You are here:

Formative Assessment of Classroom Concept Maps: the Reasonable Fallible Analyser
Article

, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 17, Number 1, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

** Invited as a paper from ED-MEDIA 2004 ** Concept mapping is a powerful learning technique that can be enhanced by computer technology. Software tools are already available for the preparation of concept maps but as yet, few systems provide feedback on their content. The claim made by this article is that by enlisting the student as an assessment partner, computer-based feedback becomes both feasible and useful. The article reports on the development of a semi-automated software analyser for formatively assessing students' concept maps. The analyser is fallible: many of its assessments are initially incorrect. Crucially however, it is also reasonable: a student is able to argue for a more favourable assessment. The article reports classroom trials which indicate that high-school students' experience of concept mapping is enhanced by use of the analyser. The system's wider significance is that it points towards a new genre of educational software based upon a more genuinely dialogic model of human-computer interaction.

Citation

Conlon, T. (2006). Formative Assessment of Classroom Concept Maps: the Reasonable Fallible Analyser. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(1), 15-36. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 13, 2024 from .

© 2006 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
  2. Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., & Bransford, J. (2001). Technology support for complex problem solving. In K. Forbus, & P. Feltovich, (Eds.), Smart machines in education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  3. Chang, K., Sung, Y., & Chen, S. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 21-33.
  4. Conlon, T., & Bird, D. (2004, September). Not yet within the mainstream: Concept mapping in a Scottish high school. Proceedings of CMC2004. Pamplona, Spain.
  5. Morales, R., Pain, H., Bull, S., & Kay, J. (Eds.) (1999). Proceedings of the workshop on open, interactive and other overt approaches to learner modelling. AIED99: World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Le Mans, France.
  6. Nelson, T. (1980). Interactive systems and the design of virtuality. Creative Computing,6(11), 56 ff, (12), 94 ff.
  7. Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Reese, D. (2003, October). PFNET translation: A tool for concept map quantification. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.
  9. Rice, D., Ryan, J., & Samson, S. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1103-1127.
  10. Ruiz-Primo, M., & Shavelson, R. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching Vol 33 pp 569-600. Ruiz-Primo, M., Schultz, S., Li, M. & Shavelson, R. (1998). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept mapping techniques. CSE Technical Report 492, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles. Simpson, M. (2003). Diagnostic and formative assessment in the Scottish classroom. In T. Bryce & W. Humes (Eds.), Scottish Education (2nd ed., pp. 721-730). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Conlon
  11. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press.
  12. West, D., Park, J., Pomeroy, J., & Sandoval, J. (2002). Concept mapping assessment in medical education: A comparison of two scoring systems. Medical Education, 36, 820-826.
  13. Witzig, S. (2003). Accessing WordNet from prolog. Artificial Intelligence Centre, University of Georgia.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections