LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Jones, Ian; Swan, Malcolm; Pollitt, Alistair (2014)
Publisher: Springer
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
There is an increasing demand from employers and universities for school leavers to be able to apply their mathematical knowledge to problem solving in varied and unfamiliar contexts. These aspects are however neglected in most examinations of mathematics and, consequentially, in classroom teaching. One barrier to the inclusion of mathematical problem solving in assessment is that the skills involved are difficult to define and assess objectively. We present two studies that test a method called comparative judgement (CJ) that might be well suited to assessing mathematical problem solving. CJ is an alternative to traditional scoring that is based on collective expert judgements of students’ work rather than item-by-item scoring schemes. In Study 1 we used CJ to assess traditional mathematics tests and found it performed validly and reliably. In Study 2 we used CJ to assess mathematical problem-solving tasks and again found it performed validly and reliably. We discuss the implications of the results for further research and the implications of CJ for the design of mathematical problem-solving tasks.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • ACT. (2006). Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or Different? Iowa: American College Tests, INC.
    • AQA (2010). GCSE Higher Tier Mathematics Paper 1 (Specification A). Monday 7 June 2010. Manchester: Assessment and Qualifications Alliance.
    • Black, P. (2008). Strategic decisions: Ambitions, feasibility and context. Educational Designer, 1(1).
    • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2007). Large-scale assessment systems: Design principles drawn from international comparisons. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5, 1-53.
    • Black, P., Burkhardt, H., Daro, P., Jones, I., Lappan, G., Pead, D., & Stephens, M. (2012). High-stakes examinations to support policy. Educational Designer, 2(5).
    • Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.
    • Bramley, T., Bell, J., & Pollitt, A. (1998). Assessing changes in standards over time using Thurstone paired comparisons. Education Research and Perspectives, 25, 1-24.
    • CBI. (2006). Working with the Three Rs: Employers' Priorities for Functional Skills in Mathematics and English. London: DfES.
    • Davies, D., Collier, C., & Howe, A. (2012). Assessing scientific and technological enquiry skills at age 11 using the e-scape system. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 247-263.
    • Derrick, K. (2012). Developing the e-scape software system. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 171-185.
    • DfE. (2011). Independent Evaluation of the Pilot of the Linked Pair of GCSEs in Mathematics - First Interim Report (No. DFE-RR181). London: Department for Education.
    • Heldsinger, S., & Humphry, S. (2010). Using the method of pairwise comparison to obtain reliable teacher assessments. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37, 1-19.
    • Husbands, C. T. (1976). Ideological bias in the marking of examinations: A method of testing for its presence and its implications. Research in Education, 15, 17-38.
    • Jürges, H., Schneider, K., Senkbeil, M., & Carstensen, C. H. (2012). Assessment drives learning: The effect of central exit exams on curricular knowledge and mathematical literacy. Economics of Education Review, 31, 56-65.
    • Kimbell, R. (2012). Evolving project e-scape for national assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 135-155.
    • Laming, D. (1984). The relativity of “absolute” judgements. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 152-183.
    • Laming, D. (1990). The reliability of a certain university exam compared with the precision of absolute judgements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 42, 239-254.
    • Looney, J. (2009). Assessment and Innovation in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
    • Murphy, R. (1979). Removing the marks from exam scripts before re‐ marking them: Does it make any difference? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 73-78.
    • Murphy, R. (1982). A further report of investigations into the reliability of marking of GCE examinations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 58-63.
    • NCETM. (2009). Mathematics Matters: Final Report. London: National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics.
    • Newton, P. (1996). The reliability of marking of General Certificate of Secondary Education scripts: Mathematics and English. British Educational Research Journal, 22, 405-420.
    • NGA and CCSSO. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers.
    • Noyes, A., Wake, G., Drake, P., & Murphy, R. (2011). Evaluating Mathematics Pathways Final Report (Technical Report No. DFE-RR143). London: Department for Education.
    • OECD. (2009a). PISA 2009 Results: Learning Trends: Changes in Student Performance Since 2000 (Volume V). Paris: OECD Publishing.
    • OECD. (2009b). PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Paris: OECD Publishing.
    • Ofsted. (2008). Mathematics: Understanding the Score. London: Office for Standards in Education.
    • Ofsted (2012). Mathematics: Made to Measure. London: The Office for Standards in Education.
    • Pollitt, A. (2012). The method of Adaptive Comparative Judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19, 281-300.
    • Pollitt, A., & Murray, N. (1996). What raters really pay attention to. In M. Milanovic & N. Saville (Eds.), Performance Testing, Cognition and Assessment: Selected Papers from the 15th Language Testing Research Colloquium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • QCA. (2008). National Curriculum for England 2008. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
    • Rocard, M. (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission (Technical Report No. EUR22845). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocardon-science-education_en.pdf
    • Soh, C. K. (2008). An overview of mathematics education in Singapore. In Z. Usiskin and E. Willmore (Eds.), Mathematics Curriculum in Pacific Rim Countries (pp. 23-36). Mississippi: Information Age Publishing.
    • Suto, W. M. I., & Greatorex, J. (2008). What goes through an examiner's mind? Using verbal protocols to gain insights into the GCSE - marking process. British Educational Research Journal, 34, 213-233.
    • Swan, M., & Burkhardt, H. (2012). Designing assessment of performance in mathematics. Educational Designer, 2(5).
    • Swan, M. & Pead, D (2008). Bowland Maths Professional development resources. Bowland Trust/Department for Children, Schools and Families. Retrieved from www.bowlandmaths.org.uk
    • Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
    • Thurstone, L. L. (1954). The measurement of values. Psychological Review, 61, 47-58.
    • Toner, P. (2011). Workforce Skills and Innovation (OECD Education Working Papers). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
    • Treilibs, V. (1979). Formulation Processes in Mathematical Modelling. Unpublished MPhil, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
    • Vordermann, C., Porkess, R., Budd, C., Dunne, R., & Rahman-Hart, P. (2011). A WorldClass Mathematics Education for All Our Young People. London: The Conservative Party.
    • Walport, M., Goodfellow, J., McLoughlin, F., Post, M., Sjøvoll, J., Taylor, M., & Waboso, D. (2010). Science and Mathematics Secondary Education for the 21st Century: Report of the Science and Learning Expert Group. London: Department for Business, Industry and Skills.
    • Willmott, A. S., & Nuttall, D. L. (1975). The Reliability of Examination at 16+. London: Macmillan Education.
    • Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article