Innovations on Concept Mapping-Based Activities for Learning Assessment: The Quest for Ubiquity and Large-Scale Solutions

From Theory To First Practice

The origins of concept mapping are firmly rooted in Ausubel’s theory of meaningful verbal learning (Ausubel, 1962; Ausubel, 2000). Novak and some of his colleagues at Cornell University were “interested in observing very specific changes in the concept and propositional meanings held by the children as they progressed through school, in accordance with Ausubel’s cognitive theory of learning” (Novak & Cañas, 2006, p. 2). Their investigation initially pursued the use of interviews to ascertain insights into the changes in learners’ understanding. While insightful, the interviewing approach quickly became overwhelming—the team “did not have staff to interview all students each year . . . [and they] we were accumulating hundreds of interview tapes” (p. 3, 4). Their analysis process involved transcribing the interviews then analyzing them, which was not only laborious but also offered limited insight: “As we transcribed the tapes, we could observe that propositions used by students would usually improve in relevance, number, and quality, but it was still difficult to observe specifically how their cognitive structures were changing” (p. 4). They needed a better, more efficient approach. Their pursuit of efficiency and insight brought about concept mapping as an innovative way to represent knowledge: “In our discussions, the idea developed to translate interview transcripts into a hierarchical structure of concepts and relationships between concepts, i.e., propositions. The ideas developed into the invention of a tool in 1972 we now call the concept map” (p. 4).

The story of concept mapping has been built from these origins. Once the utility of the concept maps as a data analysis technique was realized, it became evident that they could be used as the data collection technique—introducing even more efficiency into the process by removing the laborious interview/transcription/analysis steps. Once their use as a data collection technique was established, improvements to this implementation process were sought, including how to enable learners to generate their own concept maps. Once the data they captured were revealed, a myriad of methods for data analysis was offered, focusing on everything from components of the maps to the propositions expressed. Once computers and the Internet were established, even greater efficiencies and expansion of techniques became possible. As an example, the release of CmapTools (1997) and CmapCloud (2010) illustrates the impact of technology to disseminate the concept maps throughout the world for educational and corporate uses (Frisendal, 2012; Moon, Hoffman, Novak, & Cañas, 2011; Novak, 2010).

From the beginning, concept mapping has been used as an assessment technique. The goal remains the same that Ausubel (2000) suggested: ascertain what the learner already knows to teach accordingly. Many studies have shown that the approach is as valid and accurate for revealing understanding as other knowledge assessment techniques such as interviewing (Edwards & Fraser, 1983, p. 24). Interest in concept mapping as a diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment technique has steadily increased since the approach was first developed. Programs examining assessment strategies have been implemented and evaluated worldwide, including the U.S. (Himangshu & Cassata-Widera, 2010; Meel, 2005; Schau, Mattern & Weber 1997; Schau et al., 2001), Estonia (Henno & Reiska, 2008), Italy (La Vecchia & Pedroni, 2007), Finland (Ahlberg and Ahoranta, 2008), Panama (Miller & Cañas, 2008), Iran (Mirzaie, Abbas & Hatami, 2008), Costa Rica (Silesky, 2008), and Greece (Gouli, Gogoulou, & Grigoriadou, 2003). Regarding validity and reliability, Schaal (2008) determined that the “validity and reliability of concept mapping assessment has been properly explored.” But beyond simply assessing current understanding, the approach encourages students to use meaningful-mode learning patterns (Novak, 2010; Novak & Gowin, 1984).