Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques

✍ Scribed by Maria Araceli Ruiz-Primo; Susan E. Schultz; Min Li; Richard J. Shavelson

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2001
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 319 KB
• Volume: 38
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0022-4308
• DOI: 10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<260::aid-tea1005>3.0.co;2-f

✦ Synopsis

This paper reports the results of a study that compared two concept-mapping techniques, one high-directed, ®ll-in-the-map,'' and one low-directed, construct-a-map-from-scratch.'' We examined whether: (1) skeleton map scores were sensitive to the sample of nodes or linking lines to be ®lled in; (2) the two types of skeleton maps were equivalent; and (3) the two mapping techniques provided similar information about students' connected understanding. Results indicated that ®ll-in-the-map scores were not sensitive to the sample of concepts or linking lines to be ®lled in. Nevertheless, the ®ll-in-the-nodes and ®llin-the-lines techniques were not equivalent forms of ®ll-in-the-map. Finally, high-directed and low-directed maps led to different interpretations about students' knowledge structure. Whereas scores obtained under the high-directed technique indicated that students' performance was close to the maximum possible, the scores obtained with the low-directed technique revealed that students' knowledge was incomplete compared to a criterion map. We concluded that the construct-a-map technique better re¯ected differences among students' knowledge structure.