Vertaile menetelmiä

	Concept Mapping Assessment	Portfolio Assessment
Tieteenala	Education	Education
Menetelmäperhe	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Syntyvuosi	1984	1992
Kehittäjä	Joseph Novak & D. Bob Gowin; assessment use developed by Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson	Performance-assessment tradition (Arter & Spandel; Koretz; Vermont/Kentucky programs)
Tyyppi	Graphical assessment of the structure and connectedness of knowledge	Assessment based on a purposeful collection of student work over time
Alkuperäislähde	Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521319263	Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). Using portfolios of student work in instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 36–44.
Rinnakkaisnimet	Concept Map Assessment, Knowledge Structure Mapping, Concept Map Scoring, Novakian Concept Mapping	Educational Portfolio Assessment, Student Portfolio Evaluation, Showcase / Working Portfolio Assessment, Portfolio-Based Assessment
Liittyvät	4	4
Tiivistelmä	Concept mapping assessment uses student-generated diagrams of concepts and their relationships to evaluate the structure of knowledge, not just its quantity. A concept map represents ideas as labeled nodes connected by labeled links that form meaningful propositions, often arranged hierarchically with cross-links between branches. Developed from Novak and Gowin's work on meaningful learning and formalized as an assessment tool by Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson, it reveals how well a learner has organized and integrated a domain, exposing connections and misconceptions a multiple-choice test would miss.	Portfolio assessment evaluates learning through a purposeful collection of a student's work assembled over time rather than through a single test. The portfolio may showcase best work, document growth, or demonstrate mastery against standards, and typically includes student selection and reflection. Articulated for education by Arter and Spandel and stress-tested in large-scale programs analyzed by Koretz, it captures authentic, complex performance that on-demand testing misses, while raising distinctive challenges for the reliability and comparability of scores.