RESEARCH PAPER
Are Concept Maps a Valid Measurement Tool for Conceptual Learning? A Cross-case Study
Thomas Plotz 1  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Vienna, AUSTRIA
Online publish date: 2019-09-08
Publish date: 2019-09-08
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2020;16(1):em1795
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The approaches of “problem-based learning” and “writing to learn” are known for facilitating the apprehension of concepts and better retaining of knowledge. In educational research, concept maps are sometimes used to assess the learners’ level of knowledge. In this paper, the main aim is to investigate the validity of concept maps as an instrument for the assessment of learning. Therefore, six students were observed for more than a year and their learning process was documented in various ways. The concept maps were used in the form of a pre-post-test, and the different students’ results were compared in a cross-case analysis using a master concept map. The results presented in this study indicate that the validity of concept maps compared to interviews and reports are questionable. It is possible to measure some parts of the learning process with concept maps, but conceptual learning seems to be hidden from the instrument. Therefore, concept maps might not be the most useful tool to measure conceptual change.
 
REFERENCES (50)
1.
Aguiar, J., Lannes, D., Garcia, A., & Ferreira, C. (2014). What Do You Know About Genetics?: Conceptual Mapping and Its Correlation With Traditional Assessment and Academic Performance. Paper presented at the Concept Mapping to Learn and Innovate. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Concept Mapping.
 
2.
Åhlberg, M., & Ahoranta, V. (2008). Concept maps and short-answer tests: probing pupils’ learning and cognitive structure. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping, Helsinki.
 
3.
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The Many Levels of Inquiry. Science and children, 46(2), 26-29. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ua....
 
4.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465....
 
5.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for Meaningful Learning: A Review of Research on Inquiry-Based and Cooperative Learning. Book Excerpt. George Lucas Educational Foundation.
 
6.
Busan, T. (1974). Use Your Head. ВВС/Open University.
 
7.
Cañas, A. J., Novak, J. D., & Reiska, P. (2012). Freedom vs. Restriction of Content and Structure during Concept Mapping-Possibilities and Limitations for Construction and Assessment. Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conference on Concept Mapping, 247-257. Retrieved from http://eprint.ihmc.us/id/eprin....
 
8.
Cañas, A. J., Novak, J. D., & Reiska, P. (2015). How good is my concept map? Am I a good Cmapper? Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 7(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kme....
 
9.
Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (2014). The nature of expertise. UK: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131....
 
10.
Ciliberti, N., & Galagovsky, L. R. (1999). Las redes conceptuales como instrumento para evaluar el nivel de aprendizaje conceptual de los alumnos. Un ejemplo para el tema de dinámica. Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas, 17(1), 17-29.
 
11.
Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2012). Knowledge presented in concept maps: correlations with conventional cognitive knowledge tests. Educational Studies, 38(3), 341-354. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/do... https://doi.org/10.1080/030556....
 
12.
Edmondson, K. M. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding (pp. 15–40). San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0....
 
13.
Friesen, S., & Scott, D. (2013). Inquiry-Based Learning: A Review of the Research Literature.
 
14.
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465....
 
15.
Graf, D. (2014). Concept Mapping als Diagnosewerkzeug. In D. Krüger, I. Parchmann, & H. Schecker (Eds.), Methoden in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung (pp. 325-337). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-....
 
16.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710-744. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.....
 
17.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0....
 
18.
Hahn-Laudenberg, K. (2017). Konzepte von Demokratie bei Schülerinnen und Schülern: Erfassung von Veränderungen politischen Wissens mit Concept-Maps. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-....
 
19.
Himangshu, S., & Cassata-Widera, A. (2010). Beyond individual classrooms. How valid are concept maps for large scale assessment. Paper presented at the Fourth Int. Conference on Concept Mapping, Universidad de Chile.
 
20.
Hollenbeck, K., Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2006). Determining the exchangeability of concept map and problem-solving essay scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(2), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724....
 
21.
Holm, M. (2011). Project-based Instruction: A Review of the Literature on Effectiveness in Prekindergarten through 12th Grade Classrooms. InSight: Rivier Academic Journal, 7(2).
 
22.
İngeç, Ş. K. (2009). Analysing Concept Maps as an Assessment Tool in Teaching Physics and Comparison with the Achievement Tests. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1897-1915. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
 
23.
Kern, C., & Crippen, K. J. (2008). Mapping for conceptual change. The Science Teacher, 75(6), 32.
 
24.
Krabbe, H. (2014). Digital Concept Mapping for Formative Assessment. In D. Ifenthaler & R. Hanewald (Eds.), Digital Knowledge Maps in Education: Technology-Enhanced Support for Teachers and Learners (pp. 275-297). New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-....
 
25.
Ley, S. L., Krabbe, H., & Fischer, H. E. (2012). Convergent Validity: Concept Maps and Competence Test for Students’ Diagnosis in Physics.
 
26.
Liu, J. (2013). The Assessment Agent System: design, development, and evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(2), 197-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423....
 
27.
Llinás, J. G., Macías, F. S., & Márquez, L. M. T. (2018). The Use of Concept Maps as an Assessment Tool in Physics Classes: Can One Use Concept Maps for Quantitative Evaluations? Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165....
 
28.
McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)...<475::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-O.
 
29.
Mintzes, J. J., & Quinn, H. J. (2007). Knowledge restructuring in biology: Testing a punctuated model of conceptual change. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 281-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763....
 
30.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 118-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/002192....
 
31.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.). (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press.
 
32.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413-448. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465....
 
33.
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978020....
 
34.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them.
 
35.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978....
 
36.
Ozdemir, A. (2005). Analyzing concept maps as an assessment (evaluation) tool in teaching mathematics. Journal of Social Sciences, 1(3), 141-149. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2....
 
37.
Pearsall, N. R., Skipper, J. E. J., & Mintzes, J. J. (1997). Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology. Science Education, 81(2), 193-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/(Sici)...<193::Aid-Sce5>3.0.Co;2-A.
 
38.
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459-463. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... https://doi.org/10.1126/scienc....
 
39.
Plotz, T. (2017a). Lernprozesse zu nicht-sichtbarer Strahlung (Vol. 240). Berlin: Logos Verlag.
 
40.
Plotz, T. (2017b). Students’ conceptions of radiation and what to do about them. Physics Education, 52(1), 014004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6....
 
41.
Plotz, T., & Hopf, M. (2016). Two concepts of radiation. A case study investigating existing preconceptions. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(4), 447-459.
 
42.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2004). Examining concept maps as an assessment tool.
 
43.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569-600. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)...<569::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-M.
 
44.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260-278. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2...<260::Aid-Tea1005>3.0.Co;2-F.
 
45.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Li, M., & Schultz, S. E. (2001). On the Validity of Cognitive Interpretations of Scores from Alternative Concept-Mapping Techniques. Educational Assessment, 7(2), 99-141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326....
 
46.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi... https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5....
 
47.
Schecker, H., & Klieme, E. (2000). Erfassung physikalischer Kompetenz durch Concept-Mapping-Verfahren. In H. Fischler & J. Peuckert (Eds.), Concept mapping in fachdidaktischen Forschungsprojekten der Physik und Chemie (pp. 23-56). Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin.
 
48.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning.
 
49.
Thompson, T. L., & Mintzes, J. J. (2002). Cognitive structure and the affective domain: on knowing and feeling in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 645-660. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
 
50.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research design and methods (Fourth ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215