Abstract
In this article, two problems associated with the expectation that teachers use contemporary assessment techniques are examined. The first problem relates to teachers’ sense-making of assessment data. Illustrative cases revealed that teachers’ processes of interpretation of students’ understanding, knowledge and learning of mathematics draws on a rich knowledge base of understandings, beliefs, and attitudes. Consequently, the process of sense-making of students’ mathematical understandings involves ambiguity and difficulty. The second problem relates to ways of helping teachers adopt contemporary assessment approaches. A professional development activity served as the example examined. Three aspects of what the course instructor promoted with respect to contemporary assessment were analysed: (1) the assessment methods and tools advocated in the course, (2) the degree to which the integration of assessment with instruction was promoted, and (3) the purposes for assessment highlighted in the course. It appeared that attention was paid to the use of contemporary assessment tools, but this was associated with traditional assessment purposes. Learning to use the new assessment tool did, however, influence instruction and fostered greater integration of assessment and instruction than before-a characteristic of contemporary assessment. The article concludes with a discussion of the current expectation that teachers use assessment data to improve instruction.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ball, D. L. (1997). What do students know? Facing challenges of distance, context and desire in trying to hear children. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.),International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 769–818). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Beyer, A. (1993). Assessing students’ performance using observations, reflections, and other methods. In N. L. Webb & A. F. Coxford (Eds.),Assessment in the mathematics classroom, 1993 Yearbook (pp. 111–120). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Birenbaum, M. (1997).Alternatives in assessment. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Rammot press (in Hebrew).
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning.Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2000).Inside the black box. Retrieved December 20, 2002 from: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kings_college/depsta/education/publications/blackbox.html
Carter, P. L., Ogle, P. K., & Royer, L. B. (1993). Learning logs: What are they and how do we use them? In N. L. Webb & A. F. Coxford (Eds.),Assessment in the mathematics classroom, 1993 Yearbook (pp. 87–96). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Clarke, D. (1997).Constructive assessment in mathematics: Practical steps for classroom teachers. California: Key Curriculum Press.
Clarke, D. J., Clarke, D. M., & Lovitt, C. J. (1990). Changes in mathematics teaching call for assessment alternatives. In T. J. Cooney (Ed.),Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s, 1990 yearbook (pp. 118–129). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Clarke, D. J. & Sullivan, P. (1992). Responses to open-ended tasks in mathematics: Characteristics and implications. In W. Geeslin & K. Graham (Eds.),Proceedings of the 16th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 137–144). Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1990). Classroom as learning environment for teachers and researchers. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.),Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 125–146). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Coles, A. (2001). Listening: A case study of teacher change. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.),Proceedings of the 25th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 281–288). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University.
Crespo, S. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: Prospective teachers’ interpretations of students’ mathematical work.Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 155–181.
Davis, B. (1996).Teaching mathematics: Toward a sound alternative. New York: Garland Publishing.
Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 355–376.
Even, R. (1999). Integrating academic and practical knowledge in a teacher leaders’ development program.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 235–252.
Even, R., & Markovits, Z. (1993). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of functions: Characterization and applications.Journal of Structural Learning, 12(1), 35–51.
Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (2002). Teacher knowledge and understanding of students’ mathematical learning. In L. English (Ed.),Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 219–240). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Even, R., & Wallach, T. (2004). Between student observation and student assessment: A critical reflection.Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 4(4), 483–495.
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., Franke, M., Levi, L., Jacobs, V., & Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403–434.
Goldenberg, G. (2000).The portfolio as a means for changing teacher assessment of student knowledge of positive rational numbers. Unpublished masters thesis. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (in Hebrew).
Lewy, A. (1996). Postmodernism assessing educational achievement. In A. Lewy (Ed.),Alternative assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 11–37). Israel: The Mofet Institute (in Hebrew).
Morgan, C., & Watson, A. (2002). The interpretative nature of teachers’ assessment of students’ mathematics: Issues for equity.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(2), 78–110.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (1991).Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (1995).Assessment Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Nicol, C. (1999). Learning to teach mathematics: Questioning, listening, and responding.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 45–66.
Rhine, S. (1998). The role of research and teachers’ knowledge base in professional development.Educational Researcher, 27(5), 27–31.
Robinson, N. (1993).Connectedness in teaching: Equivalent algebraic expressions — by expert and novice teachers. Unpublished masters thesis. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (in Hebrew).
Romberg, T. A. (Ed.). (1995).Contemporary in school mathematics and authentic assessment. New York: SUNY Press.
Shepard, L. A. (1989). Why we need better assessment.Educational Leadership, 46(7), 4–9.
Shepard, L. A. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching. (pp. 1066–1099). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Simon, M. & Schifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 309–331.
Tirosh, D., Even, R., & Robinson, N. (1998). Simplifying algebraic expressions: Teacher awareness and teaching approaches.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 51–64.
Valencia, S. (1990). Portfolio approach to classroom assessment: Whys, whats and hows.Reading Teacher, 43, 338–340.
Wallach, T., & Even R. (2002). Teacher hearing students. In A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.),Proceedings of the 26th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 337–344). Norwich, England.
Watson, A. (2000). Mathematics teachers acting as informal assessors: Practices, problems and recommendations.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 69–91.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Even, R. Using assessment to inform instructional decisions: How hard can it be?. Math Ed Res J 17, 45–61 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217421
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217421