Jämför metoder

	Concept Mapping Assessment	Formative Assessment
Ämnesområde	Education	Education
Familj	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Ursprungsår	1984	1998
Upphovsperson	Joseph Novak & D. Bob Gowin; assessment use developed by Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson	Scriven (term); Bloom; Black & Wiliam (modern synthesis)
Typ	Graphical assessment of the structure and connectedness of knowledge	Instructional process using evidence of learning to adapt teaching and feedback
Ursprungskälla	Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521319263	Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Alias	Concept Map Assessment, Knowledge Structure Mapping, Concept Map Scoring, Novakian Concept Mapping	Assessment for Learning, Classroom Formative Assessment, Feedback-Based Assessment, Embedded Formative Assessment
Närliggande	4	4
Sammanfattning	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.	Formative assessment, or assessment for learning, is the practice of gathering evidence of student understanding during instruction and using it immediately to adjust teaching and to give feedback that moves learning forward. Unlike summative assessment, which measures learning after the fact for grading or accountability, formative assessment is woven into the teaching cycle. Synthesized influentially by Black and Wiliam, it is defined not by the type of instrument but by whether the resulting evidence actually changes subsequent instruction and learning.