This paper describes an investigation into the validity of an automatic assessment method of the learner-build concept map by comparing it with two well-known manual methods. We have previously proposed the Kit-Build (KB) concept map framework where a learner builds a concept map by using only a provided set of components, known as the set “kit”. In this framework, instant and automatic assessment of a learner-build concept map has been realized. We call this assessment method the “Kit-Build method” (KB method). The framework and assessment method have already been practically used in classrooms in various schools. As an investigation of the validity of this method, we have conducted an experiment as a case study to compare the assessment results of the method with the assessment results of two other manual assessment methods. In this experiment, 22 university students attended as subjects and four as raters. It was found that the scores of the KB method had a very strong correlation with the scores of the other manual methods. The results of this experiment are one of evidence to show the automatic assessment of the Kit-Build concept map can attain almost the same level of validity as well-known manual assessment methods.

Collaborative learning is an active teaching and learning strategy, in which learners who give each other elaborated explanations can learn most. However, it is difficult for learners to explain their own understanding elaborately in collaborative learning. In this study, we propose a collaborative use of a Kit-Build concept map (KB map) called “Reciprocal KB map”. In a Reciprocal KB map for a pair discussion, at first, the two participants make their own concept maps expressing their comprehension. Then, they exchange the components of their maps and request each other to reconstruct their maps by using the components. The differences between the original map and the reconstructed map are diagnosed automatically as an advantage of the KB map. Reciprocal KB map is expected to encourage pair discussion to recognize the understanding of each other and to create an effective discussion. In an experiment reported in this paper, Reciprocal KB map was used for supporting a pair discussion and was compared with a pair discussion which was supported by a traditional concept map. Nineteen pairs of university students were requested to use the traditional concept map in their discussion, while 20 pairs of university students used Reciprocal KB map for discussing the same topic. The results of the experiment were analyzed using three metrics: a discussion score, a similarity score, and questionnaires. The discussion score, which investigates the value of talk in discussion, demonstrates that Reciprocal KB map can promote more effective discussion between the partners compared to the traditional concept map. The similarity score, which evaluates the similarity of the concept maps, demonstrates that Reciprocal KB map can encourage the pair of partners to understand each other better compared to the traditional concept map. Last, the questionnaires illustrate that Reciprocal KB map can support the pair of partners to collaborate in the discussion smoothly and that the participants accepted this method for sharing their understanding with each other. These results suggest that Reciprocal KB map is a promising approach for encouraging pairs of partners to understand each other and to promote the effective discussions.