ideas,” in Explorations in Creativity Research, B. T. Christensen, K. Halskov, and C. N. B. T.-S. C. Klokmose, Eds., Academic Press, 2020, pp. 19–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816566-9.00002-1.
    17. A. Al-Sharman et al., “Exploring the impact of note taking methods on cognitive function among university students,” BMC Med. Educ., vol. 25, no. 1, p. 1218, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07593-x.
    18. L.-M. Wienecke, D. Leiss, and T. Ehmke, “Highlight, write, elaborate: Note-taking strategies to master reality-based mathematical tasks,” J. für Math., vol. 46, no. 2, p. 12, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s13138-025-00263-x.
    19. V. Delauer et al., “The impact of natural environments and biophilic design as supportive and nurturing spaces on a residential college campus,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2022, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2021.2000570.
    20. H. Stokhof, B. de Vries, T. Bastiaens, and R. Martens, “Using mind maps to make student questioning effective: Learning outcomes of a principle-based scenario for teacher guidance,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 203–225, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11165-017-9686-3.
    21. C. J. Fearnley, “Mind mapping in qualitative data analysis: Managing interview data in interdisciplinary and multi-sited research projects,” Geo Geogr. Environ., vol. 9, no. 1, p. e00109, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1002/geo2.109.
    22. Y. Shi, H. Yang, Y. Dou, and Y. Zeng, “Effects of mind mapping-based instruction on student cognitive learning outcomes: a meta-analysis,” Asia Pacific Educ. Rev., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 303–317, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s12564-022-09746-9.
    23. K. S. Mogotsi, “Are we there yet? Climate philanthropy and the climate action sustainable development goal in Southern Africa,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2025, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2025.2495862.
    24. W. Ameneshewa, Y. Kebede, D. Unbushe, A. Legesse, and M. Hardman, “Indigenous knowledge and forest management practices among Shekachoo people in the Sheka Biosphere Reserve A case of Shato core area, South-west Ethiopia,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–26, 2023, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2275937.
    25. I. B. Van Zuydam, K. F. Mearns, W. A. J. Nel, and N. P. Nkambule, “Comparing farmers’ perceptions of climate change with meteorological data: A case study of livestock farmers in Eswatini’s lowveld region,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2023, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2022.2159653.
    26. T. C. Bac, V. Tran, and T. T. Long, “Are characteristics of metropolis matters for structural transformation of provinces: A spatial approach in the case of Vietnam,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2023, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2170487.
    27. B. Wadei, P. O. Adjei, and D. Forkuor, “Domestic conflict as a possible outcome of gender role change: Experiences and perceptions from rural and urban Ghana,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–25, 2023, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2282421.
    28. E. Bîrsănuc and T. C. Man, “Isn’t the glass ceiling thick enough? Mapping perceptions on women’s economic empowerment in North-West Region of Romania,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2023, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2242612.
    29. J. Adeboa and B. T. Anang, “Perceptions and adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers to climate change in Builsa South district of Ghana,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2358151.
    30. D. O. Nduka et al., “Relationship between indoor environmental quality and sick building syndrome: a case study of selected student’ s hostels in Southwestern Nigeria,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2021, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2021.1980280.
    31. N. A. Deliarnoor, R. W. S. Sumadinata, N. I. Sagita, A. F. Poerana, and L. O. Prastio, “Environmentalism with Indonesian National Army: urban revitalization of the Citarum River in Karawang Regency, Indonesia,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2354975.
    32. I. K. Astina, A. Idris, R. Jaya, and T. Bay, “Unveiling the mystic sense of place and ocean literacy: the role of the Torosiaje community in championing marine sustainability in Tomini Bay, Indonesia,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2025, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2025.2586139.
    33. I. Syahputera et al., “The role of ‘Hadih Maja’ as an Acehnese oral tradition in supporting UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030 agendas: an eco-criticism analysis,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2388330.
    34. E. B. Bitana, S. T. Lachore, and A. U. Utallo, “The influence of household size on socioeconomic conditions of rural farm households in Damot Woyde District, Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2358153.
    35. J. L. Arthur et al., “Energy management practices of oil refineries; a case study of Tema oil refinery (TOR),” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2282492.
    36. J. K. Boateng, “Managing learning outcomes with technology in Ghanaian higher education,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–23, 2023, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2282507.
    37. X. Gao, Y. Yang, Y. Du, and D. Sun, “Effect of mind mapping-based scaffolding on elementary students’ computational thinking in block-based programming,” J. Educ. Comput. Res., vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 236–271, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1177/07356331241303067.
    38. R. Feng, H. N. Alsager, Z. Azizi, and L. Sarabani, “Impact of mind-mapping technique on EFL learners’ vocabulary recall and retention, learning motivation, and willingness to communicate,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 6, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16560.
    39. N. P. Rahmawati, N. Nuriman, A. A. Wardoyo, and A. Bayu Setiawan, “Enhancing elementary students’ learning outcomes in integrated science and social studies through problem-based learning supported by mind mapping: A classroom action research study,” EduStream J. Pendidik. Dasar, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 113–127, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.26740/eds.v9n2.p113-127.
    40. E. E. Egiebor and E. J. Foster, “Students’ perceptions of their engagement using GIS-story maps,” J. Geog., vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 51–65, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1080/00221341.2018.1515975.
    41. H. Semilarski, R. Soobard, J. Holbrook, and M. Rannikmäe, “Expanding disciplinary and interdisciplinary core idea maps by students to promote perceived self-efficacy in learning science,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 57, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00374-8.
    42. S. Mende, A. Proske, and S. Narciss, “Individual preparation for collaborative learning: Systematic review and synthesis,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 29–53, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1828086.
    43. L. Casado-Ledesma, I. Cuevas, and E. Martín, “Learning science through argumentative synthesis writing and deliberative dialogues: A comprehensive and effective methodology in secondary education,” Read. Writ., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 965–996, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11145-021-10191-0.