Fundamental principle to all assessments is that such should be valid and reliable. Further, validity and reliability of an assessment tool also include the scoring method employed in it. As an emerging alternative to traditional assessments, Concept Maps should demonstrate similar properties; otherwise its utility as assessment tool may be limited to mere qualitative description. This is the main premise upon which this proposal is founded. This study seeks to be beneficial to the advancement of knowledge especially in the specific field of education – assessment of learning
As an assessment tool concept maps have been used in collaboration and cooperative learning, and as a formal assessment tool. In fact, Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson (1996) proposed the use of concept maps and performance based assessments as alternatives to the use of multiple choice tests ( Cañas et. al in 2003 ).
Harrison et., al (1992) as cited in Ruiz-Primo et., al (1997), stated that concept maps are supposed to measure the structure of a student’s declarative knowledge. The rationale behind this claim, according to Anderson (1984), is that “the essence of knowledge is structure” and that this structure may be captured with graphical/structural representations according to Goldsmith et. al (1991).
These statements bear the researchers’ claim that concept map is now a recognized assessment tool. Assessments must have reliability and validity. As an assessment, concept maps must adhere to the necessary characteristics – validity and reliability. Validity refers to extent of the assessment in measuring what it claims to measure. Reliability, on the other hand, refers to how well the assessment performs so. In this examination, the researchers account validity and reliability to the selected scoring techniques in concept maps.
Even though concept maps are able to demonstrate robust learning effects both for instruction and assessment, the main