Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education pp 721–751Cite as

Technology and Assessment in Mathematics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE,volume 27))

Abstract

This chapter reviews the way that the decreasing cost and increasing availability of powerful technology changes how mathematics is assessed, but at the same time raises profound issues about the mathematics that students should be learning. A number of approaches to the design of new item types, authentic assessment and automated scoring of constructed responses are discussed, and current capabilities in terms of providing feedback to learners or supported assessment are reviewed. It is also shown that current assessment practices are struggling to keep pace with the use of technology for doing and teaching mathematics, particularly for senior students. The chapter concludes by discussing how a more principled approach to the design of mathematics assessments can provide a framework for future developments in this field. Specifically, it is suggested that assessment in mathematics should: (a) be guided by the mathematics that is most important for students to learn (the mathematics principle); (b) enhance the learning of mathematics (the learning principle); and (c) support every student to learn important mathematics and demonstrate this learning (the equity principle).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   709.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahmed, A., & Pollitt, A. (2004, June). Quantifying support: Grading achievement with the support model. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Association for Education Assessment, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allal, L., & Pelgrims Ducrey, G. (2000). Assessment of—or in—the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 10(2), 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almond, R. G., Steinberg, L. S., & Mislevy, R. J. (2003). A four-process architecture for assessment delivery, with connections to assessment design. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, H. S., Beevers, C. E., Korabinski, A. A., & Youngson, M. A. (2006). Incorporating partial credit in computer­aided assessment of mathematics in secondary education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 93–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beevers, J., Youngson, M., McGuire, G., Wild, D., & Fiddes, D. (1999). Issues of partial credit in mathematical assessment by computer. ALT-J (Association for Learning Technology Journal), 7, 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Lessons from around the world: How policies, politics and cultures constrain and afford assessment practices. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottge, B., Rueda, E., Kwon, J., Grant, T., & LaRoque, P. (2009). Assessing and tracking students’ problem solving performances in anchored learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(4), 529–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (2010). Does the introduction of the graphics calculator into system-wide examinations lead to change in the types of mathematical skills tested? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 181–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, M. (2010). Technologies for enhancing project assessment in large classes. In C. Reading (Ed.), Data and context in teaching statistics. Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics. Voorburg, Netherlands: International Statistical Institute. Retrieved from http://icots.net/8/cd/pdfs/invited/ICOTS8_5D3_BULMER.pdf

  • Callingham, R. (2010). Issues for the assessment and measurement of statistical understanding in a technology-rich environment. In C. Reading (Ed.) Data and context in teaching statistics. Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics. Voorburg, Netherlands: International Statistical Institute. Retrieved from http://icots.net/8/cd/pdfs/invited/ICOTS8_5D2_CALLINGHAM.pdf

  • Carver, R. (1974). Two dimensions of tests: Psychometric and edumetric. American Psychologist, 29, 512–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark-Wilson, A. (2010). Emergent pedagogies and the changing role of the teacher in the TI-Nspire Navigator networked mathematics classroom. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 42(7), 747–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, UK: NHS Education for Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  • College Board. (2010). Calculus AB/Calculus BC course description (effective Fall 2010). Retrieved from http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap-calculus-course-description.pdf

  • Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools. (1982). Report: Mathematics counts [The Cockcroft Report]. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drijvers, P. (2009). Tools and tests: Technology in national final mathematics examinations. In C. Winslow (Ed.), Nordic research on mathematics education: Proceedings from NORMA08 (pp. 225–236). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Educational Testing Service. (2010). ETS automated scoring and NLP technologies. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. (2005). Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook (5th ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, P. (2003). Adapting “problems to prove” for CAS-permitted examinations. International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 10(2), 103–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, P., & Asp, G. (2002). Assessing the potential suitability of “show that” questions in CAS-permitted examinations. In B. Barton, K. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch, & M. Thomas (Eds.), Proceedings of 25th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 252–259). Sydney, Australia: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgasz, H., & Tan, H. (2010). Does CAS use disadvantage girls in VCE Mathematics? Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, A., Bennett, R., Cahalan, C., & Rock, D. (2002). Validity and fairness in technology-based assessment: Detecting construct-irrelevant variance in an open-ended, computerized mathematics task. Educational Assessment, 8(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, J., Zieffler, A., Kaplan, D., Cobb, G., Chance, B., & Holcomb, J. (2011). Rethinking assessment of student learning in statistics courses. American Statistician, 65(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gvozdenko, E. (2010). Meaning and potential of test response time and certainty data: Teaching perspective (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/11051

  • Hargreaves, M., Shorrocks-Taylor, D., Swinnerton, B., Tait, K., & Threlfall, J. (2004). Computer or paper? That is the question: Does the medium in which assessment questions are presented affect children’s performance in mathematics? Educational Research, 46(1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller Reports. (2002, September). Discourse finds a home in ETS acquisition. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5695/is_11_13/ai_n28944586/

  • Irvine, S. (Ed.). (2002). Item generation for test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, I. (2008). Computer-aided assessment questions in engineering mathematics using Maple T.A. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(3), 341–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S., & Robinson, C. (2009). “Pretty lights” and maths! Increasing student engagement and enhancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems. Computers and Education, 53(1), 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, N. (2009). Comparability of computer- and paper-administered multiple-choice tests for K-12 populations: A synthesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(1), 22–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korb, K., & Nicholson, A. (2011). Bayesian artificial intelligence (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Chapman Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidz, C. S., & Elliott, J. G. (Eds.). (2001). Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maplesoft. (2011). Testing solutions from Maplesoft. Retrieved from http://www.maplesoft.com/products/testing_solutions/

  • Martin, R., & Binkley, M. (2009). Gender differences in cognitive tests: A consequence of gender dependent preferences for specific information presentation formats? In F. Scheuermann & J. Björnssen (Eds.), The transition to computer-based assessment (pp. 75–82). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council Mathematical Sciences Education Board (Ed.). (1993). Measuring what counts: A conceptual guide for assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. (1987). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltenburg, M., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Robitzsch, A. (2010). ICT-based dynamic assessment to reveal special education students’ potential in mathematics. Research Papers in Education, 25(3), 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, R., Stacey, K., & Barkatsas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students’ attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Computers and Education, 48(2), 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, M. (2002). Benefits of CAA. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 12(3), 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Programme for International Student Assessment Governing Board. (2010, November). Report of the 30th meeting of the PISA Governing Board. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/PISA/GB/M(2010)2/REV1&docLanguage=En

  • Rijpkema, K., Boon, M., van Berkum, E., & Di Bucchianico, A. (2010). Statlab: Learning DOE by doing! In C. Reading (Ed.), Data and context in teaching statistics. Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute. Retrieved from http://icots.net/8/cd/pdfs/invited/ICOTS8_9C3_RIJPKEMA.pdf

  • Roschelle, J., Abrahamson, L., & Penuel, W. R. (2004, April). Integrating classroom network technology and learning theory to improve classroom science learning: A literature synthesis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangwin, C., Cazes, C., Lee, A., & Wong, K. L. (2010). Micro-level automatic assessment supported by digital technologies. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain (pp. 227–250). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuermann, F., & Björnssen, J. (Eds.). (2009). The transition to computer-based assessment. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V., Hansen, E., & Almond, R. (2008). You can’t fatten a hog by weighing it—Or can you? Evaluating an assessment for learning system called ACED. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(4), 289–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Specific Mathematics Assessments that Reveal Thinking (SMART). (2008). How to choose a quiz. Retrieved from http://www.smartvic.com/smart/samples/select_preset.html

  • Stacey, K., Price, B., Steinle, V., Chick, H., & Gvozdenko, E. (2009). SMART assessment for learning. Retrieved from http://www.isdde.org/isdde/cairns/pdf/papers/isdde09_stacey.pdf

  • Stacey, K., Sonenberg, E., Nicholson, A., Boneh, T., & Steinle, V. (2003). A teacher model exploiting cognitive conflict driven by a Bayesian network. In P. Brusilovsky, A. Corbett, & F. de Rosis (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on User Modelling UM-03 (Vol. 2702, pp. 352–362). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, L. (Ed.). (2001). Mathematics and democracy: The case for quantitative literacy. Washington, DC: The National Council on Education and the Disciplines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Threlfall, J., Pool, P., Homer, M., & Swinnerton, B. (2007). Implicit aspects of paper and pencil mathematics assessment that come to light through the use of the computer. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 335–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trouche, L., & Drijvers, P. (2009). Handheld technology for mathematics education: Flashback into the future. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 42(7), 667–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(3), 227–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2002). Mathematical Methods (CAS). Examination 1, Part I. Melbourne, Australia: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2010). Mathematics. Victorian Certificate of Education Study Design. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/mathematics/mathsstd.pdf

  • WebAssign. (n.d.) Online homework and grading. Retrieved from https://www.webassign.net/index.html

  • Wiliam, D. (2005). Assessment for learning: Why no profile in US policy? In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 169–183). London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 2–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, D. M., Mislevy, R. J., & Bejar, I. (Eds.). (2006). Automated scoring of complex tasks in computer-based testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Class Arena. (2010). Example questions: 12 to 14 year-old questions. Retrieved from http://www.worldclassarena.org/files/en/sample/12-14M_eng/ICM1300172.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Kaye Stacey

  2. Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK

    Dylan Wiliam

Authors
  1. Kaye Stacey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dylan Wiliam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaye Stacey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Illinois State University, n/a, Normal, 61790-4520, Illinois, USA

    M.A. (Ken) Clements

  2. Fac. Education, Centre for Science, Mathematics &, Monash University, Clayton, 3800, Victoria, Australia

    Alan J. Bishop

  3. FB Erziehungswissenschaft und, Psychologie, FU Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, Berlin, 14195, Germany

    Christine Keitel

  4. Dept. Mathematics Education, University of Georgia, Aderhold Hall 105, Athens, 30602-7124, Georgia, USA

    Jeremy Kilpatrick

  5. Fac. Education, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR

    Frederick K.S. Leung

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stacey, K., Wiliam, D. (2012). Technology and Assessment in Mathematics. In: Clements, M., Bishop, A., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J., Leung, F. (eds) Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 27. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4684-2_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation