The potential contributions of concept maps for learning website to assessment for learning practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the promising contributions of the Concept Maps for Learning (CMfL) website to assessment for learning practices. The CMfL website generates concept maps from relatedness degree of concepts pairs through the Pathfinder Scaling Algorithm. This website also confirms the established principles of effective assessment for learning, for it is capable of automatically assessing students’ higher order knowledge, simultaneously identifying strengths and weaknesses, immediately providing useful feedback and being user-friendly. According to the default assessment plan, students first create concept maps on a particular subject and then they are given individualized visual feedback followed by associated instructional material (e.g., videos, website links, examples, problems, etc.) based on a comparison of their concept map and a subject matter expert’s map. After studying the feedback and instructional material, teachers can monitor their students’ progress by having them create revised concept maps. Therefore, we claim that the CMfL website may reduce the workload of teachers as well as provide immediate and delayed feedback on the weaknesses of students in different forms such as graphical and multimedia. For the following study, we will examine whether these promising contributions to assessment for learning are valid in a variety of subjects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".