Assessment in Mathematics Education

ICME-13 Topical Surveys
Christine Suurtamm · Denisse R. Thompson

Rae Young Kim · Leonora Diaz Moreno
Nathalie Sayac · Stanislaw Schukajlow
Pauline Vos
Edward Silver· Stefan Ufer
Mathematicsin
Assessment
Education
Large-Scale Assessment and Classroom
Assessment
Series editor
Gabriele Kaiser, Faculty of Education, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14352
Christine Suurtamm Denisse R. Thompson
•
Rae Young Kim Leonora Diaz Moreno

•
Nathalie Sayac• Stanislaw Schukajlow

Edward Silver Stefan Ufer
•
Pauline Vos
Assessment in Mathematics
Education
Large-Scale Assessment and Classroom
Assessment
Christine Suurtamm Stanislaw Schukajlow
Faculty of Education Instituts für Didaktik der Mathematik und der
University of Ottawa Informatik
Ottawa, ON Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
Canada Münster, Nordrhein-Westfalen
Germany
Denisse R. Thompson
Department of Teaching and Learning Edward Silver
University of South Florida University of Michigan
Tampa, FL Ann Arbor, MI
USA USA
Rae Young Kim Stefan Ufer

Mathematics Education Lehrstuhl für Didaktik der Mathematik
Ewha Womans University Ludwig Maximilians-Universität München
Seoul München
Korea (Republic of) Germany
Leonora Diaz Moreno Pauline Vos

Departamento de Mathématicas University of Agder
Universidad de Valparaiso Kristiansand
Valparaíso Norway
Chile
Nathalie Sayac
Val de Marne
University Paris Est Créteil
Créteil Cedex
France
ISSN 2366-5947 ISSN 2366-5955 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-319-32393-0 ISBN 978-3-319-32394-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32394-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016936284
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016. This book is published open access.
Open Access This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, dupli
cation, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license and any changes made are indicated.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the work’s Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in the work’s Creative Commons license and the
respective action is not permitted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to
duplicate, adapt or reproduce the material.
This work is subject to copyright. All commercial rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic
adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply,
even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations
and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to
be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express
or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland
Main Topics Found in This ICME-13
Topical Survey
• Purposes, Traditions, and Principles of Mathematics Assessment

• Design of Assessment Tasks in Mathematics Education
• Mathematics Classroom Assessment in Action
• Interactions of Large-scale and Classroom Assessment in Mathematics Education
• Enhancing Sound Mathematics Assessment Knowledge and Practices.
v
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the valuable input of Karin Brodie, University of Witwatersrand,

South Africa and Co-chair of TSG 40, in the development of this topical survey.
vii
Contents
Assessment in Mathematics Education ......................... 1

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 Purposes, Traditions, and Principles of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Design of Assessment Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Classroom Assessment in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 Interactions of Large-Scale and Classroom Assessment. . . . . . . . . 19
2.5 Enhancing Sound Assessment Knowledge and Practices. . . . . . . . 25
3 Summary and Looking Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
ix
Assessment in Mathematics Education
1 Introduction
Although classroom teachers have long used various forms of assessment to

monitor their students’ mathematical learning and inform their future instruction,
increasingly external assessments are being used by policy makers throughout the
world to gauge the mathematical knowledge of a country’s students and sometimes
to compare that knowledge to the knowledge of students in other countries. As a
result, external assessments often influence the instructional practices of classroom
teachers. The importance given to assessment by many stakeholders makes
assessment a topic of interest to educators at many levels.
Because we believe those interested in large-scale assessment as well as class
room assessment have much to offer each other, the Co-chairs and committee
members of the two Topic Study Groups (TSG) at ICME-13 focused on assessment
in mathematics education, TSG 39: Large-Scale Assessment and Testing in
Mathematics Education, and TSG 40: Classroom Assessment for Mathematics
Learning, chose to work together to develop this volume, to consider research and
discussions that might overlap as well as those that are specific to either classroom
or large-scale assessment in mathematics education. By developing this survey of
the field and considering the work being done in assessment throughout the world,
we hope to provide a common foundation on which discussions can build and we
offer potential questions for further research and discussion.
This volume draws on research to discuss these topics and highlights some of the
differences in terms of challenges, issues, constraints, and affordances that
accompany large-scale and classroom assessment in mathematics education as well
as some of the commonalities. We recognize there are some strong differences
between the traditions, practices, purposes, and issues involved in these two forms
of assessment. But we also propose that there are overlapping areas that warrant
discussion, such as assessment item and task design, and connections and impli
cations for professional knowledge and practice. This volume provides the
© The
C. Suurtamm
Author(s)
et al.,
2016Assessment in Mathematics Education, 1
ICME-13 Topical Surveys, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32394-7_1

2 Assessment in Mathematics Education
opportunity to discuss both large-scale and classroom assessment in mathematics

education as well as their interactions through the following main themes:
• Purposes, Traditions, and Principles of Mathematics Assessment
• Design of Assessment Tasks in Mathematics Education
• Mathematics Classroom Assessment in Action
• Interactions of Large-scale and Classroom Assessment in Mathematics Education
• Enhancing Sound Mathematics Assessment Knowledge and Practices.
2 State of the Art
This main body of the survey provides an overview of current research on a variety
of topics related to both large-scale and classroom assessment in mathematics
education. First, the purposes, traditions, and principles of assessment are consid
ered with particular attention to those common to all assessment and those more
connected with either classroom or large-scale assessment. Assessment design in
mathematics education based on sound assessment principles is discussed with
large-scale and classroom assessment being differentiated, but also with a discus
sion of how the design principles overlap. We then discuss mathematics classroom
assessment and provide some specific examples of assessment strategies. The
impact of large-scale assessment in mathematics education on curriculum, policy,
instruction, and classroom assessment follows. We conclude by discussing the
challenges that teachers face, as well as ways to support them. In each section, we
pose problems worthy of continued or future research. We hope this discussion will
provide common language for the TSGs in assessment as well as lay out some
issues that we hope to discuss.
2.1 Purposes, Traditions, and Principles of Assessment
This section sets the stage for the rest of the volume as it discusses purposes,
principles, goals and traditions of assessment in mathematics education, with a view
to discussing commonalities as well as differences between large-scale and class
room assessment. We recognize and discuss some strong differences between the
traditions, practices, purposes, and issues involved in these two forms of assessment.
2.1.1 Purposes of Assessment
Assessment has been used for multiple purposes, such as providing student grades,
national accountability, system monitoring, resource allocation within a district,
2 State of the Art 3
student placement or monitoring, determining interventions, improving teaching

and learning, or providing individual feedback to students and their
parents/guardians (Newton 2007). Purpose is important. Claims that are made
should be different, depending on the goals and design of the assessment activity.
Large-scale and classroom assessment serve different purposes and have dif
ferent goals. Large-scale assessment informs systems. It is often used for system
monitoring, to evaluate programs, or to make student placements. In many juris
dictions around the world, students are assessed in mathematics using some form of
large-scale assessment that may take the form of national, state, or provincial
assessments but could also take the form of international assessments. For
accountability purposes, such large-scale assessments of mathematics are used to
monitor educational systems and increasingly play a prominent role in the lives of
students and teachers as graduation or grade promotion often depend on students’
test results. Teachers are sometimes evaluated based in part on how well their
students perform on such assessments (Wilson and Kenney 2003).
Classroom assessment gathers information and provides feedback to support
individual student learning (De Lange 2007; National Research Council [NRC]
2001b) and improvements in teaching practice. Classroom assessment usually uses
a range of teacher-selected or teacher-made assessments that are most effective
when closely aligned with what and how the students have been learning (Baird
et al. 2014). Current perspectives in classroom assessment encourage the use of a
range of assessment strategies, tools, and formats, providing multiple opportunities
for students to demonstrate their learning, making strong use of formative feedback
on a timely and regular basis, and including students in the assessment process
(e.g., Brookhart 2003; Klenowski 2009; National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics [NCTM] 2014).
Whether talking about large-scale or classroom assessment, attention must be
paid to the purpose of the assessment so the results of the assessment are interpreted
and used appropriately for that purpose. The results of the assessment should be
used for the purposes for which the assessment was designed and the inferences
need to be appropriate to the assessment design (Koch 2013; Messick 1989; Rankin
2015). However, we recognize that purposes of assessment are sometimes blurred.
For instance, teachers often use summative classroom assessments for formative
purposes when they use the summative results to understand students’ miscon
ceptions and design future instruction accordingly, or when they use tasks from
large-scale assessments for instructional purposes (e.g., Kenney and Silver 1993;
Parke et al. 2003). Additionally, in some parts of the world data from large-scale
assessments are provided to teachers to better understand teaching and learning in
their classrooms (see for example, Boudett et al. 2008; Boudett and Steele 2007).
2.1.2 Assessment Traditions
Large-scale assessment and classroom assessment have different traditions, having

been influenced in different ways by learning theories and perspectives (Glaser and
Silver 1994). Large-scale assessment traditionally comes from a psychometric/

measurement perspective, and is primarily concerned with scores of groups or
individuals, rather than examining students’ thinking and communication pro
cesses. A psychometric perspective is concerned with reliably measuring the out
come of learning, rather than the learning itself (Baird et al. 2014). The types of
formats traditionally used in large-scale assessment are mathematics problems that
quite often lead to a single, correct answer (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and Becker
2003). Some might see these types of questions as more aligned with a behaviourist
or cognitivist perspective as they typically focus on independent components of
knowledge (Scherrer 2015). A focus on problems graded for the one right answer is
sometimes in conflict with classroom assessments that encourage a range of
responses and provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their reasoning and
creativity, and work is being done to examine large-scale assessment items that
encourage a range of responses (see for example Schukajlow et al. 2015a, b).
Current approaches to classroom assessment have shifted from a view of
assessment as a series of events that objectively measure the acquisition of
knowledge toward a view of assessment as a social practice that provides continual
insights and information to support student learning and influence teacher practice.
These views draw on cognitive, constructivist, and sociocultural views of learning
(Gipps 1994; Lund 2008; Shepard 2000, 2001). Gipps (1994) suggested that the
dominant forms of large-scale assessment did not seem to have a good fit with
constructivist theories, yet classroom assessment, particularly formative assessment,
did. Further work has moved towards socio-cultural theories as a way of theorizing
work in classroom assessment (e.g., Black and Wiliam 2006; Pryor and Crossouard
2008) as well as understanding the role context plays in international assessment
results (e.g., Vos 2005).
2.1.3 Common Principles
There are certain principles that apply to both large-scale and classroom assessment.
Although assessment may be conducted for many reasons, such as reporting on
students’ achievement or monitoring the effectiveness of an instructional program,
several suggest that the central purpose of assessment, classroom or large-scale,
should be to support and enhance student learning (Joint Committee on Standards
for Educational Evaluation 2003; Wiliam 2007). Even though the Assessment
Standards for School Mathematics from the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics in the USA (NCTM 1995) are now more than 20 years old, the
principles they articulate of ensuring that assessments contain high quality math
ematics, that they enhance student learning, that they reflect and support equitable
practices, that they are open and transparent, that inferences made from assessments
are appropriate to the assessment purpose, and that the assessment, along with the
curriculum and instruction, form a coherent whole are all still valid standards or
principles for sound large-scale and classroom assessments in mathematics
education.
Assessment should reflect the mathematics that is important to learn and the
mathematics that is valued. This means that both large-scale and classroom
assessment should take into account not only content but also mathematical prac
tices, processes, proficiencies, or competencies (NCTM 1995, 2014; Pellegrino
et al. 2001; Swan and Burkhardt 2012). Consideration should be given as to
whether and how tasks assess the complex nature of mathematics and the cur
riculum or standards that are being assessed. In both large-scale and classroom
assessment, assessment design should value problem solving, modeling, and rea
soning. The types of activities that occur in instruction should be reflected in
assessment. As noted by Baird et al., “assessments define what counts as valuable
learning and assign credit accordingly” (2014, p. 21), and thus, assessments play a
major role in proscribing what occurs in the classroom in countries with account
ability policies connected to high-stakes assessments. That is, in many countries the
assessed curriculum typically has a major influence on the enacted curriculum in
the classroom. Furthermore, assessments should provide opportunities for all stu
dents to demonstrate their mathematical learning and be responsive to the diversity
of learners (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation 2003; Klieme
et al. 2004; Klinger et al. 2015; NCTM 1995).
In considering whether and how the complex nature of mathematics is repre
sented in assessments, it is necessary to consider the formats of classroom and
large-scale assessment and how well they achieve the fundamental principles of
assessment. For instance, the 1995 Assessment Standards for School Mathematics
suggested that assessments should provide evidence to enable educators “(1) to
examine the effects of the tasks, discourse, and learning environment on students’
mathematical knowledge, skills, and dispositions; (2) to make instruction more
responsive to students’ needs; and (3) to ensure that every student is gaining
mathematical power” (NCTM, p. 45). These three goals relate to the purposes and
uses for both large-scale and classroom assessment in mathematics education. The
first is often a goal of large-scale assessment as well as the assessments used by
mathematics teachers. The latter two goals should likely underlie the design of
classroom assessments so that teachers are better able to prepare students for
national examinations or to use the evidence from monitoring assessments to
enhance and extend their students’ mathematical understanding by informing their
instructional moves. Classroom teachers would often like to use the evidence from
large-scale assessments to inform goals two and three and there are successful
examples of such practices (Boudett et al. 2008; Boudett and Steele 2007; Brodie
2013) where learning about the complexity of different tasks or acquiring knowl
edge about the strengths and weaknesses of one’s own instruction can inform
practice. However, this is still a challenge in many parts of the world given the
nature of the tasks on large-scale assessments, the type of feedback provided from
those assessments, and the timeliness of that feedback.
In our examination of the principles and goals of assessment in mathematics
education from across the globe, we looked at the goals from both large-scale and
Table 1.1 Samples of assessment goals from different perspectives

Designers’ goals for Goals for effective Goals for Goals for
high-stakes formative competency models assessment based
assessments (Swan assessment in (Klieme et al. 2004) on purpose
and Burkhardt 2012) Norway (Baird et al. (Wiliam 2007)
2014)
• Measure • Students should • Students use their • To evaluate
performance over a know what they abilities within the mathematical
variety of types of need to learn domain being programs to
mathematical tasks • Feedback provided assessed assess their
• Operationalize to students should • Students access or quality
objectives for provide acquire knowledge • To determine a
performance in information about in that domain student’s
ways that both the quality of their • Students mathematical
teachers and work understand achievement
students can • Feedback should important • To assess
understand give insight on relationships learning to
• Identify patterns of how to improve • Students choose support and
classroom performance relevant action inform future
instruction • Students should be • Students apply instruction
(teaching and involved in their acquired skills to (adapted from
activities) that own learning perform the p. 1056)
would be through activities relevant actions
representative of such as • Students gather
the majority of self-assessment experience through
classrooms in the (adapted from the assessment
system in which pp. 37–38) opportunities
students are • Cognitions that
assessed (adapted accompany actions
from p. 4) motivate students
to act appropriately
(adapted from
p. 67)
formative assessments articulated by educators, assessment designers, or national

curriculum documents. Table 1.1 provides a sample of assessment goals that are
taken from different perspectives and assessment purposes.
Looking across the columns of the table, there are similarities in the goals for
assessment that should inform the design of tasks, whether the tasks are for for
mative assessment, for competency models, or for high-stakes assessment; in fact,
they typically interact with each other. Specifically, teachers and students need to
know what is expected which implies that tasks need to align with patterns of
instruction, tasks need to provide opportunities for students to engage in perfor
mance that will activate their knowledge and elicit appropriate evidence of learning,
the assessment should represent what is important to know and to learn, and when
feedback is provided it needs to contain enough information so that students can
improve their knowledge and make forward progress. These common goals bear
many similarities to the 1995 NCTM principles previously discussed.
2.1.4 Suggestions for Future Work
As we move forward in our discussions about the purposes, principles, and tradi
tions of assessment, we might want to consider the following issues:
• How do we ensure that the primary purpose of assessment, to improve student
learning of mathematics, is at the forefront of our assessment practices?
• How do we ensure that important mathematical practices/processes are evident
in assessments?
• How do we ensure equitable assessment practices? What do these look like?
• How do teachers negotiate the different purposes of classroom and large-scale
assessment?
• In what ways are classroom practices influenced by the demands of large-scale
assessment?
2.2 Design of Assessment Tasks
This section explores assessment design as it relates to two broad issues:

• The development of assessment tasks that reflect the complexity of mathemat
ical thinking, problem solving and other important competencies.
• The design of alternative modes of assessment in mathematics (e.g., online,
investigations, various forms of formative assessment, etc.) (Suurtamm and
Neubrand 2015, p. 562).
In so doing, we consider different examples of what we know about the design of
assessments and assessment tasks. An extensive discussion of design issues of
mathematics tasks can be found in the study volume for ICMI 22 on Mathematics
Education and Task Design (Watson and Ohtani 2015).
2.2.1 Design Principles in Large-Scale Assessments
This section presents several models of large-scale assessment design. The models
are not meant to be exhaustive but to be representative of some of the approaches
that might be used in designing large-scale assessments.
Designing from a psychometric tradition. In comparing and contrasting
assessment design from didactic and psychometric models, Van den
Heuvel-Panhuizen and Becker (2003) note that large-scale assessments typically
require tasks that have a single, correct answer. Because of the closed nature of the
task, the answer is all that is assessed, and different methods or strategies to obtain a
solution are not important. They summarize design assumptions from a psycho
metric tradition outlined by Osterlind (1998):
• Unidimensionality: Each test item should focus on assessing a single objective

or ability.
• Local independence: Each test item is independent of every other item, with no
hints or expectations that solutions to one item will affect performance on
another item.
• Item characteristic curve: If items are valid for a particular objective, students of
low ability should have a low probability of success on the item.
• Non-ambiguity: Items should be stated in such a manner that the beginning
portion of the item leads the student to the single correct response (adapted from
pp. 700–701).
As Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and Becker (2003) note, these assumptions are
based on beliefs about mathematics problems that most mathematics educators
would dispute:
1. “Mathematics problems always have only one correct answer.
2. The correct answer can always be determined.
3. All the needed data should be provided to students.
4. Good mathematics problems should be locally independent.
5. Knowledge not yet taught cannot be assessed.
6. Mathematics problems should be solved in exactly one way.
7. The answer to a problem is the only indicator of a student’s achievement level”
(p. 705).
From the above, it is clear that designing assessments and tasks according to the
assumptions outlined by Osterlind presents a challenge in reflecting current goals in
mathematics education that encourage students to demonstrate their thinking, work
with real-world messy or ill-structured problems, or solve problems from more than
one perspective or that have more than one answer. Psychometric models are often
criticized as presenting a narrow view of mathematics.
In the last decade, large-scale international assessment design has begun to
consider assessment items that challenge this traditional approach. For instance,
some of the recent PISA assessments have attempted to support multiple solutions
(Schukajlow et al. 2015a, b). Development continues to address mathematical
processes as well as mathematical content.
Designing to integrate content knowledge and mathematical processes.
Large-scale assessments are not likely to disappear from the assessment scene in
many countries because policy makers view them as a means to monitor the edu
cational system or compare students’ performance within or across countries. In
other cases, they might function as ways to determine access to higher levels of
education. Given the constraint of timed environments in which such assessments
occur, Swan and Burkhardt (2012) highlight design principles to ensure
high-quality assessments that reinforce the goals for mathematics outlined in the
curriculum documents of many countries. They present the following principles for
assessment task design:
• Tasks should present a balanced view of the curriculum in terms of all aspects of
performance that the curriculum wants to encourage.
• Tasks should have “face validity” and should be worthwhile and of interest to
students.
• Tasks should be appropriate for the purpose and should integrate processes and
practices rather than attempt to assess those separately from content.
• Tasks should be accessible (have multiple entry points) to students with a range
of ability and performance levels, while still providing opportunities for
challenge.
• Tasks should provide opportunities to demonstrate chains of reasoning and
receive credit for such reasoning, even if the final result contains errors.
• Tasks should use authentic rather than contrived contexts, at times with
incomplete or extraneous data.
• Tasks should provide opportunities for students to determine what strategy they
want to use in order to pursue a solution.
• Tasks should be transparent enough that students know what types of responses
will be acceptable (adapted from p. 7).
Swan and Burkhardt remark about challenges in designing tasks according to
these design principles: such tasks are longer than typical tasks in their statement on
the page, take more time to complete, and have a higher cognitive load because they
are more complex, unfamiliar, and have greater technical demand. When collabo
rative work is assessed, one needs to consider procedures for assessing the indi
vidual students’ contribution to the group’s workflow and/or products
(presentations, posters, etc.) (Webb 1993). Others have raised language issues with
these more challenging types of tasks, particularly when the language of assessment
may be different from students’ mother tongue, thus raising issues of equity within
assessment (e.g., Dyrvold et al. 2015; Levin and Shohamy 2008; Ufer et al. 2013).
Issues about the layout of a task and the amount of scaffolding that a task might
require have encouraged or required task designers to use an engineering design
approach, in which they try tasks with students from the target populations, revise
and try again, in a continuous cycle of design and refinement.
Designing from a competency model. “Competency models serve … to
describe the learning outcomes expected of students of given ages in specific
subjects … [and] map out possible ‘routes of knowledge and skills’ … [so that
they] provide a framework for operationalisations of educational goals” (Klieme
et al. 2004, p. 64). As Klieme et al. note, before competency models can be used to
build assessments, there is a need for empirical study to determine various levels of
competence, which are “the cognitive abilities and skills possessed by or able to be
learned by individuals that enable them to solve particular problems, as well as the
motivational, volitional and social readiness and capacity to use the solutions
successfully and responsibly in variable situations” (p. 65).
Within this perspective, competence links knowledge with skills along a spec
trum of performance through a variety of tasks that get at more than just factual
knowledge. “The basic idea of this model is that a person’s mathematical
competence can be described with reference to tasks that can be assigned a specific
level of difficulty. Individuals at the lowest competency level are able to retrieve
and apply their arithmetical knowledge directly. Those at the highest competency
level, in contrast, are capable of complex modelling and mathematical argumen
tation” (Klieme et al. p. 68). These issues suggest the need for measures that are
multidimensional rather than unidimensional to reflect competence at meeting
various targets and to identify educational standards that students have met and
areas where more work is needed (Klieme et al. 2004). Defining competencies in
stages, such as learning trajectories, are often hard to operationalize into test design.
To be useful, one needs to make inferences from performance to competency,
which can be difficult and is a typical critique of this model.
In some European countries, including Switzerland, Belgium and France,
competence is connected to unfamiliarity of tasks (Beckers 2002; Perrenoud 1997;
Rey et al. 2003). Concerning mathematical competencies, the following is con
sidered as a competency: “a capacity to act in an operational way faced with a
mathematical task, which may be unfamiliar, based on knowledge autonomously
mobilised by the student” (Sayac and Grapin 2015). Thus in some cases, unfa
miliarity is considered a component of a task’s difficulty.
In developing an actual assessment instrument to be used across schools, Klieme
et al. mention the need to utilize several technical aspects of test development:
• Determining whether the performance will be judged in terms of norm refer

encing or criterion referencing;
• Determining whether competence will be reported in terms of a single level or
across different components of overall competence;
• Determining whether test takers all complete the same items or complete dif
ferent samples of items;
• Determining whether one test is used for all competence levels or whether test
items might be individualized in some way (Klieme et al. 2004, adapted from
p. 76).
Others have raised additional technical issues in the design of assessments. For
instance, Vos and Kuiper (2003) observed that the order of test items influences
results, showing that more difficult items negatively affect achievement on subse
quent items. Thus, studies on the design of a large-scale assessment are often
conducted to ensure that the effects of the order of test items are minimized. For
example, researchers develop different test booklets with varied difficulties within
test booklets and the same test item occupies different positions in different versions
of the test (OECD 2009).
2.2.2 Design Principles for Classroom Assessment Tasks
Several of the design principles outlined in Sect. 2.2.1 for large-scale assessments
of mathematics could be useful for the design of many instructional and assessment
tasks used by classroom teachers. However, the more intimate nature of the
classroom and the close relationship of teachers to their students provide oppor
tunities for classroom tasks to be designed using some principles that may not be
practical in large-scale assessment environments. We now consider some models
within this context, again using the principles within these models to highlight
issues and possibilities rather than in any attempt to be exhaustive.
A didactic model of assessment. A didactic model of assessment design is
based on work from the Freudenthal Institute and the notion that mathematics is a
human activity in which students need to make meaning for themselves. Designing
assessment tasks according to these principles can potentially be quite beneficial for
classroom teachers by providing opportunities for students to demonstrate and share
their thinking, which can then serve as the basis for rich classroom discussion.
Through such activities, teachers are able to determine appropriate and useful
feedback that can move students forward in their learning and that can inform the
path toward future instruction, both essential elements of formative assessment.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and Becker (2003) suggest that assessment tasks
might include problems designed with the following principles in mind:
• Tasks have multiple solutions so that students can make choices and use their
natural thinking and reasoning abilities. Multiple solutions could involve both
tasks with multiple pathways to a single solution as well as multiple solutions.
• Tasks might be dependent, that is, tasks might be paired or contain multiple
parts where a solution on an earlier part is used to make progress on a subse
quent part or subsequent problem. One power of including dependent tasks “is
that the assessment reveals whether the students have insight into the relation
ship between the two problems, and whether they can make use of it” (p. 709).
• Tasks where what is of interest is the solution strategy rather than the actual
answer. Teachers are able to consider strategies used to identify situations in
which students recognize and use relationships to find solutions in an efficient
manner and those in which students may obtain a solution but from a more
convoluted approach (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and Becker 2003, adapted
from pp. 706–711).
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and Becker note that tasks designed with these prin
ciples in mind tend to be rich tasks that provide opportunities for students to engage
with problems of interest to them, take ownership of their learning, and provide
insight into thinking that can further classroom instruction and discourse to move
students forward mathematically.
Using disciplinary tasks. Cheang et al. (2012) describe a project in Singapore to
use disciplinary (or contextual) tasks as a means of making assessment practices an
integral part of mathematics instruction. These contextual tasks are designed so that
they assess a variety of mathematical competencies. Specifically, Cheang and his
colleagues suggest that these tasks incorporate the following:
• Demonstration of an understanding of the problem and how to elicit information

from the problem;
• Ability to complete appropriate computations;
• Inductive and deductive reasoning as applicable;
• Communication using relevant representations (e.g., tables, graphs, equations);
• Ability to use mathematics to solve real-world problems.
When designing a set of tasks for use as part of classroom assessment, teachers
can analyse which of these design principles are evident in each task or sub-task. If
certain principles are not adequately evident, then assessment tasks can be modified
so that students are exposed to a balanced set of tasks. They can also consider
formats other than written tests, such as projects, group work, or oral presentations
for classroom assessment.
Much work is still needed to ensure that widely used large-scale assessments are
designed according to sound principles so that the positive influences of such
assessments on classroom instruction and assessment can be fully realized. Some
questions for future research and discussion at the conference might be:
• How might we work with policy makers to design large-scale assessments in
line with validity, reliability and relevance (De Ketele 1989)?
• How do we help policy makers and the general public understand the value of
assessments that ask for more than a single correct answer or that require
students to write extended responses, particularly when such assessments may
cost more to administer and evaluate?
• What support is needed to help students value assessment tasks with extended
responses and use them to gauge their own learning?
• What support is needed to help teachers develop and use assessments as
described in Sect. 2.2.2 in their own classrooms on a regular basis?
• How does teachers’ content domain knowledge interact with their ability to use
data from large-scale assessments or what support might they need to use such
data?
• How does the use of technology influence the design of assessment items? What
are the affordances of technology? What are the constraints?
• How can students be prepared for unexpected or unfamiliar tasks?
• How can collaborative tasks be incorporated into assessments?
• What training or skills do teachers need to develop or be able to analyse/critique
assessments?
• What issues do teachers face and how might they be overcome when large-scale
assessments are delivered through interfaces or formats quite different from
those used during regular classroom assessment?
• How might research from assessments or assessment design help construct new
knowledge in mathematics education as is occurring in France (e.g., Bodin
1997)?
2.3 Classroom Assessment in Action
The preceding sections have outlined a number of principles that should be con
sidered when looking at designing an assessment plan for a classroom. These
principles are designed to provide opportunities for students to engage in mean
ingful mathematics and demonstrate their thinking, both to provide evidence of
their learning and to inform teachers about future instruction. Current perspectives
in mathematics education encourage teachers to engage students in developing both
content and process (i.e., reasoning and proof, representations, connections, com
munication, problem solving) knowledge and to ensure that students develop robust
mathematical proficiency consisting of procedural fluency, conceptual under
standing, adaptive reasoning, productive dispositions, and strategic competence
(National Research Council 2001a). Teachers have been prompted by educational
policy, teacher journals, and professional development initiatives to incorporate
new assessment practices in their classrooms in order to develop a better under
standing of student thinking and to provide appropriate feedback (Wiliam 2015).
Shifts to a broad range of classroom assessment practices are encouraged by both
the current classroom assessment literature (e.g., Gardner 2006; Stobart 2008) and
by recent thinking and research in mathematics education (e.g., NCTM 1995, 2000;
Wiliam 2007).
In this section, we discuss principles and issues that are fundamental to class
room assessment, and then describe some specific examples from around the globe
that teachers have used to respond to the principles of classroom assessment.
2.3.1 Assessment as an On-going Process in the Classroom
One test alone cannot adequately assess the complex nature of students’ mathe
matical thinking. Rather, different types of assessment are required to assess
complex processes such as problem solving, justifying or proving solutions, or
connecting mathematical representations. As a way to listen and respond to student
thinking, teachers are encouraged to use a variety of formats for assessment, such as
conferencing, observation, or performance tasks [i.e., “any learning activity or
assessment that asks students to perform to demonstrate their knowledge, under
standing and proficiency” as defined by McTighe (2015)]. Many of these practices
are part of formative assessment.
In this document, we use the term formative assessment to indicate informal

assessments that teachers might do as part of daily instruction as well as more
formal classroom assessments used to assess the current state of students’ knowl
edge. Then teachers use that information to provide feedback to students about their
own learning and to plan future instruction. This perspective seems to be in tune
with perspectives from other educators, as noted in the representative definitions
provided here:
• “Assessment for learning [formative assessment] is part of everyday practice by
students, teachers and peers that seeks, reflects upon and responds to informa
tion from dialogue, demonstration and observation in ways that enhance
ongoing learning” (Klenowski 2009, as cited in Baird et al. p. 42).
• “Practice in a classroom is formative to the extent that evidence about student
achievement is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers, learners, or their peers to
make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better
founded, than the decisions they would have taken in the absence of the evidence that
was elicited” (Black and Wiliam 2009, as cited in Wiliam 2011b, p. 11).
Both definitions are supported by the following five strategies or principles to
guide teachers in formative assessment as outlined by Leahy et al. (2005) as cited in
Wiliam (2011a):
• Teachers should clarify learning outcomes and conditions for success and then
share them with students.
• Teachers should engage students in classroom activities that provide evidence of
learning.
• Teachers should provide feedback to help students make progress.
• Students should be resources for each other.
• Students should own their learning (adapted from p. 46).
In work with groups of teachers throughout England, Black et al. (2004) iden
tified four practices that teachers could use to engage in continuous and formative
assessment as part of classroom instruction:
• questioning with appropriate wait time so that students have an opportunity to
think about an acceptable response and so that worthwhile, rather than super
ficial, questions are asked;
• providing feedback without necessarily attaching a grade because attaching a
grade can have a negative impact on students’ perceptions of their work and
cause them to ignore helpful feedback that informs students about what aspects
of their response are strong and what might need improvement;
• helping students learn to peer and self assess, both of which are critical com
ponents in assisting students to take ownership of their own learning; and
• using summative assessments in formative ways by helping students learn to
develop potential questions for a summative assessment and determine what
acceptable responses might entail.
The practices identified by Black et al. resonate with the work of Suurtamm,
Koch, and Arden who note that reform of assessment practices has meant a
changing view of assessment from “a view of assessment as a series of events that
objectively measure the acquisition of knowledge toward a view of assessment as a
social practice that provides continual insights and information to support student
learning and influence teacher practice” (2010, p. 400). This suggests that assess
ment is an integral part of instruction and that students have multiple and on-going
opportunities to demonstrate their thinking to the teacher and their peers, so that this
evidence of knowledge (or the lack thereof) can be used to move learning forward.
Through study of the assessment practices of a group of Canadian teachers,
Suurtamm et al. articulated several practices reflective of this broad perspective in
relation to assessment:
• teachers used various forms of assessment;
• instruction and assessment were seamlessly integrated as teachers built assess
ment into instructional tasks so they were constantly assessing students’
thinking;
• teachers valued and assessed complex thinking through problem solving; and
• teachers used assessment to support their students’ learning by providing stu
dents with appropriate feedback about their thinking, by helping them learn to
self-assess, and by using students’ thinking to guide their classroom instruction
(adapted from Suurtamm et al. 2010, pp. 412–413).
Viewing assessment as an ongoing and natural part of an instructional plan has
also been evident in research exploring assessment practices of Finnish teachers.
Teachers viewed assessment as “continuous and automatic” so that, as they planned
instruction, they considered “what kind of information is needed, how and when it
is collected and how it is used” (Krzywacki et al. 2012, p. 6666).
2.3.2 A Sampling of Classroom Assessment Strategies and Tasks
As noted in the previous section, assessment should be an on-going endeavour that

is an integral part of classroom instruction. In Sects. 2.1 and 2.2 we outlined some
general principles to guide sound assessment design. In this section, we report on a
sampling of classroom assessment strategies that have been reported to help
teachers develop assessments that make student understanding explicit and provide
evidence of robust understanding.
Kim and Lehrer (2015) use a learning progression oriented assessment system to
aid teachers in developing tasks that help students make conceptual progress in a
particular content domain. Their work entails developing construct maps that are
the outcomes of a learning progression, assessment items intended to generate the
types of reasoning identified in the construct maps, scoring exemplars, and then
lesson plans with contexts that enable students to engage with representations of the
mathematics.
Thompson and Kaur (2011) as well as Bleiler and Thompson (2012/2013)

advocate for a multi-dimensional approach to assessing students’ understanding,
building from curriculum work originating with the University of Chicago School
Mathematics Project in the USA. They suggest that, for any content topic, teachers
might consider tasks that assess understanding of that content from four dimen
sions: Skills (S), which deal with algorithms and procedures, Properties (P) which
deal with underlying principles, Uses (U) which focus on applications, and
Representations (R) which deal with diagrams, pictures, or other visual represen
tations of the concepts. This SPUR approach to understanding and assessing helps
ensure that teachers not only teach from a balanced perspective but assess from that
balanced perspective as well.
For example, consider the content domain of decimal multiplication. Figure 1.1
contains a sample problem for this concept within each dimension. If students can
solve a skill problem but not represent the concept visually, what does that say
about the robustness of students’ understanding and what are the implications for
teachers’ instructional decisions? Thompson and Kaur share results from an
international study with grade 5 students in the USA and Singapore that suggest
students’ proficiency is often different across these four dimensions, perhaps
because of differential emphasis in the curriculum as well as in instruction.
Toh et al. (2011) discuss the use of a practical worksheet to assess mathematical
problem-solving within Singapore classrooms, with a particular focus on the pro
cesses used when solving problems rather than solely on the final solution. Based
on the problem solving work of Pólya and Schoenfeld, the practical worksheet has
students make explicit statements that indicate how they understand the problem,
what plans they develop and implement in an attempt to solve the problem, what
key points and detailed steps were taken at various decision points along the plan,
and how they checked their solution and expanded the problem. Thus, the extensive
work students complete to make their thinking visible to the teacher, to their peers,
and to themselves provides critical information that can be used to identify mis
conceptions in thinking so that appropriate actions can be implemented that will
Skills Evaluate: 0.6 × 1.5.
Properties If 0.6 × A = 15, what would 0.06 × A equal? How do you know? What
about 60 × A?
Uses Find the cost of 0.6 kilos of meat costing 1.50 euros per kilo.
Representations If the figure represents 1 unit, illustrate 0.6 × 1.5.
Fig. 1.1 Decimal multiplication assessed using the SPUR approach

help students move forward. As students become familiar with the scoring rubric
associated with the practical worksheet, they are able to use it to monitor and assess
their own understanding and problem-solving endeavours.
Young-Loveridge and Bicknell (2015) report the use of culturally-sensitive
task-based interviews to understand the mathematical proficiency of a diverse group
of young children in New Zealand. The researchers used contexts that would be
familiar to the children being interviewed because of their cultural significance,
such as monkeys with bunches of bananas. By attending to contexts that were less
likely to disadvantage children, the researchers were able to explore children’s
understanding of concepts, such as multiplication and division, which the children
could reason about through the contextual cues although they had not formally
studied the concepts.
Elrod and Strayer (2015) describe the use of a rubric to assess university
mathematics students’ ability to engage in whole-class and small group discourse
while also communicating about their problem solving in written form. Their rubric
assesses discourse and written work for problem solving, reasoning and proof,
representation, communication, connections, and productive disposition with rat
ings as above the standard, at the standard, below the standard, or unacceptable.
The rubric became a tool for teachers to use as they monitored students working in
groups but was also a tool for students to use in assessing the work of their peers.
The researchers discuss how the rubric became a means to reference sociocultural
norms expected within the classroom, and thus, became an integral part of teachers’
assessment practices of students. Smit and Birri (2014) describe somewhat similar
work with rubrics in primary classrooms in Switzerland and found that the work
with rubrics helped both students and teachers understand competencies required on
national standards and was a means to provide beneficial feedback.
The strategies described briefly in the previous paragraphs are just a sample of
alternative assessment strategies that classroom teachers can use on a regular basis
to engage students in the types of mathematical problems and discourse that have
the potential to elicit student thinking and inform instruction. Numerous other
strategies have been identified in the literature, such as concept mapping (Jin and
Wong 2011), journal writing (Kaur and Chan 2011), or exit slips, learning logs, and
“find the errors and fix them” (Wiliam 2011a).
2.3.3 Self Assessment
As indicated in Sect. 2.3.1, one of the foundational principles of formative

assessment is to help students become actively engaged in assessing their own
learning and taking action on that assessment. As cited by Wiliam (2011a), the
Assessment Reform Group in the United Kingdom indicated that, if assessment
were to improve learning, then students needed to learn to self-assess in order to
make improvements, and that teachers needed to recognize that assessments can
influence students’ motivation and self-esteem. So, what are some approaches that
teachers might use to support students as they learn to self-assess their work as well
as assess the work of peers?
Mok (2011) describes the Self-directed Learning Oriented Assessment (SLOA)
framework developed and implemented with students in China, Hong Kong, and
Macau. The framework consists of three components: Assessment of Learning
gives the student insight into what has already been learned and what gaps exist
between current understandings and intended learning; Assessment for Learning
provides feedback to help the student move forward in his/her mathematical
understanding; and Assessment as Learning is designed to help the student learn to
self-assess and direct his/her own learning. Mok describes the pedagogical
approaches teachers might use within each component, some tools to facilitate those
approaches, and some pitfalls to avoid. For instance, in assessment as learning,
teachers help students learn to set goals, monitor their program, and to reflect on
their learning. Students can complete learning goal surveys with questions such as
“Can I reach this goal?” and then with choices such as “absolutely confident, strong
confident, rather confident, absolutely not confident” (p. 209). Rather than assume
students will develop the ability to assess on their own, students need role mod
elling and explicit instruction to develop these essential skills.
Fan (2011) suggests three different approaches that teachers can use to imple
ment self-assessment into their instruction. In structured self-assessment, teachers
have students complete pre-designed assessment survey forms during instruction to
gauge how students perceive their understanding or as a summative survey at the
end of a unit. Sample prompts might include “This topic is overall easy” or “I can
complete homework for this topic most of the time by myself” (p. 281). In inte
grated self-assessment, students might complete a survey that is simply a part of a
larger assessment package, with prompts such as “What were the mathematical
ideas involved in this problem?” or “What have you learnt from this presentation
[after presentation of an extended project, for example]?” (p. 283). In instructional
self-assessment, teachers embed self-assessment into the typical classroom activi
ties, perhaps even informally or impromptu. Interviews with students in classes that
participated in a research study related to these components of self-assessment
found that the activities promoted students’ self-awareness and metacognition; they
learned to be reflective and think deeply about their own learning.
It is evident that the current vision of mathematics instruction requires on-going

assessment that provides evidence for teachers of student understanding that can
inform instruction. But as Swan and Burkhardt (2012) note in their discussion of
assessment design and as noted by other researchers in assessment (e.g., Black et al.
2004), change is not easy or swift. Teachers and students need time to experiment
with changes, sometimes being successful and other times failing, but learning from
those failures and trying again. That is, teachers and students need space within
which to become comfortable with new assessment practices and to reflect on their
benefits and challenges.
As the community continues the study of assessment in action, some questions
to consider and discuss might be the following:
• What concerns about equity come into play with these suggested changes in
assessment? How might teachers support students whose cultural background
discourages disagreements with the teacher? How do we support teachers and
students when cultural backgrounds might suggest more teacher-centered rather
than student-centered classrooms?
• What are some of the additional challenges in assessment when hand-held
technologies are available (e.g., graphing calculators) or mobile technologies are
easily accessible (e.g., smart phones with internet connections)?
• How does technology access influence equity, both within and across countries?
2.4 Interactions of Large-Scale and Classroom Assessment
Assessment is a part of the procedure of making inferences, some of which are

about students, some about curricula, and some about instruction (Wiliam 2015).
Assessment is always a process of reasoning from evidence. By its very nature, moreover,
assessment is imprecise to some degree. Assessment results are only estimates of what a
person knows and can do (Pellegrino et al. 2001, p. 2).
Assessment results in mathematics education are and have been used in a variety
of ways, particularly when we examine the impact of large-scale assessment on
policy, curriculum, classroom practice, and individual student’s careers. When
large-scale assessments focus on monitoring, they are at the system level and some
might suggest that there is no direct impact upon teachers and learners. Such
large-scale assessments are perceived as having little to say about individuals,
because they do not deliver sufficiently reliable results for individuals, but only on
higher levels of aggregation. However, in some countries (France, Belgium,
Netherlands, Norway, etc.) large-scale assessments include national examinations
that all students must take in order to progress to further studies. Such large-scale
assessments are exit assessments, whereby students cannot leave secondary school
without passing the national exams. The question arises as to what extent are
large-scale assessments for accountability for teachers and students used and how
might such use influence the nature of classroom instruction?
2.4.1 Assessments Driving Reform
One issue is whether the results of large-scale assessment should drive curriculum
and instructional reform (Barnes et al. 2000). Standings on international
assessments of mathematics often drive political and educational agendas and there
have been several examples of this in situations in recent years (c.f. Klieme et al.
2003). In particular, if countries have nationally organised exit examinations, these
may drive (or hinder) reform. Some suggest that externally imposed assessments
have been used in attempts to drive reform in some cases (Earl and Torrance 2000;
Mathematical Sciences Education Board [MSEB] and National Research Council
[NRC] 1993). For instance, in many countries the OECD PISA results have affected
curriculum in such a way to focus it more specifically on particular topics, such as
problem solving (De Lange 2007). ‘‘All of these efforts were based on the idea that
assessment could be used to sharpen the focus of teachers by providing a target for
their instruction’’ (Graue and Smith 1996, p. 114).
2.4.2 Impact of Large-Scale Assessment on Classroom Assessment
The nature and design of assessment tasks and the results of assessments often have
an enormous influence on the instruction orchestrated by teachers. Swan and
Burkhardt (2012) note that the influence of assessments is not just on the content of
instruction but on the types of tasks that students often experience (e.g.,
multiple-choice versus more open or non-routine problems). If students and
teachers are judged based on the results of large scale assessments, in particular in
countries with national exit examinations, there is a need for students to experience
some classroom assessments that are related to the types of tasks used on such
assessments so the enacted curriculum is aligned with the assessed curriculum and
so that results of the assessments provide useful and reliable evidence to the edu
cational system. Some have questioned whether large-scale assessments that are
used for accountability measures can be used or designed to generate information
useful for intervention by teachers (Care et al. 2014). Also, as indicated by Swan
and Burkhardt and Klieme et al., there is a need for piloting of assessment tasks or
empirical study of competence levels before these are used in or applied to
large-scale assessments. Piloting provides opportunities for trying tasks in class
room contexts. As Obersteiner et al. (2015) discuss, when items are developed to
assess competence at different levels and then students’ solutions are analysed for
potential misconceptions from a psychological perspective, teachers are able to use
competency models in ways that can guide instruction and help students move
forward in their mathematical understanding.
However, there is some caution about the use of large-scale assessment types in
classroom assessment. If teachers teach to tests constructed using a psychometric
model, they are likely to teach in a superficial manner that has students learn in
small chunks with performance demonstrated in isolated and disconnected seg
ments of knowledge. A study by Walcott and colleagues challenges a practice of
preparing students for large-scale multiple-choice assessments by having the
majority of classroom assessments take a multiple choice format. The study results
show that, in fact, the students in classrooms where the teachers are using a variety
of assessments seem to have higher achievement (Walcott et al. 2015). Their results
do not necessarily demonstrate a causal relationship but provide evidence that a

constant use of multiple-choice tests as classroom assessments may not necessarily
lead to high achievement. Brunner and colleagues provide further evidence of the
effects of teaching to the test. They report that, when students were taught using
PISA materials, their performance on the PISA assessment was similar to the
control group in the study (Brunner et al. 2007). Others have found that assessments
that accompany published materials teachers use in classrooms often fail to address
important process goals for mathematics, such as the ability to engage in reasoning
and proof, communicate about mathematics, solve non-routine problems, or rep
resent mathematical concepts in multiple ways (e.g., Hunsader et al. 2014; Sears
et al. 2015).
2.4.3 “Teaching to the Test”
Many might argue or complain that assessments force too many teachers to teach to
the test. Some would argue against large-scale assessments driving classroom
instruction, as often the nature of the large-scale assessment might narrow the
curriculum. Swan and Burkhardt argue that if the assessment is well designed and
aligns with curriculum goals then ‘teaching to the test’ is a positive practice. They
suggest:
To make progress, it must be recognised that high-stakes assessment plays three roles:
A. Measuring performance across the range of task-types used.
B. Exemplifying performance objectives in an operational form that teachers and students
understand.
C. Determining the pattern of teaching and learning activities in most classrooms (p. 4).
Swan and Burkhardt note that large-scale assessments provide messages to class
room teachers about what is valued and have an impact on both instructional and
assessment activities within a classroom. Their work suggests a need to develop
assessments that pay attention to their implications and align not only with math
ematics content but also with mathematical processes and actions.
However, Swan and Burkhardt note that if the assessments reflect what is
important for students to learn about mathematics, both in terms of content and
performance, then “teachers who teach to the test are led to deliver a rich and
balanced curriculum” (2012, p. 5, italics in original). They argue that if an
assessment is perfectly balanced and represents what is important to learn, then
perhaps ‘teaching to the test’ can be a good thing. This scheme of ‘teaching to the
test’ has been put forward as a potential tool for innovation and has also been
articulated by other scholars (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and Becker 2003). As De
Lange noted in (1992):
…[throughout the world] the teacher (or school) is judged by how well the students perform
on their final exam. This leads to test-oriented learning and teaching. However, if the test is
made according to our principles, this disadvantage (test-oriented teaching) will become an
advantage. The problem then has shifted to the producers of tests since it is very difficult
and time consuming to produce appropriate ones. (as cited in Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen
and Becker, p. 691)
An important question, then, is whether the assessment adheres to design

principles that engage students with tasks that provide opportunities to engage with
important mathematical processes or practices. However, even the best-designed
assessments cannot account for issues such as test anxiety. When assessment
activities mirror instructional activities, that anxiety might be reduced and such
assessments might be a more accurate indicator of student achievement.
2.4.4 Examples of Positive Interaction Between Large-Scale

Assessment and Classrooms
If the enacted curriculum of the classroom and the assessed curriculum are to
inform each other and to enhance student learning in positive and productive ways,
then large-scale external assessments cannot operate in isolation from the class
room. A number of researchers from different parts of the globe have documented
the interplay of these two assessment contexts.
Shimizu (2011) discusses bridges within the Japanese educational system
between large-scale external assessments and actual classrooms. As in many
countries, he notes tensions between the purposes of external assessments and those
of classroom assessments and that teachers are concerned about the influences of
external assessments on their classroom instructional practices and assessment. To
assist teachers in using external assessments to inform their classroom instruction,
sample items are released with documentation about the aims of the item as well as
student results on the item, and potential lesson plans that would enable such items
to be used in the classroom. For instance, on multiple-choice items, information can
be provided that suggests the types of thinking in which students may be engaged
based on answer choice, thus assisting teachers to understand the nature of mis
conceptions in students’ thinking based upon the incorrect answer selected. As a
result, external assessment tasks provide students with opportunities for learning.
Given the expectation that the assessed curriculum reflects what should be taught
within the classroom, Shalem et al. (2012) describe the benefits of having South
African teachers engage in curriculum mapping of large-scale assessments. The
authors acknowledge that assessment developers often engage in such activities, but
that classroom teachers rarely do. For a given test item, teachers identified the
concept being assessed, identified and justified the relevant assessment standard,
and then determined if the necessary content was taught explicitly or not and at
what grade. The results of the curriculum mapping helped to highlight discrepancies
between the intended curriculum assumed by assessment designers and the actual
enacted curriculum of the classroom. Specifically, there were three important
outcomes for teachers: teachers developed an understanding of the content assessed

at a particular grade and at what cognitive demand; teachers could reflect on their
own practice as they identified whether the content was actually taught in class
rooms; and teachers developed a more robust understanding of the curriculum. All
three of these outcomes provided an important link between the external assessment
and actual classroom practice that could inform future instruction.
Brodie (2013) discusses an extension of the work of Shalem, Sapire, and
Huntley in the South African context. In the Data Informed Practice Improvement
Project, teachers work in professional learning communities to analyse test items,
interview students, map curriculum to assessments, identify concepts underlying
errors, and then read and discuss relevant research. Within school based learning
communities, teachers use school level data to design and then reflect on lessons to
address issues within the data analysis.
As a final representative example of how external assessments might be used to
inform classroom instruction and assessment, we consider the work of Paek (2012).
Paek suggests that learning trajectories are one means “to make an explicit and
direct connection of high-level content standards, what is measured on high-stakes
large-scale assessments, and what happens in classrooms” (p. 6712). She argues
that development of such trajectories “requires deep understanding of the content,
how students learn, and what to do when students are struggling with different
concepts” (p. 6712). Knowledge of such trajectories can be used in the development
of assessment items but also can help to inform teachers about how students learn
particular concepts. In her project, Paek works with researchers, mathematics
educators, and national consultants to develop resources for teachers that connect
learning trajectories to big ideas within and across grades. It is hoped that by
becoming more familiar with learning trajectories, teachers can consider developing
classroom assessment items that focus on different aspects of the learning contin
uum or that provide opportunities for transferring of skills or that enable student
work to be collected to monitor progress along the continuum.
2.4.5 Making Use of Assessment Results
Making use of assessment data is strongly connected to assessment literacy. Webb

(2002) defines assessment literacy as:
the knowledge of means for assessing what students know and can do, how to interpret the
results from these assessments, and how to apply these results to improve student learning
and program effectiveness (p. 4).
This definition of assessment literacy can apply to the interpretation of results from
both classroom and large-scale assessments. In fact, the challenges of making use of
assessment results span both classroom assessment results and large-scale assess
ment results.
Making sense of classroom assessment results is often seen as teachers’ work.
Wyatt-Smith et al. (2014) acknowledge that, along with the task of designing
assessments, teachers need to know how to use assessment evidence to identify the
implications for changing teaching. However, interpreting classroom assessment
results is also the work of parents, students, and school administrators. In terms of
students, including students in the assessment process has been shown to provide
them with a stronger sense of what is being assessed, why it is being assessed, and
ways they can improve, thus allowing them to make better use of assessment results
(Bleiler et al. 2015; Tillema 2014). Developing students’ ability to self-assess is an
important aspect of this work (Fan 2011). Once students have a strong assessment
literacy, they can assist their parents in interpreting assessment results, but this
should be supported with solid and frequent communication between schools,
teachers, students, and parents in order to enhance the assessment literacy of all
who are involved in understanding assessment results.
Making sense of large-scale assessment results is often seen as the purview of
many education stakeholders, including teachers, administrators, school district
officials, state or provincial policy makers, national policy makers or administrators,
as well as the general public. Each group has its own perspective on the results,
sometimes multiple contrasting perspectives, which can complicate interpretation.
To the extent that large-scale assessment results are useful for more than conver
sations across constituent groups, the value will come in the application of suitable
interpretations to educational policy and practice. The question arises as to what do
educators need to know to make productive use of assessment results? The first
priority when examining test results is to consider the purpose of the test and to
view the results in light of the assessment’s purpose. Those viewing the results
should also have some assessment literacy to be able to know what they can and
cannot infer from the results of the assessment. Rankin (2015) places some of this
responsibility on the assessment developer and suggests that, in order to assist
educators in making use of assessment results, those responsible for conveying the
results should consider how they are organized and what information is provided to
those using the results. She suggests that data analysis problems often occur
because the data are not presented in an organized and meaningful manner. Her
work highlights several common types of errors that are made in the interpretation
of assessment results and she cautions educators to pay close attention to the
assessment frameworks and literature published in concert with the assessment’s
results (often on a website). She presents a series of recommendations for which she
feels educators should advocate that include improvements to data systems and
tools that will facilitate easier and more accurate use of data. See also Boudett et al.
(2008) and Boudett and Steele (2007) for other strategies in helping teachers
interpret results.
There is no doubt that much can be learned from large-scale assessment.

Assessments help to highlight achievement gaps, point to areas where adaptations
to instruction might be required, and can lead to reforms in curriculum and
teaching. International assessments have helped to globalize mathematics education

and have created a forum for mathematics educators to share their knowledge and
experiences, and work together to resolve common issues.
As shown, large-scale and classroom assessment interact with one another in
different ways. Because they rest on similar principles of sound assessment, ulti
mately having coherence between the two would help to support all students to be
successful. Wyatt-Smith et al. (2014) suggest “better education for young people is
achievable when educational policy and practice give priority to learning
improvement, thereby making assessment for accountability a related, though
secondary, concern” (p. 2).
This section has raised many issues for future research. Some questions to
consider include:
• What are the challenges and or issues in attempting to bring all stakeholders for
assessment to the table—developers of large-scale national or international
assessments, textbook publishers or developers, classroom teachers?
• What are issues in attempting to ensure that important mathematical
practices/processes are evident in assessments?
• What training or skills do teachers need to develop to be able to analyse/critique
assessments?
• Should policy decisions be made based on large-scale assessments, given evi
dence that some assessments may not reflect students’ achievement when the
assessment has little impact on students’ educational lives (e.g., some students
do not give their best effort on the assessment)?
2.5 Enhancing Sound Assessment Knowledge and Practices
Assessing student learning is a fundamental aspect of the work of teaching. Using

evidence of student learning and making inferences from that evidence plays a role
in every stage of the phases of instruction. This section discusses the challenges
teachers face in engaging in assessment practices that help to provide a compre
hensive picture of student thinking and learning. It also presents examples of
professional learning opportunities that have helped to support teachers as they
enhance their assessment practices.
2.5.1 The Assessment Challenge
Assessing students’ learning is multi-faceted. The process of making sense of

students’ mathematical thinking, through student explanations, strategies, and
mathematical behaviors, is much more complex than might be anticipated and can
often challenge teachers’ ways of thinking about mathematics and mathematics

teaching and learning (Even 2005; Watson 2006). In many cases, teachers require
new assessment practices along with different ways of thinking about teaching and
learning. Several researchers have suggested there is variability in the extent to
which teachers have implemented innovative assessment practices, often based on
teachers’ conceptions of assessment and mathematics teaching (e.g., Brookhart
2003; Duncan and Noonan 2007; Krzywacki et al. 2012). Although there might be
some resistance to change, even when teachers want to shift their practice and
incorporate more current assessment practices, it is difficult to change without many
other factors in place, such as changing students’, parents’, and administrators’
views (Marynowski 2015; Wiliam 2015). For instance, while involving students in
the assessment process is seen as important (Tillema 2014), Semena and Santos’
work (2012) suggests that incorporating students in the assessment process is a very
complex task.
2.5.2 Dilemmas Teachers Face
Several researchers have examined the challenges teachers face in shifting or

enhancing their practice (c.f. Adler 1998; Silver et al. 2005; Suurtamm and Koch
2014; Tillema and Kremer-Hayon 2005; Windschitl 2002). Using Windschitl’s
(2002) framework of four categories of dilemmas—conceptual, pedagogical,
political, and cultural—to analyze their transcripts, Suurtamm and Koch describe
the types of dilemmas teachers face in changing assessment practices, based on
their work with 42 teachers meeting on a regular basis over 2 years. They see
conceptual dilemmas in assessment occur as teachers seek to understand the con
ceptual underpinnings of assessment and move their thinking from seeing assess
ment as an event at the end of a unit to assessment as ongoing and embedded in
instruction. Adopting new assessment practices may require a deep conceptual shift
that takes time and multiple opportunities to dialogue with colleagues and test
out assessment ideas in classrooms (Earl and Timperley 2014; Timperley 2014;
Webb 2012).
Teachers face pedagogical dilemmas as they wrestle with the “how to” of
assessment practices in creating and enacting assessment opportunities. These
might occur as teachers work on developing a checklist for recording observations,
designing a rubric, or asking others for ways to find time to conference with
students. For instance, in research in Korea, Kim and colleagues noted pedagogical
dilemmas as teachers struggled to create extended constructed response questions
(Kim et al. 2012).
Many teachers face cultural dilemmas, and often these are seen as the most
difficult to solve. They might arise as new assessment practices challenge the
established classroom, school, or general culture. For instance, students might
confront the teacher with questions if, rather than receiving a grade on a piece of
work, the student receives descriptive feedback. Or, cultural dilemmas might arise if
the teacher is adopting new assessment practices but is the only one in his or her
department to do so and is met with some resistance from others.
Political dilemmas emerge when teachers wrestle with particular national, state,
provincial, district, or school policies with respect to assessment. These might arise
due to an overzealous focus on large-scale assessment, particular policies with
respect to report card grades and comments, or with particular mandated methods of
teaching and assessment that do not represent the teachers’ views. Engelsen and
Smith (2014) provide an example of a political move that may have created such
dilemmas for teachers. They examined the implications of national policies to create
an Assessment For Learning culture in all schools within a country, and give the
instance of Norway. Their examination suggests that this top-down approach
through documents and how-to handbooks does not necessarily take into account
the necessity for conceptual understanding of sound assessment practices to take
hold. They suggest more work with policy makers and administrators in under
standing that developing assessment literacy is more important than mandating
reforms.
What appears helpful about this parsing out of dilemmas into categories is that
different types of dilemmas might require different types of supports. For instance,
in many cases, pedagogical dilemmas, the ‘how to’ of assessment, might be
resolved through a workshop or through teachers sharing resources. However,
cultural dilemmas are not as easily solved and might require time and focused
communication to resolve. Although this parsing out of dilemmas is helpful when
looking at supports, it should also be recognized that the dilemmas types interact. In
other words, a policy cannot be invoked without understanding that it will have
pedagogical, cultural, and conceptual implications and pedagogical resources won’t
be employed if there is not enough conceptual understanding or cultural shifts.
2.5.3 Supporting Teachers
Some would suggest that adopting and using new assessment practices is a complex
process that needs to be well supported, particularly by other colleagues (e.g.,
Crespo and Rigelman 2015). As Black et al. (2004) note, as part of embedding
assessments into instructional practice, teachers first need to reflect on their current
practice and then try changes in small steps, much like the “engineering design”
approach to assessment development advocated by Swan and Burkhardt (2012).
The following presents a sample of models and activities that have been imple
mented to enhance teachers’ understanding of assessment and their assessment
practices, and to support them as they negotiate the dilemmas they face in shifting
assessment practices.
Hunsader and colleagues have been working with both pre-service and
in-service teachers to assist them in becoming critical consumers and developers of
classroom assessment tasks (Hunsader et al. 2015a, b). This work has taken place
over time, working with teachers in critiquing, adapting, or transforming published
assessment tasks so they better address the mathematical actions that students
should be taking (e.g., mathematical processes, mathematical practices). This work
has reassured teachers that they can adapt and build strong assessment tasks by
modifying and adapting readily available resources.
Webb’s study (2012) focused on middle school teachers working over a
four-year period in a professional learning situation to improve their classroom
assessment practice. Teachers engaged in a variety of collaborative activities, such
as assessment planning, and analysis of classroom tasks and student work. Teachers
tried out the assessment ideas in their classes and brought back those experiences to
the group, thus providing authentic classroom connections. The project demon
strated an increase in teachers’ use of higher cognitive demand tasks involving
problem contexts. Webb suggested that professional learning needed to challenge
teachers’ prior conceptions of assessment as well as the way they saw mathematics.
Marynowski’s study (2015) documented the work of secondary mathematics
teachers who were supported by a coach over one year as they worked on
co-constructing formative assessment opportunities and practices. One of the pos
itive results was that teachers noticed that students were held more accountable for
their learning and were more engaged in the learning process. Teachers appreciated
the immediate feedback about student learning but also some teachers noted
resistance on the part of students (Marynowski 2015).
Lee et al. (2015) were involved with 6 colleagues in a self-study of a
Professional Learning Community (PLC) set within a university course. Within this
PLC they sought to refine the assessment practices they were using in their own
classrooms. They focused on developing questioning techniques by role playing
questioning techniques, refining those techniques, using the techniques with their
own students in interviews, and bringing back the results of the conversations to the
PLC. The group reported an increased level of awareness of teacher-student
dialogue.
Other professional learning activities that had positive impacts on teachers’
assessment expertise and practice include lesson study with a focus on assessment
(Intanate 2012), working with student work samples from formative assessment
opportunities in teachers’ classrooms (Dempsey et al. 2015), and shifting from
merely feedback to formative feedback for teachers in a Grade 1 classroom
(Yamamoto 2012).
There are many common features in the professional learning models above as
well as in other studies that point to success. In most cases, the professional learning
occurred over an extended period of time from a half year to several years. Many of
these models involved components of teachers moving back and forth from the
professional learning situation to their own classrooms, thus connecting their
learning with authentic classroom situations and situating knowledge in day-to-day
practice (Vescio et al. 2008). In some cases, the professional learning was occurring
in a pre-service or in-service classroom setting which further provides an oppor
tunity for the mathematics teacher educator to model sound assessment practices.
Many models also involved working with a group of teachers, thus creating a
community that provided support as teachers tried out new ideas. The Professional
Learning Community model provides an environment where the teacher is not
working in isolation but is able to share ideas and lean on colleagues to help solve
dilemmas (see, for example, Brodie 2013).
There are many challenges in adopting new assessment practices and there is no
doubt that this is a complex issue. This section has suggested some strategies to
support teachers as they adopt new assessment strategies in their classroom, but
many issues still remain. Some continued and future areas of research might
include:
• How is assessment handled in teacher preparation programs? Are issues about
assessment handled by generalists or by those fluent in assessment in mathe
matics education? What are advantages/disadvantages of having mathematics
teacher educators engage teachers in professional development related to
assessment?
• While this research discusses supporting teachers who are adopting new prac
tices in assessment, what about those teachers who are reluctant to make those
shifts?
3 Summary and Looking Ahead
This monograph has focused on a variety of issues that relate to assessment, both
large-scale assessment and classroom assessment. In particular, the monograph has
highlighted the following:
• Purposes, traditions, and principles of assessment have been described and
summarized.
• Issues related to the design of assessment tasks have been outlined, with prin
ciples from various design models compared.
• Assessment has been described in action, including strategies specifically
designed for classroom use and issues related to the interactions of large-scale
and classroom assessment.
• Issues related to enhancing sound assessment knowledge and practices have
been described with examples of potential models for teacher support.
• Questions for future research and discussion at the conference have been
articulated within each of the major sections of the monograph.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/
4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license and any changes made are indicated.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in
the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory
regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or
reproduce the material.
References
Adler, J. (1998). A language of teaching dilemmas: Unlocking the complex multilingual secondary
mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(1), 24–33.
Baird, J., Hopfenbeck, T. N., Newton, P., Stobart, G., & Steen-Utheim, A. T. (2014). State of the
field review: Assessment and learning. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Education. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment.
Barnes, M., Clarke, D., & Stephens, M. (2000). Assessment: The engine of systemic curricular
reform? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(5), 623–650.
Beckers, J. (2002). Développer et évaluer des compétences à l’école: vers plus d’efficacité et
d’équité. Brussels, Belgium: Labor.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.),
Assessment and learning (pp. 81–100). London, England: Sage.
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Inside the black box:
Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 8–21.
Bleiler, S., Ko, Y. Y., Yee, S. P., & Boyle, J. D. (2015). Communal development and evolution of
a course rubric for proof writing. In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth-McDuffie (Eds.), Annual
perspectives in mathematics education: Assessment to enhance teaching and learning
(pp. 97–108). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Bleiler, S. K., & Thompson, D. R. (2012/2013). Multi-dimensional assessment of the common
core. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19(5), 292–300.
Bodin, A. (1997). L’évaluation du savoir mathématique. Recherches En Didactique Des
Mathématiques, Savoirs & methods, 17(1), 49–96.
Boudett, K. P., & Steele, J. L. (2007). Data wise in action: Stories of schools using data to
improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (2008). Data-wise: A step-by-step guide to using
assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Brodie, K. (2013). The power of professional learning communities. Education as Change, 17(1),
5–18.
Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and
uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5–12.
Brunner, M., Artelt, C., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2007). Coaching for the PISA test. Learning
and Instruction, 17, 111–122.
Care, E., Griffin, P., Zhang, Z., & Hutchinson, D. (2014). Large-scale testing and its contribution
to learning. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for
quality learning (pp. 55–72). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
References 31
Cheang, W. K., Teo, K. M., & Zhao, D. (2012). Assessing mathematical competences using
disciplinary tasks. In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical
Education: Topic Study Group 33 (pp. 6504–6513). Seoul, Korea.
Crespo, S., & Rigelman, N. (2015). Introduction to Part III. In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth McDuffie
(Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Assessment to enhance teaching and
learning (pp. 119–121). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
De Ketele, J.-M. (1989). L’évaluation de la productivité des institutions d’éducation. Cahier de la
Fondation Universitaire; Université et Société, le rendement de l’enseignement universitaire,
3, 73–83.
De Lange, J. (1992). Critical factors for real changes in mathematics learning. In G. C. Leder (Ed.),
Assessment and learning of mathematics (pp. 305–329). Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
De Lange, J. (2007). Large-scale assessment and mathematics education. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.),
Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1111–1142).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Dempsey, K., Beesley, A. D., Clark, T. F., & Tweed, A. (2015). Authentic student work samples
support formative assessment in middle school. In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth-McDuffie (Eds.),
Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Assessment to enhance teaching and learning
Dyrvold, A., Bergqvist, E., & Österholm, M. (2015). Uncommon vocabulary in mathematical
tasks in relation to demand of reading ability and solution frequency. Nordic Studies in
Mathematics Education, 20(1), 5–31.
Duncan, C. R., & Noonan, B. (2007). Factors affecting teachers’ grading and assessment practices.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(1), 1–21.
Earl, L., & Timperley, H. (2014). Challenging conceptions of assessment. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V.
Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 325–336).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Earl, L., & Torrance, N. (2000). Embedding accountability and improvement into large-scale
assessment: What difference does it make? Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 114–141.
Elrod, M. J., & Strayer, J. F. (2015). Using an observational rubric to facilitate change in
undergraduate classroom norms. In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual
perspectives in mathematics education: Assessment to enhance teaching and learning (pp. 87–
96). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Engelsen, K. S., & Smith, A. (2014). Assessment literacy. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, &
P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 91–107). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Even, R. (2005). Using assessment to inform instructional decisions: How hard can it be?
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(3), 45–61.
Fan, L. (2011). Implementing self-assessment to develop reflective teaching and learning in
mathematics. In B. Kaur & K. Y. Wong (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom:
2011 Association of Mathematics Educators Yearbook (pp. 275–290). Singapore: World
Scientific Publishing.
Gardner, J. (Ed.). (2006). Assessment and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London, England:
Falmer Press.
Glaser, R., & Silver, E. A. (1994). Assessment, testing, and instruction: Retrospect and prospect.
In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 393–419).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Graue, M. E., & Smith, S. Z. (1996). Shaping assessment through instructional innovation.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(2), 113–136.
Hunsader, P. D., Thompson, D. R., Zorin, B., Mohn, A. L., Zakrzewski, J., Karadeniz, I., Fisher,
E. C., & MacDonald, G. (2014). Assessments accompanying published textbooks: The extent
to which mathematical processes are evident. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 46(5), 797–813. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0570-6.
Hunsader, P. D., Thompson, D. R., & Zorin, B. (2015a). Developing teachers’ ability to be critical
consumers of assessments. In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth-McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in
mathematics education: Assessment to enhance teaching and learning (pp. 123–132). Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Hunsader, P. D., Zorin, B., & Thompson, D. R. (2015b). Enhancing teachers’ assessment of
mathematical processes through test analysis in university courses. Mathematics Teacher
Educator, 4(1), 71–92.
Intanate, N. (2012). Exploring mathematics student teachers’ practices on classroom assessment
through professional development by lesson study and open approach. In Poster presented at
the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education: Topic Study Group 33. Seoul,
Korea.
Jin, H., & Wong, K. Y. (2011). Assessing conceptual understanding in mathematics with concept
mapping. In B. Kaur & K. Y. Wong (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom: 2011
Association of Mathematics Educators Yearbook (pp. 67–90). Singapore: World Scientific
Publishing.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2003). The student evaluation
standards: How to improve evaluations of students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kaur, B., & Chan, C. M. E. (2011). Using journal writing to empower learning. In B. Kaur & K.
Y. Wong (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom: 2011 Association of Mathematics
Educators Yearbook (pp. 91–112). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Kenney, P. A., & Silver, E. A. (1993). Student self-assessment in mathematics. In N. L. Webb &
A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom, K-12 [1993 Yearbook of the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics] (pp. 229–238). Reston, VA: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kim, M.-J., & Lehrer, R. (2015). Using learning progressions to design instructional trajectories.
In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education:
Assessment to enhance teaching and learning (pp. 27–38). Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Kim, R. Y., Kim, K. Y., Lee, M. H., Jeon, J. H., & Park, J. W. (2012). The challenges and issues
regarding extended constructed-response questions: Korean teachers’ perspective. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education: Topic Study
Group 33 (pp. 6631–6640). Seoul, Korea.
Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for Learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 16(3), 263–268.
Klieme, E., Avenarius, H., Blum, W., Döbrich, P., Gruber, H., Prenzel, M., et al. (2004). The
development of national educational standards: An expertise. Berlin, Germany: Federal
Ministry of Education and Research.
Klinger, D. A., McDivitt, P. R., Howard, B. B., Munoz, M. A., Rogers, W. T., & Wylie, E. C.
(2015). The classroom assessment standards for preK-12 teachers. Kindle Direct Press.
Koch, M. J. (2013). The multiple-use of accountability assessments: Implications for the process of
validation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(4), 2–15.
Krzywacki, H., Koistinen, L., & Lavonen, J. (2012). Assessment in Finnish mathematics
education: Various ways, various needs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on
Mathematical Education: Topic Study Group 33 (pp. 6661–6670). Seoul, Korea.
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by
minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 19–24.
Lee, J-E., Turner, H., Ansara, C., Zablocki, J., Hincks, C., & Hanley, V. (2015). Practicing
questioning in a professional learning community: A hub of classroom assessment. In C.
Suurtamm & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education:
Levin, T., & Shohamy, E. (2008). Achievement of immigrant students in mathematics and
academic Hebrew in Israeli schools: A large-scale evaluation study. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 34(1), 1–14.
References 33
Lund, A. (2008). Assessment made visible: Individual and collective practices. Mind, Culture, and
Activity, 15, 32–51.
Marynowski, R. (2015). Formative assessment strategies in the secondary mathematics classroom.
Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB), & National Research Council (NRC). (1993).
Measuring up: Prototypes for mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
McTighe, J. (2015). What is a performance task? Retrieved from http://www.performancetask.
com/what-is-a-performance-task/.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Mok, M. M. C. (2011). The assessment for, of, and as learning in mathematics: The application of
SLOA. In B. Kaur & K. Y. Wong (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom: 2011
Association of Mathematics Educators Yearbook (pp. 187–215). Singapore: World Scientific
Publishing.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1995). Assessment standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring
mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (2001a) Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.
J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee,
Center for Education, Division of Behavior and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2001b). Classroom assessment and the national science education
standards. J. M. Atkin, P. Black, & J. Coffey (Eds.), Committee on Classroom Assessment and
the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 14(2), 149–170.
Obersteiner, A., Moll, G., Reiss, K., & Pant, H. A. (2015). Whole number arithmetic—competency
models and individual development. Paper delivered at ICMI Study 23, Macau. (pp. 235–242).
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2009). PISA 2006 technical
report. Paris, France: Author.
Osterlind, S. J. (1998). Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, perfor
mance and other formats. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Paek, P. L. (2012). Using learning trajectories in large-scale mathematics assessments. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education: Topic Study
Group 33 (pp. 6711–6720). Seoul, Korea.
Parke, C., Lane, S., Silver, E. A., & Magone, M. (2003). Using assessment to improve
mathematics teaching and learning: Suggested activities using QUASAR tasks, scoring
criteria, and student work. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The
science of design and educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Perrenoud, P. (1997). Construire des compétences dès l’école. Paris, France: ESF Editeur.
Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2008). A socio-cultural theorisation of formative assessment. Oxford
Review of Education, 34(1), 1–20.
Rankin, J. G. (2015). Guidelines for analyzing assessment data to inform instruction. In C.
Suurtamm & A. Roth-McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education:
Assessment to enhance learning and teaching (pp. 191–198). Reston, VA: National Council of
Rey, B., Carette, V., Defrance, A., & Kahn, S. (2003). Les compétences à l’école: apprentissage et
évaluation. Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck.
Sayac, N., & Grapin, N. (2015). Evaluation externe et didactique des mathématiques: un regard
croisé nécessaire et constructif. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 35(1), 101–126.
Scherrer, J. (2015). Learning, teaching, and assessing the standards for mathematical practice.
In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth-McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education:
Assessment to enhance learning and teaching (pp. 199–208). Reston, VA: National Council of
Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and
sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing.
Schukajlow, S., Kolter, J., & Blum, W. (2015). Scaffolding mathematical modelling with a
solution plan. ZDM: International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1241–1254.
Schukajlow, S., Krug, A., & Rakoczy, K. (2015b). Effects of prompting multiple solutions for
modelling problems on students’ performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(3),
393–417. doi:10.1007/s10649-015-9608-0.
Sears, R., Karadeniz, I., Butler, K., & Pettey, D. (2015). Are standards for mathematical practice
overlooked in geometry textbooks’ chapter tests? In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.),
Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Assessment to enhance teaching and learning
Semena, S., & Santos, L. (2012). Towards the students’ appropriation of assessment criteria.
Poster presented at 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education: Topic Study
Group 33, Seoul, Korea.
Shalem, Y., Sapire, I., & Huntley, B. (2012). How curriculum mapping of large-scale assessments
can benefit mathematics teachers. In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on
Mathematical Education: Topic Study Group 33 (pp. 6601–6610). Seoul, Korea.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher,
29(7), 4–14.
Shepard, L. A. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In V.
Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1066–1101).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Shimizu, Y. (2011). Building bridges between large-scale external assessment and mathematics
classrooms: A Japanese perspective. In B. Kaur & K. Y. Wong (Eds.), Assessment in the
mathematics classroom: 2011 Association of Mathematics Educators Yearbook (pp. 217–235).
Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Strawhun, B. T. F. (2005). Moving
from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions
for problems in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 287–301.
Smit, R., & Birri, Th. (2014). Assuring the quality of standards-oriented classroom assessment
with rubrics for complex competencies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 5–13.
Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. London, England:
Routledge.
Suurtamm, C., & Koch, M. J. (2014). Navigating dilemmas in transforming assessment practices:
Experiences of mathematics teachers in Ontario, Canada. Educational Assessment, Evaluation
and Accountability, 26(3), 263–287.
Suurtamm, C., Koch, M., & Arden, A. (2010). Teachers’ assessment practices in mathematics:
Classrooms in the context of reform. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and
Practice, 17(4), 399–417.
Suurtamm, C., & Neubrand, M. (2015). Assessment and testing in mathematics education. In S.
J. Cho (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education
(pp. 557–562). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
References 35
Swan, M., & Burkhardt, H. (2012). A designer speaks: Designing assessment of performance in
mathematics. Educational Designer: Journal of the International Society for Design and
Development in Education, 2(5), 1–41. http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume2/
issue5/article19.
Tillema, H. H. (2014). Student involvement in assessment of their learning. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V.
Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 39–54).
Tillema, H. H., & Kremer-Hayon, L. (2005). Facing dilemmas: Teacher educators’ ways to
construct a pedagogy of teacher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 207–221.
Timperley, H. (2014). Using assessment information for professional learning. In C. Wyatt-Smith,
V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 137–150).
Thompson, D. R., & Kaur, B. (2011). Using a multi-dimensional approach to understanding to
assess students’ mathematical knowledge. In B. Kaur & K. Y. Wong (Eds.), Assessment in the
mathematics classroom: 2011 Association of Mathematics Educators Yearbook (pp. 17–32).
Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Toh, T. L., Quek, K. S., Leong, Y. H., Dindyal, J., & Tay, E. G. (2011). Assessing problem
solving in the mathematics curriculum: A new approach. In B. Kaur & K. Y. Wong (Eds.),
Assessment in the mathematics classroom: 2011 Association of Mathematics Educators
Yearbook (pp. 33–66). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Ufer, S., Reiss, K., & Mehringer, V. (2013). Sprachstand, soziale herkunft und bilingualität:
Effekte auf facetten mathematischer kompetenz. In M. Becker-Mrotzek, K. Schramm, E.
Thürmann, & H. J. Vollmer (Eds.), Sprache im fach: Sprachlichkeit und fachliches lerner
(pp. 167–184). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. (Language, skills, social background and
migration: Effects on facets of mathematics skills).
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Becker, J. (2003). Towards a didactic model for assessment
design in mathematics education. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, &
F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 686–
716). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91.
Vos, P. (2005). Measuring mathematics achievement: A need for quantitative methodology
literacy. In J. Adler & M. Kazima (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st African Regional Congress of
the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction. Johannesburg, South Africa:
University of the Witwatersrand.
Vos, P., & Kuiper, W. A. J. M. (2003). Predecessor items and performance level. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 29, 191–206.
Walcott, C. Y., Hudson, R., Mohr, D., & Essex, N. K. (2015). What NAEP tells us about the
relationship between classroom assessment practices and student achievement in mathematics.
Watson, A. (2006). Some difficulties in informal assessment in mathematics. Assessment in
Education, 13(3), 289–303.
Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (Eds.). (2015a). Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI Study
22. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Webb, D. C. (2012). Teacher change in classroom assessment: The role of teacher content
knowledge in the design and use of productive classroom assessment. In Proceedings of the
12th International Congress on Mathematical Education: Topic Study Group 33 (pp. 6773–
6782). Seoul, Korea.
Webb, N. M. (1993). Collaborative group versus individual assessment in mathematics: Processes
and outcomes. Educational Assessment, 1(2), 131–152.
Webb, N. L. (2002). Assessment literacy in a standards-based urban education setting. Paper

presented to the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of
learning. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 1053–1098). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Wiliam, D. (2011a). Embedded formative assessment: Practical strategies and tools for K-12
teachers. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Wiliam, D. (2011b). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37,
3–14.
Wiliam, D. (2015). Assessment: A powerful focus for the improvement of mathematics
instruction. In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics
education: Assessment to enhance teaching and learning (pp. 247–254). Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Wilson, S. M., & Kenney, P. A. (2003). Classroom and large-scale assessment. In J. Kilpatrick,
W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for
school mathematics (pp. 53–67). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An
analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Colbert, P. (2014). Assessment understood as enabling. In C.
Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning
(pp. 1–20). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Yamamoto, S. (2012). Finding descriptive feedback in Japanese 1st grade mathematics class.
Poster presented at the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education: Topic Study
Group 33. Seoul, Korea.
Young-Loveridge, J., & Bicknell, B. (2015). Using task-based interviews to assess early
understanding of number. In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in
mathematics education: Assessment to enhance teaching and learning (pp. 67–74). Reston,
Further Reading
Collins, A. M. (Ed.). (2011). Using classroom assessment to improve student learning. Reston,
This book focuses on issues of classroom formative assessment, with sample tasks and student
work from middle grades classrooms to illustrate what teachers might learn about students’
thinking from such tasks.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Although not focused specifically on mathematics, the author addresses many of the issues and
criticisms against standardized testing with responses to counter rationales provided by policy
makers for such assessments. Even though the focus is set within the context of the USA, the
issues may be relevant to those in other countries in which high stakes assessments are being
used to judge schools.
Kopriva, R., & Saez, S. (1997). Guide to scoring LEP student responses to open-ended
mathematics items. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. (ERIC
ED452704).
This document highlights issues of scoring open-ended assessment items from students whose
mother tongue is not the language in which the assessment is administered, and considers
errors often made at different levels of language proficiency.
Further Reading 37
Lane, S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). Fairness and equity in measuring student learning using a
mathematics performance assessment: Results from the QUASAR project. In A. L. Nettles &
M. T. Nettles (Eds.), Measuring up: Challenges minorities face in educational assessment
(pp. 97–120). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
This paper describes how issues of equity and fairness were addressed in the design of a
large-scale mathematics assessment intended to measure students’ mathematics proficiency,
with an emphasis on conceptual understanding and problem solving.
Magone, M., Cai, J., Silver, E. A., & Wang, N. (1994). Validating the cognitive complexity and
content quality of a mathematics performance assessment. International Journal of
Educational Research, 21(3), 317–340.
This paper describes how the cognitive complexity of assessment tasks was addressed in the
design of a large-scale mathematics assessment intended to measure students’ mathematics
proficiency, with an emphasis on conceptual understanding and problem solving.
OECD. (2011). Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for
the United States. OEDC Publishing.
This document looks at lessons from educational systems in Canada, Shanghai, Hong Kong,
Finland, Japan, Singapore, Brazil, Germany, England, and Poland based on PISA results and
draws lessons from those countries, specifically for the United States.
Silver, E. A. (1994). Mathematical thinking and reasoning for all students: Moving from rhetoric
to reality. In D. F. Robitaille, D. H. Wheeler, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Selected lectures from the 7th
International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 311–326). Sainte-Foy, Quebec: Les
Presses De L’Université Laval.
This paper describes how issues of the interplay of assessment and instruction were addressed
in the design of a large-scale mathematics instructional reform project intended to increase the
mathematics proficiency of students attending schools in economically disadvantaged
communities in the USA, with an emphasis on conceptual understanding and problem solving.
Silver, E. A., Alacaci, C., & Stylianou, D. A. (2000). Students’ performance on extended
constructed-response tasks. In E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenney (Eds.), Results from the Seventh
Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 301–341).
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
This paper reports a secondary analysis of students’ responses to complex tasks that were part
of a large-scale assessment in the USA. The analysis reveals information about students’
solution strategies, representational approaches, and common errors.
Silver, E. A., & Kenney, P. A. (Eds.). (2000). Results from the Seventh Mathematics Assessment of
the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
The chapters in the book report secondary examinations of results from a large-scale
assessment in the USA. Results are discussed in relation to related research and implications
are drawn to assist teachers, teacher educators, and curriculum developers to use the assessment
results productively.
Silver, E. A., & Lane, S. (1993). Assessment in the context of mathematics instruction reform: The
design of assessment in the QUASAR project. In M. Niss (Ed.), Assessment in mathematics
education and its effects (pp. 59–70). London, England: Kluwer.
This paper describes how a large-scale assessment was developed in the context of a
mathematics instructional reform project intended to increase the mathematics proficiency of
students attending schools in economically disadvantaged communities in the USA, with an
emphasis on conceptual understanding and problem solving.
Silver, E. A., & Smith, M. S. (2015). Integrating powerful practices: Formative assessment and
cognitively demanding mathematics tasks. In C. Suurtamm & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual
perspectives in mathematics education: Assessment to enhance teaching and learning(pp. 5–14).
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
This paper discusses and illustrates, through a classroom lesson scenario, the synergistic
interplay of formative assessment and the use of cognitively demanding mathematics tasks in
classroom instruction.
Smith, G., Wood, L., Coupland, M., Stephenson, B., Crawford, K., & Ball, G. (1996).
Constructing mathematical examinations to assess a range of knowledge and skills.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 27(1), 65–77.
This paper introduces a taxonomy that can be used to design and classify assessment tasks in
undergraduate mathematics classes that focus not only on factual knowledge but on important
processes as well as helping students reflect on learning.
Stacey, K. (2016). Mathematics curriculum, assessment and teaching for living in the digital
world: Computational tools in high stakes assessment. In M. Bates & Z. Usiskin (Eds.), Digital
curricula in school mathematics (pp. 251–270). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
This paper describes tools used in high school assessments in Australia, particularly
assessments using computer algebra systems, and provides some research results from studies
conducted with students having access to CAS as part of normal school instruction.
Stacey, K., & Turner, R. (Eds.). (2015). Assessing mathematical literacy: The PISA experience.
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
This book discusses the conceptualization, design, development, background and impact of the
mathematics assessment for the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA). The book includes a number of papers that focus on questions important for
mathematics education, such as the analysis of effects of competences on item difficulties.
Stacey, K., & Wiliam, D. (2012). Technology and assessment in mathematics. In M. A. K.
Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel-Kreidt, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Koon-Shing Leung (Eds.), Third
international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 721–751). New York, NY: Springer
Science & Business Media.
This chapter presents a detailed discussion of the constraints and affordances with respect to
assessment that need to be considered as technology becomes an increasing component of
mathematics teaching and learning.
Stylianou, D. A., Kenney, P. A., Silver, E. A., & Alacaci, C. (2000). Gaining insight into students’
thinking through assessment tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6, 136–144.
This paper illustrates how assessment tasks drawn from large-scale assessment can be used by
teachers to gain access to students’ mathematical thinking and reasoning.
Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (Eds.). (2015b). Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI Study
22. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
The chapters in this book focus on various aspects of task design based on an ICMI study.
Wilson, L. D. (2007). High-stakes testing in mathematics. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1099–1110). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
This chapter reviews research related to high-stakes testing and highlights many of the
technical aspects of such assessments.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Colbert, P. (Eds.). (2014b). Designing assessment for quality
learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
This chaptered book provides a range of current perspectives and issues on assessment.

Assessment in Mathematics Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment in Mathematics Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment in Mathematics Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICME-13 Topical Surveys

Christine Suurtamm · Denisse R. Thompson

Rae Young Kim Leonora Diaz Moreno

Nathalie Sayac• Stanislaw Schukajlow

Rae Young Kim Stefan Ufer

Leonora Diaz Moreno Pauline Vos

ISSN 2366-5947 ISSN 2366-5955 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016936284

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

• Purposes, Traditions, and Principles of Mathematics Assessment

We acknowledge the valuable input of Karin Brodie, University of Witwatersrand,

Assessment in Mathematics Education ......................... 1

Although classroom teachers have long used various forms of assessment to

ICME-13 Topical Surveys, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32394-7_1

opportunity to discuss both large-scale and classroom assessment in mathematics

2 State of the Art

2.1 Purposes, Traditions, and Principles of Assessment

2.1.1 Purposes of Assessment

student placement or monitoring, determining interventions, improving teaching

2.1.2 Assessment Traditions

Large-scale assessment and classroom assessment have different traditions, having

Silver 1994). Large-scale assessment traditionally comes from a psychometric/

2.1.3 Common Principles

Table 1.1 Samples of assessment goals from different perspectives

formative assessments articulated by educators, assessment designers, or national

2.1.4 Suggestions for Future Work

2.2 Design of Assessment Tasks

This section explores assessment design as it relates to two broad issues:

2.2.1 Design Principles in Large-Scale Assessments

• Unidimensionality: Each test item should focus on assessing a single objective

• Determining whether the performance will be judged in terms of norm refer

2.2.2 Design Principles for Classroom Assessment Tasks

• Demonstration of an understanding of the problem and how to elicit information

2.2.3 Suggestions for Future Work

2.3 Classroom Assessment in Action

2.3.1 Assessment as an On-going Process in the Classroom

In this document, we use the term formative assessment to indicate informal

2.3.2 A Sampling of Classroom Assessment Strategies and Tasks

As noted in the previous section, assessment should be an on-going endeavour that

Thompson and Kaur (2011) as well as Bleiler and Thompson (2012/2013)

Skills Evaluate: 0.6 × 1.5.

Representations If the figure represents 1 unit, illustrate 0.6 × 1.5.

Fig. 1.1 Decimal multiplication assessed using the SPUR approach

2.3.3 Self Assessment

As indicated in Sect. 2.3.1, one of the foundational principles of formative

2.3.4 Suggestions for Future Work

It is evident that the current vision of mathematics instruction requires on-going

2.4 Interactions of Large-Scale and Classroom Assessment

Assessment is a part of the procedure of making inferences, some of which are

2.4.1 Assessments Driving Reform

2.4.2 Impact of Large-Scale Assessment on Classroom Assessment

do not necessarily demonstrate a causal relationship but provide evidence that a

2.4.3 “Teaching to the Test”

An important question, then, is whether the assessment adheres to design

2.4.4 Examples of Positive Interaction Between Large-Scale

outcomes for teachers: teachers developed an understanding of the content assessed

2.4.5 Making Use of Assessment Results

Making use of assessment data is strongly connected to assessment literacy. Webb