Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structural Assessment of Knowledge as, of, and for Learning

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Learning, Design, and Technology

Abstract

To learn any school subject involves acquiring an understanding of the concepts of the domain and how those concepts are related to one another, as well as with other already-known concepts. Structural assessment techniques assess this understanding of concept relationships. As such, structural assessment goes beyond assessment of knowledge of concept definitions, facts, and procedures; rather, it assesses higher-order knowledge – the kind of knowledge that is needed for successful application and flexible transfer. This analytical review will discuss the various types of structural assessment techniques, including concept maps, Pathfinder networks, and knowledge maps, as they are used for both formative and summative evaluation. It will also examine issues of reliability and validity, scoring and grading methods, and technology-based applications that are both available and in development for performing structural assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acton, W. H. (1991). Comparison of criterion referenced and criterion free measures of cognitive structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acton, W. H., Johnson, P. J., & Goldsmith, T. E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment: Comparison of referent structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 303–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asan, A. (2007). Concept mapping in science class: A case study of fifth grade students. Educational Technology and Society, 10(1), 186–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azzarello, J. (2007). Use of the pathfinder scaling algorithm to measure students’ structural knowledge of community health nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(7), 313–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlanga, A. J., van Rosmalen, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Sloep, P. B. (2012). Exploring formative feedback on textual assignments with the help of automatically created visual representations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 146–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability, 21, 5–31. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cañas, A. J., Novak, J. D., & Reiska, P. (2015). How good is my concept map? Am I a good Cmapper? Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 7(1), 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou, C.-C. (2008). The effect of concept mapping on students’ learning achievements and interests. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 375–387. doi:10.1080/14703290802377240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chmielewski, T. L., & Dansereau, D. F. (1998). Enhancing the recall of text: Knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 407–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2004). A computer-based approach for translating text into concept map-like representations. In A. J. Canas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. Gonzales (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology, vol. 2, in the Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain, 14–17 Sept, pp. 131–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(2), 240–247. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80069-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d’Appolonia, S. T., Charles, E. S., & Boyd, G. M. (2004). Acquisition of complex systemic thinking: Mental models of evolution. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 499–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. A. & Curtis, M. B. (1996). Assessing structural knowledge in management education. Paper presented at the meetings of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximise student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eppler, M. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5(3), 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, Y. (2009). Paper-based and computer-based concept mappings: The effects on computer achievement, computer anxiety and computer attitude. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 821–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filiz, M., Trumpower, D. L., Ghani, S., Atas, S., & Vanapalli, A. (2015). The potential contributions of concept maps for learning website to assessment for learning practices. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 7(1), 134–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, T. E., & Davenport, D. M. (1990). Assessing structural similarity of graphs. In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 75–87). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 88–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, R. L., Hadfield, O. D., & Housner, L. D. (1996). Conceptual maps and simulated teaching episodes as indicators of competence in teaching elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 572–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 356–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haiyue, J., & Yoong, W. K. (2010). A network analysis of concept maps of triangle concepts. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education: Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Fremantle, Australia: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, M., Kim, S., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, V., Kumar, R. K., & Velan, G. (2014). Online testable concept maps: Benefits for learning about the pathogenesis of disease. Medical Education, 48, 687–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, I.-L. G., & O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (2002). Types of feedback in a computer-based collaborative problem-solving group task. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 699–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 81–97. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9087-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D., Masduki, I., & Seel, N. M. (2011). The mystery of cognitive structure and how we can detect it. Tracking the development of cognitive structures over time. Instructional Science, 39(1), 41–61. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9097-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, H. (2014). Digital concept mapping for formative assessment. In D. Ifenthaler & R. Hanewald (Eds.), Digital knowledge maps in education: Technology enhanced support for teachers and learners (pp. 275–297). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraiger, K. & Salas, E. (1993). An empirical test of two cognitively based measures of learning during training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Cross, D. R., & Reynolds, S. B. (1989). Multirelational semantic maps. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 331–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackinnon, G. R. (2006). Contentious issues in science education: Building critical thinking patterns through two-dimensional concept mapping. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(4), 433–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, K., Mintzes, J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. L., Mintzes, J. J., & Clavijo, I. E. (2000). Restructuring knowledge in biology: Cognitive processes and metacognitive reflections. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 303–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 475–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGaghie, W. C., McCrimmon, D. R., Mitchell, G., Thompson, J. A., & Ravitch, M. M. (2000). Quantitative concept mapping in pulmonary physiology: Comparison of student and faculty knowledge structures. Advances in Physiology Education, 23, 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, P. (2014). Using the concept map to contribute to a constructivist classroom culture. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 23(2), 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization, 5, 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them (Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008). Pensaloca, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2010). Highly integrated model assessment technology and tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Li, M., & Schultz, S. E. (2001). On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment, 7, 99–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safayeni, F., Derbentseva, N., & Cañas, A. J. (2005). A theoretical note on concepts and the need for cyclic concept maps. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 741–766. doi:10.1002/tea.20074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarwar, G. S., & Trumpower, D. L. (2015). Effects of conceptual, procedural, and declarative reflection on students’ structural knowledge in physics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 185–201. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9368-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, J., Herl, H. E., Chung, G. K. W. K., Dennis, R. A., & O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (1999). Computer-based performance assessments: A solution to the narrow measurement and reporting of problem-solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2000). On the psychometrics of assessing science understanding. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee, & J. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding (pp. 304–341). San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. E., & Humphreys, M. S. (2006). Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 262–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taricani, E. M., & Clariana, R. B. (2006). A technique for automatically scoring open-ended concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(1), 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumpower, D. L., Filiz, M., & Sarwar, G. S. (2014). Assessment for learning using digital knowledge maps. In D. Ifenthaler & R. Hanewald (Eds.), Digital knowledge maps in education: Technology enhanced support for teachers and learners (pp. 221–238). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trumpower, D. L., & Goldsmith, T. E. (2004). Structural enhancement of learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 426–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumpower, D. L., & Sarwar, G. S. (2010). Effectiveness of structural feedback provided by pathfinder networks. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumpower, D. L., Sharara, H., & Goldsmith, T. E. (2010). Specificity of structural assessment of knowledge. Journal of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, 8(5), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, J., & Mintzes, J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1033–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, D., Pomeroy, J. R., Park, J., Gerstenberger, E., & Sandoval, J. (2000). Critical thinking in graduate medical education. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(9), 1105–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Milrad, M., Ke, H. R., & Huang, Y. M. (2011). An innovative concept map approach for improving students’ learning performance with an instant feedback mechanism.British Journal of Educational Technology, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, Lamoureux Hall, 145 Jean-Jacques-Lussier Private, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    David L. Trumpower & Arun S. Vanapalli

Authors
  1. David L. Trumpower
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arun S. Vanapalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. Trumpower .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Info, Ste G150, Univ of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    Michael J Spector

  2. School of Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    Barbara B Lockee

  3. School of Education, Baker University, Overland Park, Kansas, USA

    Marcus D. Childress

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry

Trumpower, D.L., Vanapalli, A.S. (2016). Structural Assessment of Knowledge as, of, and for Learning. In: Spector, M., Lockee, B., Childress, M. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_23-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_23-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation