NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED483390
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2004-Mar
Pages: 30
Abstractor: Author
Reference Count: 27
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
A Comparison of Two. Construct-a-Concept-Map Science Assessments: Created Linking Phrases and Selected Linking Phrases. CSE Report 624.
Yin, Yue; Vanides, Jim; Ruiz-Primo, Maria Araceli; Ayala, Carlos C.; Shavelson, Richard
US Department of Education
This paper examines 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. It is concluded 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.
Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE), National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1522. Tel: 310-206-1532.
Publication Type: Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Washington, DC.
Authoring Institution: California Univ., Los Angeles. Center for the Study of Evaluation.