On the Validity of Cognitive Interpretations of Scores From Alternative Concept-Mapping Techniques

By Maria Araceli Ruiz-Primo, R. Shavelson, Min Li, Susan E. Schultz. 2001

173 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Comparison of Two Concept-Mapping Techniques: Implications for Scoring, Interpretation, and Use. (2005, methodology): “The think-aloud technique has been used to reveal cognitive activities in performing a variety of tasks (Ericsson & Simon, 1993), for example, problem solving (Baxter & Glaser, 1998), multiple-choice test taking (Levine, 1998), concept-map construction ( Ruiz-Primo et al., 2001b ), and performance”
Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: findings from a four-year intervention study (2016, methodology): “Our approach builds on established approaches to assessment design that highlight the importance of identifying the construct to be assessed, collecting evidence of student performance relative to that construct, and then making interpretations of and inferences about what students know and are able”
Freedom vs. Restriction of Content and Structure during Concept Mapping - Possibilities and Limitations for Construction and Assessment (2012, background): “Strautmane (2012) provides a comprehensive list of structural measures reported in the literature.”
Prior knowledge activation: how different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy (2010, methodology): “Think-aloud protocols were transcribed and separated into verbal units ( Ruiz-Primo et al. 2001 ).”