Re-Framing Testing to Better Fit Within Problem-solving Classrooms: Ways to Create and Review Tests

  • Tina RapkeEmail author
  • Jennifer Hall
  • Richelle Marynowski
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)


We offer two alternative strategies to simply giving paper-and-pencil mathematics tests that use student thinking as a basis, which we identify as a key underpinning of teaching in problem-solving classrooms. Using student thinking as a basis refers to the idea that teaching is inseparable from, grounded in, and formed by students’ ideas. Specifically, we discuss (1) involving students in developing tests to help them prepare for writing tests and (2) reviewing test material by having students compare, analyze, and critique their classmates’ test responses and subsequently revise their own work. These two strategies are re-castings of the traditional paper-and-pencil test. Teachers can use the strategies to promote deep approaches to learning and, as a result, help students to perform better on tests.


Novel assessment methods Testing Student thinking 


  1. Galbraith, P. (1993). Paradigms, problems and assessment: Some ideological implications. In M. Niss (Ed.), Investigations into assessment in mathematics education (pp. 73–86). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. Scholar
  3. Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 277–300. Scholar
  4. Miller, C., & Parlett, M. (1974). Up to the mark: A study of the examination game. Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  5. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematics success for all. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  6. Rapke, T. (2016). A process of students and their instructor developing a final closed-book mathematics exam. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(1), 27–42. Scholar
  7. Rapke, T. (2017). Involving students in developing math tests. Mathematics Teacher, 110(8), 612–616. Retrieved from Scholar
  8. Rapke, T., & Hall, J. (2016). Summative ~ formative: Exploring novel uses of written exams in an undergraduate mathematics course. In C. A. Shoniregun & G. A. Akmayeva (Eds.), Canada International Conference on Education (CICE-2016) proceedings (pp. 48–51). Mississauga: Infonomics Society.Google Scholar
  9. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively intertwined. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412. Scholar
  10. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325–341. Scholar
  11. Willingham, D. T. (2002, Summer). Allocating student study time: “Massed” versus “distributed” practice. American Educator, 26, 37–39.Google Scholar
  12. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 458–477. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina Rapke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jennifer Hall
    • 2
  • Richelle Marynowski
    • 3
  1. 1.York UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.University of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations