Technology Supporting Student Self-Assessment in the Field of Functions—A Design-Based Research Study

  • Hana RuchniewiczEmail author
  • Bärbel Barzel
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 13)


The focus of this chapter is the development of an electronic tool for formative self-assessment of functional thinking (SAFE) in a design-based research study. The digital tool aims to allow students to self-assess their work, rather than having technology evaluate their answers. Thus, the SAFE tool provides learners with a list of criteria against which they can check their solutions to an open assessment task, in this case, one which requires the learner to draw a graph based on a given situation. Two case studies in form of task-based interviews with sixteen-year-old students are described. The analysis leads to the reconstruction of the learners’ formative assessment processes by using a theoretical framework developed in the EU-project FaSMEd. The results show which formative assessment strategies students actively use when working with the self-assessment tool and which functionalities of the technology support the process.


Formative student self-assessment Role of technology Functions Design-based research 


  1. Aldon, G., Cusi, A., Morselli, F., Panero, M., & Sabena, C. (2017). Formative assessment and technology: Reflections developed through the collaboration between teachers and researchers. In G. Aldon, F. Hitt, L. Bazzini, U. Gellert (Eds.), Mathematics and technology: A C.I.E.A.E.M. sourcebook (pp. 551–578). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Barzel, B., Hußmann, S., & Leuders, T. (Eds.). (2005). Computer, Internet & Co. im Mathematikunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.Google Scholar
  3. Barzel, B., Prediger, S., Leuders, T., & Hußmann, S. (2011). Kontexte und Kernprozesse: Aspekte eines theoriegeleiteten und praxiserprobten Schulbuchkonzepts [Contexts and core processes—Aspects of a school book concept guided by theory and practice]. Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht, 71–74.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  6. Bernholt, S., Rönnebeck, S., Ropohl, M., Köller, O., & Parchmann, I. (2013). Report on current state of the art in formative and summative assessment in IBE in STM: Report from the FP7 project ASSIST-ME (Deliverable 2.4). Kiel: IPN—Leibnitz-Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik.Google Scholar
  7. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busch, J. (2015). Graphen “laufen” eigene Wege. Was bei Funktionen schiefgehen kann [Graphs “run” their own ways. What can fail with functions]. Mathematik lehren, 191, 30–32.Google Scholar
  10. Cavanagh, M., & Mitchelmore, M. (2000). Graphics calculators in mathematics learning: Studies of student and teacher understanding. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education (pp. 112–119). Auckland: The University of Auckland and Auckland University of Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Clement, J. (1985). Misconceptions in graphing. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 369–375). Utrecht: PME.Google Scholar
  12. DeMarois, P., & Tall, D. (1996). Facets and layers of the function concept. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 297–304). Valencia: PME.Google Scholar
  13. Drijvers, P., Ball, L., Barzel, B., Heid, M. K., Cao, Y., & Maschietto, M. (2016). Uses of technology in lower secondary mathematics education: A concise topical survey. London: Springer Open.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dubinsky, E., & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process conception of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 85–106). Washington: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  15. Duval, R. (1999). Representation, Vision and Visualization: Cognitive Functions in Mathematical Thinking. Basic Issues for Learning. Retrieved from
  16. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrara, F., Pratt, D., & Robutti, O. (2006). The role and uses of technologies for the teaching of algebra and calculus. In A. Gutièrrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 237–273). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  18. Gray, E., & Tall, D. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 116–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hadjidemetriou, C., & Williams, J. (2002). Children’s graphical conceptions. Research in Mathematics Education, 4(1), 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Klinger, M. (2018). Funktionales Denken beim Übergang von der Funktionenlehre zur Analysis: Entwicklung eines Testinstruments und empirische Befunde aus der gymnasialen Oberstufe [Functional thinking in the transition from function theory to calculus: Development of a test and empirical findings from upper secondary students]. Wiesbaden: Springer Spektrum.Google Scholar
  23. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stacey, K., & Wiliam, D. (2013). Technology and assessment in mathematics. In M. A. K. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Klipatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 721–752). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Swan, M. (2014). Design research in mathematics education. In Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 148–152). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  28. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vollrath, H.-J. (1989). Funktionales Denken [Functional thinking]. Journal for Didactics of Mathematics, 10(1), 3–37.Google Scholar
  30. vom Hofe, R., & Blum, W. (2016). “Grundvorstellungen” as a category of subject-matter didactics. Journal for Didactics of Mathematics, 37(1), 225–254.Google Scholar
  31. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations