MATH ASSESS: Teachers Perceptions and Practices on

Assessment in a Mathematics Class

CHAD LOWE VERDAN VILLARROYA
BU Graduate School
chadlowevvillarroya@gmail.com
09989809212 / 09175552724

Expected Output:

This study will primarily focus on the teachers perceptions of classroom
assessment in mathematics and their current classroom curriculum assessments
practices. Specifically, the study sought to gain an understanding of the extent to which
teachers use different classroom assessment methods and tools to understand and to
support both the learning and teaching processes.

Introduction:

Recent years have seen increased research on classroom assessment as an
essential aspect of effective teaching and learning (Stiggins, 2002). It is becoming more
and more evident that classroom assessment is an integral component of the teaching
and learning process. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2008)
regards assessment as a tool for learning mathematics. The NCTM contends that
effective mathematics teaching requires understanding what students know and need to
know. According to Roberts, Gerace, Mestra and Leanard (2010) assessment informs
the teacher about what students think and about how they think. Classroom assessment
helps teachers to establish what students already know and what they need to learn.
Ampiah, Hart, Nkhata and Nyirenda (2009) contend that a teacher needs to know what
children are able to do or not if he/she is to plan effectively.

Research has revealed that most students perceive mathematics as a difficult
subject, which has no meaning in real life (Van de Walle, 2001). This perception begins
to develop at the elementary school where students find the subject very abstract and
heavily relying on algorithm, which the students fail to understand. This trend continues
up to high school and college. By the time students get to high school they have lost
interest in mathematics and they cannot explain some of the operations (Countryman,
2002). According to Countryman (2002), the rules and procedures for school
mathematics make little or no sense to many students. They memorize examples, they
follow instructions, they do their homework, and they take tests, but they cannot say
what their answers mean.

Most research studies in both education and cognitive psychology have reported
weaknesses in the way mathematics is taught. The most serious weakness is the
psychological assumption about how mathematics is learned, which is based on the
stimulus-response theory (Cathcart, Pothier, Vance & Bezuk, 2001). The stimulus-
response theory states that learning occurs when a bond is established between
some stimulus and a persons response to it (Cathcart, Pothier, Vance & Bezuk, 2001).
Cathcart et al.(2001) went further to say that, in the above scenario, drill becomes a
major component in the instructional process because the more often a correct
response is made to stimulus, the more established the bond becomes. Under this
theory children are given lengthy and often complex problems, particularly computations
with the belief that the exercises will strengthen the mind. Schools and teachers need to
realize that great philosophers, psychologists, scientists, mathematicians and many
others created knowledge through investigation and experimentation (Phillips, 2000).
They understood cause and effect through curiosity and investigation. They were free to
study nature and phenomenon, as they existed. Today, learning mathematics seems to
suggest repeating operations that were already done by other people and examinations
that seek to fulfill the same pattern.

The constructivist view is different from the positivist view and, therefore, calls for
different teaching approaches (Cathcart, et al., 2001). The constructivist view takes the
position that children construct their own understanding of mathematical ideas by
means of mental activities or through interaction with the physical world (Cathcart, et al.,
2001). The assertion that children should construct their own mathematical knowledge
is not to suggest that mathematics teachers should sit back and wait for this to happen.
Rather, teachers must create the learning environment for students and then actively
monitor the students through various classroom assessment methods as they engage in
an investigation. The other role of the teacher should be to provide the students with
experiences that will enable them to establish links and relationships. Teachers can only
do this if they are able to monitor the learning process and are able to know what sort of
support the learners need at a particular point.

Research Framework


Fig. 1: The Triangulated view of Assessment,
Classroom Practices and Perceptions
Task design to situate past, present and
future desired learning
Assessment
Standards
Teachers Perception and Practices on
Assessment
Materials and Methods:

This study uses naturalistic inquiry to elicit data related to teachers perceptions
of classroom assessment and classroom assessment practices in mathematics in
schools found in Sorsogon. The purpose of this study is well suited for qualitative
research methods. The study collected data using a questionnaire, lesson observations,
interviews, and document analysis in order to answer the research questions. The data
collected helped to answer the following research questions:

1. How do primary school teachers perceive classroom assessment?
2. What kinds of assessment methods and tools do mathematics teachers use to
assess their students?
3. What is the influence of teachers perceptions of classroom assessment on their
classroom assessment practices?

Creswell (2008) suggests that a researcher could gather field notes by conducting an
observation as a participant observer or as a non-participant observer.

Alternatively, a researcher could start as an outsider observer and then move
into the setting and observe as an insider (Creswell, 2008). Merriam (2010) suggests
that observation becomes a research tool if it serves a formulated research purpose, if it
is planned deliberately, if it is recorded systematically, and if it is subjected to checks
and controls on validity and reliability. It contends that the best way to enhance validity
is to carefully define the behavior to be observed and to train the people who will be
making the observations. However to identify two sources of bias that affect validity:
observer bias and observer effect. The observer bias occurs when the observers own
perceptions and beliefs influence observations and interpretations, while observer
effects occur when the people being observed behave differently just because they are
being observed.

Apart from observation, interviews were used to collect information that could not
be observed directly. Interviewing is necessary when the required information cannot be
observed such as feelings, beliefs, perceptions and opinions. In this study the first
interview was designed to solicit information that revealed the interviewees perceptions
of classroom assessment. Interviewing is the best technique to use when conducting
intensive case studies of a few selected individuals. This study used one-on-one semi-
structured interviews. The problem with using a highly structured interview in qualitative
research is that rigidly adhering to predetermined questions may not allow the
researcher to access participants perspectives and understandings of the issues.
Instead the researcher gets reactions to the investigators preconceived notions of the
ideas. A semi-structured format assumes that individual respondents define the issues
in unique ways. On the other hand, unstructured interviews take a skilled researcher to
handle the great flexibility demanded by the unstructured interview. Creswell (2008)
contends that document analysis, as a data source, is as good as observation and
interview. However, it could be argued that document analysis has the potential to
reveal information that the interviewee is not ready to share and also information that
may not be available during observation.

The multiple data sources allow for triangulation of data to reduce bias and at the
same time to develop a deeper understanding of the issues under study. This study
used a questionnaire, lesson observation protocol, semi-structured interview, and
document analysis as main tools for data collection. The questionnaire responses, the
lesson observation and interviews helped to map out patterns between perceptions of
classroom assessment and classroom assessment practice. A primary characteristic of
observation is that it involves the direct study of behavior by simply watching the
subjects of the study without intruding upon them and recording certain critical natural
responses to their environment (Rea and Parker, 2007; p. 3). Creswell (2008)
recommends the use of observational protocol as a method for recording notes.
Document analysis was used to triangulate the information collected through
observation and interview. In addition, document analysis provided first-hand
information on the kind of written feedback given to students and the nature of activities
they do. The documents were students notebooks, teachers lesson plans, and
schemes of works and records of work.


Progress plan:

Summer 2014: Select theme
Read relevant literature
Formulate research questions
Decide theoretical framework and methods

1
st
Semester 2014: Read and summarize more relevant literature
Design a questionnaire
Finalize methodology

2
nd
Semester 2014: Data collection and analysis
Doing interviews with selected teachers
Transcribing the interviews

Summer 2015: Analyzing the whole material
Writing comprehensive data analysis
Writing the rest of the Master Thesis
Sending the final product for Final Defense


References:

Ampiah, J.G., Hart, K., Nkhata, B., & Nyirenda, D.M.C. (2009). Teachers
guide to numeracy assessment Instrument

Cathcart, W.G., Pothier, Y.M., Vance, J.H., & Bezuk, N.S. (2001).
Learning mathematics in elementary and middle schools. Columbus: Merrill
Prentice Hall.

Countryman, J. (2002). Writing to learn mathematics: Methods that work.
Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Stiggins, R.J. (2002). Where is our assessment future and how can we get
there from here? In R. W. Lissitz and W.D. Schafer (Eds.). Assessment in
educational reform: Both means and ends (112-125). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Merriam, S. B. (2010). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers