Abstract
In recent decades, technology has influenced various aspects of assessment in mathematics education: (1) supporting the assessment of higher-order thinking skills in mathematics, (2) representing authentic problems from the world around us to use and apply mathematical knowledge and skills, and (3) making the delivery of tests and the analysis of results through psychometric analysis more sophisticated. We argue that these developments are not pushing mathematics education in the same direction, however, which creates tensions. Mathematics education—so essential for educating young people to be creative and problem solving agents in the twenty-first century—is at risk of focusing too much on assessment of lower order goals, such as the reproduction of procedural, calculation based, knowledge and skills. While there is an availability of an increasing amount of sophisticated technology, the related advances in measurement, creation and delivery of automated assessments of mathematics are however being based on sequences of atomised test items. In this article several aspects of the use of technology in the assessment of mathematics education are exemplified and discussed, including in relation to the aforementioned tension. A way forward is suggested by the introduction of a framework for the categorisation of mathematical problem situations with an increasing sophistication of representing the problem situation using various aspects of technology. The framework could be used to reflect on and discuss mathematical assessment tasks, especially in relation to twenty-first century skills.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashton, H. S., Beevers, C. E., Korabinski, A. A., & Youngson, M. A. (2006). Incorporating partial credit in computer-aided assessment of Mathematics in secondary education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 93–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00512.x.
Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, & Australian Industry-Group. (2014). Identifying and Supporting Quantitative Skills of 21st Century Workers—Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Quantitative-Skills-of-21st-Century-Workers-Report.pdf.
Baird, J. -A., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2017a). Assessment and learning: fields apart? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 317–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337.
Baird, J. -A., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2017b). Metrology of education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 463–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1337628.
Baker Dearing Educational Trust. (2017). From school work to real work: how education fails students in the real world. London: Baker Dearing Educational Trust.
Bardini, C. (2015). Computer-based assessment of mathematics in PISA 2012. In K. Stacey & R. Turner (Eds.), Assessing mathematical literacy: The PISA experience (pp. 173–188). New York: Springer.
Bennett, R. E. (1998). Reinventing assessment: Speculations on the future of large-scale educational testing. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
Bennett, R. E. (2010a). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: a preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8(91), 70–91.
Bennett, R. E. (2010b). Technology for large-scale assessment. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (vol. 8, (3rd ed.), pp. 48–55). Oxford: Elsevier.
Bennett, R. E. (2015). The changing nature of educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 370–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14554179.
Bennett, R. E., Persky, H., Weiss, A., & Jenkins, F. (2010). Measuring problem solving with technology: A demonstration study for NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(8). Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/issue/view/166.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). What is education for? Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. London: Taylor & Francis.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.
Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Digital tools for algebra education: criteria and evaluation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9162-x.
Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented reality in education—cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International, 51(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2014.889400.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2018). Assessment in the service of learning: Challenges and opportunities or Plus ça Change, Plus c’est la même Chose. ZDM. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0937-1.
Coben, D., Hall, C., Hutton, M., Rowe, D., Weeks, K., & Wolley, N. (2010). Benchmark assessment of numeracy for nursing: Medication dosage calculation at point of registration. Edinburgh: NHS Education for Scotland.
Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence-based Approach to Reform (Research Report #RR-63). Retrieved from Philadelphia, PA: http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/researchreport/829_lpsciencerr63.pdf.
Csapó, B., Molnár, G., & Tóth, K. R. (2009). Comparing paper-and-pencil and online assessment of reasoning skills. A pilot study for introducing electronic testing in large-scale assessment in Hungary. In F. Scheuermann & J. Björnsson (Eds.), The transition to computer-based assessment. New approaches to skills assessment and implications for large-scale testing. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Csapó, B., Ainley, J., Bennett, R. E., Latour, T., & Law, N. (2012). Technological Issues for computer-based assessment. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 143–230). Dordrecht: Springer.
Daro, P., Mosher, F. A., & Corcoran, T. (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction. CPRE Research Report #RR-68. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. https://doi.org/10.12698/cpre.2011.rr68.
Davis, R., Maher, C., & Noddings, N. (Eds.). (1990). Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
European Commission. (2017). Commission Staff Working Document, Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A renewed EU agenda for higher education SWD(2017)264 Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/he-swd-2017-165_en.pdf.
Forman, S. L., & Steen, L. A. (1999). Beyond eighth grade: Functional mathematics for life and work. Berkeley, CA: National Centre for Research in Vocational Education.
Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Forgasz, H. (2015). A rich interpretation of numeracy for the 21st century: A survey of the state of the field. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 47(4), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0708-1.
Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F.-L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics education may prepare students for the society of the future? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6.
Greiff, S., & Kyllonen, P. (2016). Contemporary assessment challenges: The measurement of 21st century skills. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 243–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209209.
Griffin, P., & Care, E. (2015). Assessment and teaching of 21st Century Skills—methods and approach. New York: Springer.
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning Progression: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Retrieved from Los Angeles, CA: http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Learning_Progressions_Supporting_2008.pdf.
Hoogland, K. (2016). Images of numeracy: Investigating effects of visual representations of problem situations in contextual mathematical problem solving. (PhD-thesis). Eindhoven: Technical University Eindhoven.
Hoogland, K., Pepin, B., Bakker, A., de Koning, J., & Gravemeijer, K. (2016). Representing contextual mathematical problems in descriptive or depictive form: Design of an instrument and validation of its uses. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 50, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.06.005.
Hoogland, K., Pepin, B., de Koning, J., Bakker, A., & Gravemeijer, K. (2018). Word problems versus image-rich problems: an analysis of effects of task characteristics on students’ performance on contextual mathematics problems. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2017.1413414.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Kent, P., & Bakker, A. (2010). Improving Mathematics at Work The Need for Techno-Mathematical Literacies. London and New York: Routledge.
Hoyles, C., Wolf, A., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., & Kent, P. (2002). Mathematical skills in the workplace. Retrieved from London, UK: http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/1565/1/Hoyles2002MathematicalSkills.pdf.
Kent, P., Bakker, A., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2011). Measurement in the workplace: the case of process improvement in manufacturing industry. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(5), 747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0359-9.
Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (2007). Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Livne, N. L., Livne, O. E., & Wight, C. A. (2007). Can automated scoring surpass hand grading of students’ constructed responses and error patterns in mathematics? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 295–306.
Madison, B. L., & Steen, L. A. (2003). Quantitative Literacy: Why Numeracy Matters for Schools and Colleges. Princeton, NJ: National Council on Education and the Disciplines.
Masters, G. N. (2013). Reforming Educational Assessment: Imperatives, principles and challenges—Australian education review; no. 57. Camberwell: ACER.
Ministry of Education Singapore—Curriculum Planning and Development Division. (2012). Mathematics Syllabus: Primary One to Five. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/primary_mathematics_syllabus_pri1_to_pri5.pdf.
Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (Eds.). (2013). Timss 2015 Assessment Frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics Retrieved from Reston, VA: http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2017). Catalyzing Change in High School Mathematics. Retrieved from Reston, VA: https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_and_Positions/CatalyzingChangePublicReview.pdf.
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: Excellence through equity. Giving every student the chance to succeed (volume II). Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving. Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems (volume V). Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016). Global competency for an inclusive world. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Retrieved from Paris, France: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA%202012%20framework%20e-book_final.pdf.
Palm, T. (2006). Word problems as simulations of real-world situations: A proposed framework. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26(1), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/40248523.
Palm, T. (2009). Theory of Authentic Task Situations. In L. Verschaffel, B. Greer, W. V. Dooren & S. Mukhopadhyay (Eds.), Words and worlds—modelling verbal descriptions of situations (pp. 3–20). Rotterdam: Sense.
Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., & Davey, T. (2002). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York, NY: Springer.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2016). Framework for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved from Washington, DC: http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_framework_0816.pdf.
Pead, D. A. (2010). On Computer-based Assessment of Mathematics (Ph.D.-thesis). Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
PIAAC Numeracy Expert Group. (2009). PIAAC Numeracy: A conceptual framework. Retrieved from Paris, France: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2009)14&doclanguage=en.
Poggio, J., Glasnapp, D. R., Yang, X., & Poggio, A. J. (2005). A Comparative evaluation of score results from computerized and paper-and-pencil mathematics testing in a large scale state assessment program. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(6). http://www.jtla.org.
PwC. (2015). A smart move: Future-proofing Australia’s workforce by growing skills in science, technology, engineering and maths. Retrieved from Sydney Australia: https://www.pwc.com.au/pdf/a-smart-move-pwc-stem-report-april-2015.pdf.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2017). On learning and assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1336986.
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/.
Shute, V. J., Leighton, J. P., Jang, E. E., & Chu, M.-W. (2016). Advances in the Science of Assessment. Educational Assessment, 21(1), 34–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2015.1127752.
Stacey, K., & Wiliam, D. (2013). Technology and Assessment in Mathematics. In M. A. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 721–752). New York: Springer.
Steen, L. A. (2003). Data, shapes, symbols: Achieving balance in school mathematics. In B. L. Madison & L. A. Steen (Eds.), Quantitative literacy: Why numeracy matters for schools and colleges. Princeton, NJ: National Council on Education and the Disciplines.
Straesser, R. (2015). Numeracy at work”: A discussion of terms and results from empirical studies. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 47(4), 665–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0689-0.
Taubman, P. M. (2009). Teaching By Numbers: Deconstructing the Discourse of Standards and Accountability in Education. New York: Routledge.
Tout, D., Coben, D., Geiger, V., Ginsburg, L., Hoogland, K., Maguire, T., et al. (2017). Review of the PIAAC numeracy assessment framework: Final report. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).
Tout, D., & Spithill, J. (2015). The challenges and complexities of writing items to test mathematical literacy. In K. Stacey & R. Turner (Eds.), Assessing mathematical literacy: The PISA experience (pp. 145–171). Basel: Springer International Publishing.
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., Dooren, W. Van, & Mukhopadhyay, S. (Eds.). (2009). Words and worlds - Modelling verbal descriptions of situations. Rotterdam: Sense.
Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. N. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938.
Wake, G. (2015). Preparing for workplace numeracy: A modelling perspective. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 47(4), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0704-5.
Wiliam, D. (2005). Assessment for learning: Why no profile in US policy? In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 169–183). London: Sage.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001.
Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding formative assessment: Practical techniques for K-12 classrooms. West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International.
Zevenbergen, R. (2004). Technologizing numeracy: intergenerational differences in working mathematically in New Times. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:educ.0000028399.76056.91.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hoogland, K., Tout, D. Computer-based assessment of mathematics into the twenty-first century: pressures and tensions. ZDM Mathematics Education 50, 675–686 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0944-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0944-2