Publications & Resources
A Comparison of Two Construct-a-Concept-Map Science Assessments: Created Linking Phrases and Selected Linking Phrases
Yue Yin, Jim Vanides, Maria Araceli Ruiz-Primo, Carlos C. Ayala, and Richard Shavelson
In this paper 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. They are compared in terms of both concept map products and processes. Both quantitative and qualitative variables are used for comparison: 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 mapping technique is better than S in capturing students’ partial knowledge, even though the S mapping technique could be scored more efficiently than C. Based on the characteristics of the two techniques, if used as an assessment tool, the C mapping technique is suitable for formative assessment, and the S mapping technique is a better fit for large-scale assessments.
Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. (2004). A comparison of two construct-aconcept-map science assessments: Created linking phrases and selected linking phrases (CSE Report 624). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).