Advertisement

ASSESSING MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING USING COMPARATIVE JUDGEMENT

  • Ian Jones
  • Malcolm Swan
  • Alastair Pollitt
Article

Abstract

There is an increasing demand from employers and universities for school leavers to be able to apply their mathematical knowledge to problem solving in varied and unfamiliar contexts. These aspects are however neglected in most examinations of mathematics and, consequentially, in classroom teaching. One barrier to the inclusion of mathematical problem solving in assessment is that the skills involved are difficult to define and assess objectively. We present two studies that test a method called comparative judgement (CJ) that might be well suited to assessing mathematical problem solving. CJ is an alternative to traditional scoring that is based on collective expert judgements of students’ work rather than item-by-item scoring schemes. In study 1, we used CJ to assess traditional mathematics tests and found it performed validly and reliably. In study 2, we used CJ to assess mathematical problem-solving tasks and again found it performed validly and reliably. We discuss the implications of the results for further research and the implications of CJ for the design of mathematical problem-solving tasks.

Key words

assessment comparative judgement examinations mathematical problem solving reliability validity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ACT (2006). Ready for college and ready for work: Same or different? Iowa: American College Tests, INC.Google Scholar
  2. AQA (2010). GCSE higher tier mathematics paper 1 (Specification A). Monday 7 June 2010. Manchester: Assessment and Qualifications Alliance.Google Scholar
  3. Black, P. (2008). Strategic decisions: Ambitions, feasibility and context. Educational Designer, 1(1).Google Scholar
  4. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2007). Large-scale assessment systems: Design principles drawn from international comparisons. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5, 1–53.Google Scholar
  5. Black, P., Burkhardt, H., Daro, P., Jones, I., Lappan, G., Pead, D. & Stephens, M. (2012). High-stakes examinations to support policy. Educational Designer, 2(5).Google Scholar
  6. Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bramley, T., Bell, J. & Pollitt, A. (1998). Assessing changes in standards over time using Thurstone paired comparisons. Education Research and Perspectives, 25, 1–24.Google Scholar
  8. CBI (2006). Working with the three Rs: Employers’ priorities for functional skills in Mathematics and English. London: DfES.Google Scholar
  9. Davies, D., Collier, C. & Howe, A. (2012). Assessing scientific and technological enquiry skills at age 11 using the e-scape system. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Derrick, K. (2012). Developing the e-scape software system. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DfE. (2011). Independent evaluation of the pilot of the linked pair of GCSEs in Mathematics—First interim report (No. DFE-RR181). London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  12. Heldsinger, S. & Humphry, S. (2010). Using the method of pairwise comparison to obtain reliable teacher assessments. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Husbands, C. T. (1976). Ideological bias in the marking of examinations: A method of testing for its presence and its implications. Research in Education, 15, 17–38.Google Scholar
  14. Jürges, H., Schneider, K., Senkbeil, M. & Carstensen, C. H. (2012). Assessment drives learning: The effect of central exit exams on curricular knowledge and mathematical literacy. Economics of Education Review, 31, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kimbell, R. (2012). Evolving project e-scape for national assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laming, D. (1984). The relativity of “absolute” judgements. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 152–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laming, D. (1990). The reliability of a certain university exam compared with the precision of absolute judgements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 42, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Looney, J. (2009). Assessment and innovation in education. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murphy, R. (1979). Removing the marks from exam scripts before re‐marking them: Does it make any difference? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murphy, R. (1982). A further report of investigations into the reliability of marking of GCE examinations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. NCETM (2009). Mathematics matters: Final report. London: National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  22. Newton, P. (1996). The reliability of marking of General Certificate of Secondary Education scripts: Mathematics and English. British Educational Research Journal, 22, 405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. NGA and CCSSO (2010). Common core state standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  24. Noyes, A., Wake, G., Drake, P. & Murphy, R. (2011). Evaluating Mathematics pathways final report (Technical Report No. DFE-RR143). London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  25. OECD (2009a). PISA 2009 results: Learning trends: Changes in student performance since 2000 (Volume V). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  26. OECD (2009b). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, Mathematics and Science. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  27. Ofsted (2008). Mathematics: Understanding the score. London: Office for Standards in Education.Google Scholar
  28. Ofsted (2012). Mathematics: Made to measure. London: The Office for Standards in Education.Google Scholar
  29. Pollitt, A. (2012). The method of adaptive comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19, 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pollitt, A. & Murray, N. (1996). What raters really pay attention to. In M. Milanovic & N. Saville (Eds.), Performance testing, cognition and assessment: Selected papers from the 15th language testing research colloquium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. QCA (2008). National Curriculum for England 2008. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
  32. Rocard, M. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission (Technical Report No. EUR22845). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf
  33. Soh, C. K. (2008). An overview of mathematics education in Singapore. In Z. Usiskin & E. Willmore (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in Pacific Rim countries (pp. 23–36). Mississippi: Information Age.Google Scholar
  34. Suto, W. M. I. & Greatorex, J. (2008). What goes through an examiner’s mind? Using verbal protocols to gain insights into the GCSE—marking process. British Educational Research Journal, 34, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swan, M. & Burkhardt, H. (2012). Designing assessment of performance in mathematics. Educational Designer, 2(5).Google Scholar
  36. Swan, M. & Pead, D. (2008). Bowland Maths Professional development resources. Bowland Trust/Department for Children, Schools and Families. Retrieved from www.bowlandmaths.org.uk
  37. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thurstone, L. L. (1954). The measurement of values. Psychological Review, 61, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Toner, P. (2011). Workforce Skills and Innovation (OECD Education Working Papers). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  40. Treilibs, V. (1979). Formulation processes in mathematical modelling. Nottingham: Unpublished MPhil, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  41. Vordermann, C., Porkess, R., Budd, C., Dunne, R. & Rahman-Hart, P. (2011). A world-class mathematics education for all our young people. London: The Conservative Party.Google Scholar
  42. Walport, M., Goodfellow, J., McLoughlin, F., Post, M., Sjøvoll, J., Taylor, M. & Waboso, D. (2010). Science and mathematics secondary education for the 21st century: Report of the science and learning expert group. London: Department for Business, Industry and Skills.Google Scholar
  43. Willmott, A. S. & Nuttall, D. L. (1975). The reliability of examination at 16+. London: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  44. Wright, B. D. & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics Education Centre, Schofield BuildingLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  3. 3.CamExamCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations