Concept Mapping Assessment

Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson showed that a 'concept mapping assessment' is really a family of tasks. Whether concepts are supplied or student-generated, whether links must be labeled, and how constrained the structure is all change what the map elicits and therefore what the score means. A fill-in-the-map task with provided concepts measures something narrower than a free-generation task. Because of this, score reliability and validity are properties of the specific task-and-scoring combination, not of concept mapping in general.

The most common approach scores the validity of propositions — each correct concept-link-concept statement earns points — and adds weighted credit for valid hierarchical levels, cross-links between branches, and concrete examples. An alternative compares the student map to an expert criterion map, measuring structural similarity. Holistic rubrics are also used. Proposition-based scoring is widely favored because it is interpretable and ties the score to specific, judgeable claims about knowledge.

Both, but with care. As a learning activity, concept mapping reliably promotes meaningful, integrated understanding. As a graded assessment, it can work formatively or summatively, but the scores must be shown to be reliable and valid for the chosen task design, raters must be trained, and students should be familiar with the technique so that mapping skill does not confound content knowledge. For high-stakes use, these psychometric checks are essential.