Session Information
09 SES 07 B, Issues in Test Construction and Validation
Paper Session
Contribution
Assessment activities in class represent an important aspect of classroom practice. Recently much is debated in respect to formative vs. summative assessment routines and outcomes each provides for the students’ learning (Taras, 2005). It is argued how one of the most important reasons for the complexity of classroom assessment is that it does not occur in seclusion of other aspects of classroom life. Rather it is accomplished within a social and educational context in which a variety of seemingly straightforward interactions are influenced not just by the circumstances of the moment, but by expectations and understandings deriving from much longer established and taken-for-granted practices (Torrance & Pryor, 2002). Some research also shows teachers themselves seemed to regard “assessment” as a separate activity from “teaching”. When they do asses students’ learning it is to gather data for third parties - for purposes of accountability - rather than to benefit themselves and (or) their pupils (Ibid.). While some teachers acknowledge informal classroom assessment as an important activity (e.g. questioning and observing pupils) it is considered rather too intuitive to merit them a great deal of attention. Thus summative assessment prevails. Earlier reviews (Natriello, 1987; Crooks. 1988; Black & Wiliam, 1998) have demonstrated that considerable learning achievements are likely to be produced when teachers introduce formative assessment into their classroom practice. Yet effective implementation of formative assessment is often difficult to reach.
Contrasting different practices related to assessment in class Newmann et al. (2001) found that students whose teachers used what they call “authentic classroom tasks” (defined as requiring construction, rather than reproduction of knowledge, disciplined inquiry, and value beyond school) do better than students not given such work. In a study conducted by Boaler (2002) practices in two schools were compared. The author concluded how in the school which used a “reform” approach to the teaching of mathematics, emphasizing higher-order thinking, and students’ responsibility for their own learning outperformed students from the other school, which used a “traditional” approach emphasizing practice of test items.
Looking at the context of mathematics teaching in Serbia, Radišić and Baucal (2012) report math teachers to be predominantly “traditionally” oriented in their instruction, with frontal delivery of subject knowledge and students’ passive role in the process. Further more what tipifies practice is separation of teaching and assesment process, lack of assesment standanrds and objective criteria on how to asses knowledge. Some studies indicate the most common help students is Serbia seek in forms of private tutoring are related to difficulties in mastering math content (Pešić & Stepanović, 2004); while current assesment practice provoke anxiety (Videnović & Radišić, 2011).
In this study we wish to explore whether assessment serves in supporting students’ learning and providing evidence that is used (or not) to adapt teacher’s practices in meeting different learning needs in mathematics class. We have observed how a particular teacher assesses knowledge and advancements of her students during a three week period, which ended with students taking a test about content they were previously taught in class.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Black, P. J. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 7–73. Boaler, J. (2002) Experiencing school mathematics: traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student Learning (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). Creswell, J. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. 3rd Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crooks, T. J. (1988) The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students, Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481. Natriello, G. (1987) The impact of evaluation processes on students, Educational Psychologist, 22(2), 155–175. Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S. & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001) Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: conflict or oexistence? (Chicago, IL, Consortium on Chicago School Research). Pešić, J. & Stepanović, I. (2004). Škola kao sredina za učenje-učenička percepcija i njihove strategije. U: Plut D. & Z. Krnjaić (ur.) Društvena kriza i obrazovanje – dokument o jednom vremenu, Beograd: Institut za psihologiju. Radišić, J.&Baucal, A. (2012). Understanding practice of mathematics and language teachers from their own perspective, paper presented at the 25th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Malmo5th-8th January 2012. http://www.icsei.net/fileadmin/ICSEI/icsei_2012/papers/1791918_ABS.pdf Videnović, M. & Radišić, J. (2011). Anksioznost u vezi sa učenjem matematike:Matematika – bauk ili ne? Psihološka istraživanja, 14(2), 157-178. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – summative and formative –Some theoretical reflections, British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. Torrance, H. & Pryor, J. (2002). Investigating formative assessment – Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom, Maidenhead, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.