The Nessecity of Developing a Qualitative Ruberic to Implement the Descriptive Evaluation of Mathematics at the Elementary School in Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Student in Curriculum Allameh Tabatabai University

2 The faculty member of Allameh Tabatabai University

3 The faculty member of Shahid Beheshti University

4 scholar , research organization and educational planning ( institute of education studies )

5 Research institute of studies in education

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to shed more lights in elementary teachers’ ambiguities with the implementation of descriptive assessment. 27 students from one 5th Grade class, classroom teacher, as well as seven other 5th Grade teachers, voluntereely participated in this study. Due to the nature of the study, the qualitative paradigm was chosen to carry the research. The data were collected via two mathematics word problems focusing on reasoning. For the sake of triangulation, the data collected through various sources including classroom teacher’s assessment of students, another seven independent teachers’ assessments and the first author’s field notes and observations while students were solving problems to assure the confirmability of the data. The main finding of the study was a descriptive rubric that is qualitative in nature and is relative, flexible, subject - dependent and based on teachers’ judgements supported by the documents and observations collected in students’ portfolios. 

Keywords

References

Anderson, R. S., & Puckett, J. B. (2003). Assessing students' problem-solving assignments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (95), 81-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.117.
Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Available at www.assessment-reform-group.org.
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education:Principles,Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678.
Black, P. Harrison, C. Lee, C., Marshall, B., and William, D. (2004). Working inside the box:
Assessment for Learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan. 86 (1), 8-21.
Black, P., & William, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21 (1), 5–31.
Bleiler, S. K., & Thompson, D. R. (2013). Multi-dimensional assessment of the common core. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19(5), 292–300.
Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5–12.
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria;VA: Ascd.
Burns, M. (2007). About teaching mathematics: A K-8 resource (3rd Ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
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.
De Luca, C., & Volante, L. (2016). Assessment for learning in teacher education programs: Navigating the juxtaposition of theory and praxis. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 20(1), 19–31.
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. (2012). Assessment for learning: Introduction. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and Learning (2nd ed., pp. 1–8). London: Sage.
Gholamazad, S. (2011). Mathematics Assessment. Roshd Mathematics Education Journal. No. 105, 14- 18. Publication & Teaching Technology Office, Organization for Research & Educational Planning, Ministry of Education. (In Farsi.)
Hassani, M., & Pozesh Shirazi, H. (2014). An Analysis of the Researches Concerning the Descriptive Qualitative Evaluation. Journal of Education and Psychology. 21(1); 21- 50. Shahid Chamran University. (In Farsi.)
Hattie, J. A. C., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Doi: 10.3102/003465430298487.
Kulm, G. (1994). Mathematics assessment: What works in the classroom? San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Inc.
Li, M., Yin, Y., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Morozov, A. (2011). Identifying effective feedback
practices on student mathematics learning: A literature synthesis. Paper presented at the
meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Lund, A. (2008). Assessment made visible: Individual and collective practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15, 32–51.
McTighe, J. (2015). What is a performance task? Retrieved from http://www.performancetask.
Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Advancing formative assessment in every classroom: A
guide for instructional leaders. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring
mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: The Author.
Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 14(2), 149-170.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Growing success: Assessment, evaluation, and reporting in Ontario schools. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growSuccess.pdf
Sato, M., Wei, R. C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Improving teachers’ assessment practices through professional development: The case of National Board Certification. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 669–700. Doi: 10.3102/0002831208316955.
Regulations for evaluating the educational and training progress of the primary school. (2008). Resolution 769 of the Commission on Statutes and Academic Regulations of the Higher Education Council on 4/18/2008. Retrieved from the Higher Education Council Portal; https://www.medu.ir/fa/
Stenmark, J. K. (1991). (Ed.); Mathematics Assessment: Myths, Models, Good Questions and Practical Suggestions. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA. (Translated into Farsi by A. Gooya & M. Rezaie, 2008, with author’s permission- 1387 Solar year, Fatemi Publishing House, Tehran, Iran.)
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.
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.
Van­ de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2009). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (7th Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Merill.
Watt, H. (2005). Attitudes to the use of alternative assessment methods in mathematics: A study with secondary mathematics teachers in Sydney, Australia. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(1), 21-44.
William, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on Student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11 (1), 49 - 64.
William, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
William, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: what will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.). The future of assessment: shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wilson, S. M., & Kenney, P. A. (2003). Classroom and large-scale assessment. In J. Kilpatrick,
Wylie, E. C., & Lyon, C. J. (2015). The fidelity of formative assessment implementation: Issues of breadth and quality. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 140–160. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.990416.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 December 2019
  • Revise Date: 31 July 2020
  • Accept Date: 22 May 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics