The Comparison of Different Concept Mapping Tasks in Chemistry Education

Nurcan Turan-Oluk, Güler Ekmekci


For the use of concept maps as a widespread evaluation tool, it is necessary to determine which concept mapping method reveals the knowledge of the student in a valid and reliable manner in the reliable and efficient manner. This study is concerned with the efficiency of four different concept mapping tasks which are Novak type, numbering type, fill in the nodes and fill in the relations methods as an assessment tool. For this purpose, the opinions of the participants about the process were indicated by providing to prepare the concept maps with different methods by participants. In this study, the opinions of the pre service chemistry teachers were examined with a case study based on qualitative approach. The opinions of the participants were determined by using Diary1, Diary2, written questions about the opinions of Concept Map, semi constructive interview with the pre service teachers, focused group discussion, in class discussions, videotaped records and field notes of the instructor. In the study, the validity of the data was achieved by data sources triangulation According to the results of this study, the Novakian and numbering methods are much time consuming in terms of preparing and scoring. However, both these methods are much more sufficient and distinguishing assessment tools than filling the blank methods. They must be preferred to filling the nodes method if there are no time constraints and the rater is professional enough. The fill in the blank maps are very suitable for the summative assessment since they are easy to prepare, score and impartial. However, it should be considered the chance scores which will be able to affect the points especially in the fill in the nodes maps.


Concept mapping tasks, fill in the blank concept maps, novaki-an concept map, numbering method, , preservice teachers’ opinions

Full Text:

PDF (Türkçe)


Anderson, T. H., & Huang, S. (1989). On using concept maps to assess the comprehension effects of reading expository text. Urbana-Champaign: Center fort he Studying of Reading, University of Illions at Urbana-Champaign. (ERİC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 368).

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. (2010). Introduction to research in education. (8th Edition). Wadsworth: Cenga-ge Learning.

Broggy, J., & McClelland, G. (2008). Undergraduate students’ attitudes towards physics after a concept mapping experience. Procee-dings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Tallin, Estonia and Helsinki, Finland. sayfasından erişilmiştir.

Çatalkaya, R. (2005). Bazı bireysel farklılıkların kavram haritası yapma başarısına etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bolu.

Daley, B. J., & Torre, D. M. (2010). Concept maps in medical education: an analytical literature review. Medical education, 44(5), 440-448.

Didiş, N., Özcan, Ö., & Azar, A. (2014). What do pre-service physics teachers know and think about concept mapping? Eurasia Jour-nal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(2), 77-87.

Dosanjh, N. K. (2011). The effects of three concept mapping strategies on seventhgrade students’ science achievement at an urban middle school. Doctoral thesis, The University of San Francisco The Faculty of the School of Education Learning and Instruction De-partment, San Francisco.

Edmondson, K. M. (2000). Assesing science understanding through concept maps. J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Ed.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view içinde (s. 19–40). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

Ekiz, D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri: Yaklaşım, yöntem ve teknikler. Ankara: Anı.

Henno, I., & Reiska, P. (2008). Using concept mapping as assessment tool in school biology. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Tallin, Estonia and Helsinki, Finland. sayfa-sından erişilmiştir.

Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational techno-logy research and development, 58(1), 81-97.

Kaya, O. N. (2003). Eğitimde alternatif bir değerlendirme yolu: kavram haritaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 265-271.

Markow, P. G., & Lonning, R. A. (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: students’ perceptions and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1015–1029.

McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475- 492.

Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic.

Moon, B., Hoffman, R. R., Novak, J., & Canas, A. (Eds.). (2011). Applied concept mapping: Capturing, analyzing, and organizing knowledge. USA: CRC Press.

Nakiboğlu, C., & Ertem, H. (2010). Atom ile ilgili kavram haritalarının yapısal, ilişkisel ve öneri doğruluğu puanlaması analiz sonuçları-nın kıyaslanması, Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(3), 60-77.

Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3. Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Plummer, K. J. (2008). Analysis of the psychometric properties of two different concept-map assessment tasks. Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo UT.

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Rese-arch in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569- 600.

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., & Shavelson, R. J. (1997b). Concept map-based assessment in science: two exploratory studies (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 436). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Stu-dent Testing.

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001a). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260- 278.

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., & Schultz, S. E. (1997a). On the validity of concept map-base assessment interpretations: An experiment testing the assumption of hierarchical concept maps in science (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 455). Los Angeles: University of Cal-ifornia, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Sağlam, Y. (2009). Drawing a Turkish concept map: Numbering method. Elementary Education Online, 8(1), 74-87.

Şahin, F. (2001). Öğretmen adaylarının kavram haritası yapma ve uygulama hakkındaki görüşleri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fa-kültesi Dergisi, 10, 12-25.

Schau, C., Mattern, N., Weber, R. W., Minnick, K., & Witt, C. (1997). Use of fill-in concept maps to assess middle school students' connected understanding of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chica-go. sayfasından erişilmiştir.

Schau, C., Mattern, N., Zeilik, M., Teague, K. W., & Weber, R. J. (2001). Select-and-fill-in concept map scores as a measure of stu-dents’ connected understanding of science. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 136-158.

Srinivasan, M., McElvany, M., Shay, J. M., Shavelson, R. J., & West, D. C. (2008). Measuring knowledge structure: Reliability of concept mapping assessment in medical education. Academic Medicine, 83(12), 1196-1203.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Taber K. S., (2007), Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: A guide for teachers, London: SAGE.

Turan Oluk, N., & Ekmekci, G. (2016). A different approach to preparing novakian concept maps: The indexing method. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(6), 2111-2140.

Wang, C. X., & Dwyer, F. M. (2004b). Effect of varied concept mapping strategies on student achievement of different educational abjectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(4), 371-382.

Watson, M. K., Pelkey, J., Noyes, C. R., & Rodgers, M. O. (2016). Assessing conceptual knowledge using three concept map scoring methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 118-146.

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemler. (7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin.

Yin, Y., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Application of generalizability theory to concept map assessment research. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 273–291.

Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2) 166–184.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License  
 Kastamonu Eğitim'de yayınlanan tüm içerik ve makaleler "Creative Commons Alıntı 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı" ile lisanslanmıştır.