Rubric for Assessing Concept Maps

A method of assessing Concept Maps proposed by Novak and Gowin in 1984 is based on the components and structure of the map. This system awards points for valid propositions (1 point each), levels of hierarchy (5 points for each level), number of branchings (1 point for each branch), crosslinks (10 points for each valid cross-link), and specific examples (1 point for each example). The number of hierarchical levels addresses the degree of "subsumption," the number of branches indicates the differentiation, and the number of cross-links indicates the exten to which the knowledge has been integrated.

A less "mechanical" approach to grading Concept Maps is to use (and provide students with) a rubric such as the following:

	Excellent	Good	Poor	Failing
Breadth of net	Map includes the important concepts and describes domain on multiple levels	Map includes most important concepts; describes domain on limited number of levels	Important concepts missing and/or describes domain on only one level	Map includes minimum concepts with many important concepts missing
Embeddedness and inter-connectedness	All concepts interlinked with several other concepts	Most concepts interlinked with other concepts	Several concepts linked to other concepts	Few concepts linked to other concepts
Use of descriptive links	Links succinctly and accurately describe all relationships	Links are descriptive and valid for most relationships	Some links unclear or vague; some invalid or unclear	Links are vague; show inconsistent relationships
Efficient links	Each link type is distinct from all others, clearly describes relationship; used consistently	Most links are distinct from others; discriminate concepts; present variety of relationships; used fairly consistently	Several links are synonymous; don't discriminate concepts well; don't show a variety of relationships; used inconsistently	Most links synonymous or vaguely describe relationships and aren't distinct from other links
Layout	Map is contained in a single page, has multiple clear hierarchies, is well laid out and provides a sufficient number of relevant examples with links	Map is contained in a single page, has several clear hierarchies, is fairly well laid out and provides a sufficient number of fairly relevant examples with links	Map is not contained in a single page, has unclear hierarchies, is poorly laid out and provides some fairly relevant examples with links	Map is not contained in a single page, is confusing to read with no hierarchical organization
Development over time (for concepts maps where a “base map” is constructed at the beginning of the course and a corresponding “final map” at the end of the course	Final map shows considerable cognitive progression from Base map and a significantly greater depth of understanding of the domain	Final map shows some cognitive progression from Base map and a somewhat greater depth of understanding of the domain	Final map shows minimal cognitive progression from Base map and a slightly greater depth of understanding of the domain	Final map shows no significant cognitive progression from Base map and no increase in the understanding of the domain

Based on the Concept Map rubric found at KITE, with additions by Josephine McMurray