Chapter
3 - ComparisonsChapter
3 - ComparisonsIn attempting to compare the methods of assessment that have been reviewed in this article, I decided to find a number of items that are common to each style and to extremes to each item. I eventually decided upon 7 items: 3 teacher and 4 student.
This certainly does not cover all of the positive and negative aspects of these styles. Each of the three categories covered in the previous chapter have their own distinct advantages and disadvantages. For example, verbal communication deals predominately with the spoken word. There are aspects of body language involved as well as emotions. These are not repeated in the other groupings. Written communication has aspects of its own as does Quick Thinking Skills. The specific advantages of each category are relatively obvious and for that reason, I have not included them in the comparisons that follow. My aim is to compare on an equal basis all the methods that have so far been described, including Concept Mapping.
To help illustrate the advantageous and disadvantageous features of each method, I have created a collection of maps. These maps visually illustrate the extremes of the items mentioned above and where each item falls into those extremes. Firstly, I will briefly explain the meaning behind the structure and layout of the diagrams.
| Student | ||
| Develop Understanding - This is stimulated learning that encourages or forces students to consider and reflect upon knowledge they possess and to make judgement or connections to other knowledge. This develops a deeper understanding in the student and they are more likely to use this information as they progress through their lives. | Rote Learning -This an automated process where facts are learned and can be retrieved quickly at a given cue without understanding. While automated responses can be advantageous in an exam situation, the student has not made any conceptual connections and the information is generally forgotten after a very short period. | |
| Self-Confidence or Intimidating - This applies to the attitudes students may have as they are preparing for the said assessment. Some styles of assessment can be more daunting or intimidating for students due to the expectations they feel are placed upon them. Assessment where performance or self-expression is a factor are good examples of potentially intimidating environments. When a student is able to prepare and approach an assessment with more confidence, their efforts and results can be affected in a positive way. | ||
| Self-Expression or Controlled - This is the type of environment created by the assessment itself. In some assessment, students have the ability to be self-expressive or creative. Then there are those tests that rigidly control the structure and form that answers can be given in. One student may perform better under a controlled environment while another will prefer a self-expressive one. However, self-expression can stimulate conceptual learning and therefore develop deeper levels of understanding while a controlled environment may encourage students to develop rote learning habits. | ||
| Easy to Prepare or Difficult to Prepare - Preparing for tests and assignments is never an easy thing, yet some are easier than others. A lot of study can frustrate and "burnout" students, particularly those that have not developed strong study habits. Of course the preferred setting for the student is something that is easy to prepare for avoiding frustrations and the associated anxieties. | ||
| Teacher | ||
| Easy to Organise or Difficult to Organise - This is the degree of effort and care that the teacher usually goes through when creating and preparing the assessment itself. | ||
| Instant Feedback or Time Consuming - Once the assessment has been completed, there is still the process or marking that must take place. Some methods can be marked very quickly, even electronically, while others require many hours of careful study on the part of the teacher. | ||
| Objective Marking - The preferred measure of success in assessment is the quantitative result that is able to equate scores across a large number of student. This is the basis of the standardising philosophy. | Subjective Marking - Assessment that allows for student self-expression usually means that the teacher must make certain subjective decision about the work in question. It is generally felt that this style of marking is unfair to the student. | |
Below are the diagrams. These are variations to the standard Concept Map structure but follow tha same basic principles. Note that you can click on each image for a larger version.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Leaving aside the individual qualities of each method and only comparing those aspects which are similar, most methods have a fairly equal share of pros and cons. For every environment which has strong pros for the student, there are significant cons for the teacher and visa versa. Concept Mapping on the other hand would appear to have a larger number of advantages over these 'traditional' methods. This does not take into account the difficulties in learning CMs. Learning the technical aspects of CMS is not difficult in itself, it is the altered perspective that this methods presents that some may find initially difficult to comprehend.
Novak and Gowin (1984) have thoroughly tested CMs on all levels of education with positive results. By emersing students into the ideas and philosophy of CMs by simply teaching CMs and using CMs to teach, then students develop an ability to use this method as easily as any other. This is not to say that CMs are a replacement to the 'traditional' methods or other alternative assessment tools currently being suggested. The are some things CMs do not do, such as demonstrate verbal and written communication skills. Students would still be required to undertake such assessment that significantly tested their abilities in these specific areas, yet CMs could be used while preparing for such assessment.
One point still under discussion is the matter of the style of marking required for Concept Maps. While Novak (1984) admits that one would expect a certain amount of subjectivity marking, he does provide a marking guide for CMs which I will outline below.
| Prepositions | Is the meaning relationship between two concepts indicated by the connecting line and linking word(s)? Is the relationship valid? For each meaningful, valid proposition shown, score 1 point. (See scoring model below.) |
| Hierarchy | Does the map show hierarchy? Is each subordinate concept more specific and less general than the concept drawn above it (in the context of the material being mapped)? Score 5 points for each level of the hierarchy. |
| Cross Links | Does the map show meaningful connections between one segment ... and another? Score 10 points for each cross link that is both valid and significant and 2 points for each cross link that is valid but does not illustrate a syntesis between sets of related concept or prepositions. Cross links can indicated creative ability and ... might receive special recognition, or extra marks. |
| Examples | Specific events or objects that are valid instances of those designated by the concept label can be scored 1 point each. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Fig 15. Scoring - Adapted
from Novak (1984) p. 36-37.
|
Any marking system that requires an evaluative process as opposed to "right-or-wrong" judgments is subjective and therefor can lead to unfair or biased results in the eyes of the student. By following a strict guidline for marking, much of the subjective influence can be minimised. That is not to say that the use of CMs can replace any of the other evaluation tools. Concept Mapping is very powerful tool when used in conjunction with other methods while on its own makes for a valuable learning assistant.
While it would appear that Concept Mapping has many advantages over alternate methods of assessment, there are many things they can not do. Every method has its uses and downsides, CMs being no exception. Yet the contribution that Concept Mapping can provide should not be ignored.
The major downside to CMs is the subjectivity involved with grading student results. However, by following a step-by-step marking guide, much of the subjective influence can be softened allowing for a higher degree of fairness and equality.
