Premium
Comparison of two concept‐mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use
Author(s) -
Yin Yue,
Vanides Jim,
RuizPrimo Maria Araceli,
Ayala Carlos C.,
Shavelson Richard J.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of research in science teaching
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.067
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1098-2736
pISSN - 0022-4308
DOI - 10.1002/tea.20049
Subject(s) - proposition , construct (python library) , respondent , equivalence (formal languages) , formative assessment , concept map , interpretation (philosophy) , computer science , scale (ratio) , mathematics education , artificial intelligence , mathematics , epistemology , cartography , discrete mathematics , philosophy , programming language , political science , law , geography
We examine the equivalence of two construct‐a‐concept‐map techniques: construct‐a‐map with created linking phrases (C), and construct‐a‐map with selected linking phrases (S). The former places few constraints on the respondent and has been considered the gold standard; the latter is cost and time efficient. Both their products and processes are compared quantitatively and qualitatively as to total accuracy score, individual proposition scores, proposition choice, map structure complexity, proposition generation rate, and proposition generation procedures. We conclude that the two mapping techniques are not equivalent: The C technique is better than the S technique in capturing students' partial knowledge, even though the S can be scored more efficiently than C. Based on their characteristics, if used as an assessment tool, the C technique is more suitable for formative assessment while the S technique is a better fit for large‐scale assessments. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 42: 166–184, 2005