This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Annotated Bibliography
American Association of University Professors (1990). Mandated Assessment of Education Outcomes. Academe, Nov./Dec. Discusses impact of mandated assessment on traditional arenas of professorial autonomy; focuses on Five assessment issues (institutional diversity, skills, majors, value-added, and self-improvement). Concludes with recommendations for learning to live with mandated assessment.
Angelo, Thomas A. and Cross, K. Patricia (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd Ed, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. This text focuses on formative classroom assessment. In addition to describing what classroom assessment is and how one might plan and implement classroom assessment tasks, the authors present 50 different classroom assessment techniques, many of which can be used in or modified for the mathematics classroom.
Astin, Alexander, Banta, Trudy W., Cross, Patricia K., et al. (1992). Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education. Nine principles for assessing student learning developed by the long-standing annual Assessment Forum of the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE).
Ball, G, Stephenson, B, Smith, G, Wood, L, Coupland, M, and Crawford, K. (1998). Creating a Diversity of Mathematical Experiences for Tertiary Students. Int J Math Edu Sci Technol, 29, 827–841.
Bass, Hyman (1993). Let’s Measure What’s Worth Measuring. Education Week, October 27, 32. An ‘oped’ (opinion) column supporting Measuring What Counts from the Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB). Stresses that assessments should (a) reflect the mathematics that is most important for students to learn; (b) support good instructional practice and enhance mathematics learning; and (c) support every student’s opportunity to learn important mathematics.
Benjamin, Ernst (1990). The Movement to Assess Students’ Learning will Institutionalize Mediocrity in Colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education, July 5. A brief op-ed column criticizing the indefensible consequences for higher education of rapidly spreading accountability systems that rely on narrow tests.
Benjamin, Ernst (1994). From Accreditation to Regulation: The Decline of Academic Autonomy in Higher Education. Academe, July/Aug., 34–36. A worried analysis by the retired general secretary of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) concerning the impact of increased regulation based on accountability measures that, Benjamin believes, might distort traditional goals of the academy.
Berry, J. and Haines, C.R. (1991). Criteria and Assessment Procedures for Projects in Mathematics. Plymouth: University of Plymouth. The first of four reports written by the UK Assessment Group (ARG). It is a report of a workshop held in 1991, which aimed to review the assessment schemes and assessment criteria currently in use in UK universities and to begin to develop robust criteria-based assessment procedures for a wide range of topics. It describes the use of the FACETS data analysis package to consider the differing effects of the criteria themselves and the ways in which the assessors used them.
Berry, J. and Houston, K. (1995). Students using Posters as a means of Communication and Assessment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 21–27. Gives a thorough literature review of the use of posters by students in higher education generally, and suggests ways in which student posters could be used and could be assessed in mathematics classes.
Bok, Derek (1986). Toward Higher Learning: The Importance of Assessing Outcomes. Change, Nov./Dec., 18–27. A classic short essay by then Harvard President Derek Bok outlining the benefits to higher education of assessing the accomplishments and value of a college education.
Burton, L. and Izard, J. (1995). Using FACETS to Investigate Innovative Mathematical Assessments. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. The last of four reports written by ARG. It reports on the 1994 workshop and discusses continuing issues in assessing student project work. It deals with reliability of marking schemes, self, peer and tutor marked assignments, equity, and criteria for the assessment of students’ posters.
Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics (CUPM) (1995). Assessment of Student Learning for Improving the Undergraduate Major in Mathematics. Focus: The Newsletter of the Mathematical Association of America, 15:3 (June), 24–28. Recommendations from the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) for departments of mathematics to develop a regular ‘assessment cycle’ in which they (1) set student goals and associated departmental objectives; (2) design instructional strategies to accomplish these objectives; (3) select aspects of learning and related assessments in which quality will be judged; (4) gather assessment data, summarize this information. and interpret results; and (5) make changes in goals, objectives, or strategies to ensure continual improvement.
Edgerton, Russell (1990). Assessment at Half Time. Change, Sept./Oct., 4–5. A brief summary of the political landscape of assessment in higher education by the president of the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE). Claims that state pressures for accountability will continue, but that if institutions define assessment in worthy terms the faculty will find the effort worthwhile.
Ewell, Peter T. (1997). Strengthening Assessment for Academic Quality Improvement. In Marvin W. Peterson, David D. Dill, and Lisa A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions, pp. 360–381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Historical survey of assessment efforts in the U.S. during the last decade in the context of increased accountability requirements, decreased financial resources, and increased experience with assessment on college campuses. Discusses relation of assessment to academic planning and syndromes to avoid.
Ewell, Peter T. and Jones, Dennis P. (1996). Indicators of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education: A Handbook for Development and Implementation. Boulder, Co: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). Intended to provide colleges and universities with guidance in establishing an appropriate system of indicators of the effectiveness of undergraduate instruction, and to build on this foundation by cataloguing a range of exemplary indicators of ‘good practice’ that have proven useful across many collegiate settings.
Ferren, Ann (1993). Faculty Resistance to Assessment: A Matter of Priorities and Perceptions. Commissioned paper prepared for American Association of Higher Education. Analyzes faculty priorities to help understand why assessment is rarely valued by faculty. Argues that assessment must derive from widely agreed goals, must be connected to clear outcomes that the faculty see as beneficial, and must not be simply added to already overburdened faculty loads.
Frechtling, Joy A., 1995. Footprints: Strategies for Non-Traditional Program Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. A series of papers suggesting diverse strategies for assessing the impact of funded programmes both short-and long-term, both intended and unintended.
Gaither, Gerald H. (1995). Assessing Performance in an Age of Accountability: Case Studies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Case studies from several states and public institutions about the shift from campus-based assessment in the 1980s to state-based accountability systems in the 1990s.
Glassick, Charles E., Huber, Mary T. and Maeroft, Gene I. (1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Companion to Ernest Boyer’s widely-cited Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, this report outlines standards for evaluating scholarship that transcend differences among disciplines: clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique.
Gold, Bonnie, Keith, Sandra and Marion, William (Eds.), (1999). Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. A collection of over fifty brief reports from dozens of different U.S. colleges and universities providing a wide variety of methods of assessing the major, teaching, classroom practice, the department’s role, and calculus reform.
Haines, C.R. and Dunthorne, S. (Eds.) (1996). Mathematics Teaching and Learning-Sharing Innovative Practices. London: Arnold. This resource pack is a collection of articles describing innovative practices in teaching and assessment. It was written by mathematics lecturers from a consortium of UK universities, including members of ARG.
Haines, C.R. and Izard, J. (1995). Assessment in Context for Mathematical Modelling. In C. Sloyer, W. Blum and I. Huntley (Eds.). Advances and Perspectives in the Teaching of Mathematical Modelling and Applications pp. 131–149. Yorklyn, Delaware: Water Street Mathematics. Credible assessment schemes measure evidence of student achievement, as individuals or within a group, over a wide range of activities. This paper shows that item response modelling can be used to development rating scales for mathematical modelling. It draws on the work of ARG and work in Australia.
Haines, C.R., Izard, J. and Berry, J. (1993). Awarding Student Achievement in Mathematics Projects. London: City University. The second of four reports written by ARG. It investigates in depth the use of assessment criteria for judging oral presentations by students of their project work. It also proposes criteria for the assessment of written reports of different types of student project work.
Hilton, Peter (1993). The Tyranny of Tests. American Mathematical Monthly, April, 365–369. Several suggestions for ‘reducing the distorting effect’ which tests exert, principally on undergraduate mathematics.
Houston, S.K. (1993). Developments in Curriculum and Assessment in Mathematics. University of Ulster. This pamphlet contains papers presented at a one day symposium at the University of Ulster following the 1993 meeting of ARG.
Houston, S.K. (1993). Comprehension Tests in Mathematics (I and II), Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 12, 60–73 and 113–120. These are the original papers describing the use of comprehension tests in mathematics.
Houston, SK. (1995). Assessing Mathematical Comprehension. In C. Sloyer, W. Blum, and I. Huntley (Eds.), Advances and Perspectives in the Teaching of Mathematical Modelling and Applications, pp. 151–162. Yorklyn, Delaware: Water Street Mathematics. This paper examines the rationale for comprehension tests in mathematics, and outlines possible aims and objectives. It describes the author’s experiences in setting and using such tests and outlines the extent of their use in secondary and tertiary education in the UK and extends the work reported in Houston (1993).
Houston, S.K. (1997). Evaluating Rating Scales for the Assessment of Posters. In S.K. Houston, W. Blum, I. Huntley and N.T. Neill, (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Modelling, pp. 135–148. Chichester: Albion Publishing (now Horwood Publishing). Deals with the use of posters by university students as a means of communication and as a vehicle for assessment. There is a summary of a literature review and a rationale for the activity. The author claims that it is an enjoyable activity, which is beneficial for students. The main purpose of the paper is to describe the development and evaluation of assessment criteria and rating scales.
Houston, S.K., Haines, C.R. and Kitchen, A. (1994). Developing Rating Scales for Undergraduate Projects. University of Ulster. The third of four reports written by ARG. It reports on the 1993 workshop, giving details of assessment criteria (or descriptors) for the assessment of written reports on projects in pure mathematics, mathematical modelling, statistical investigations and investigations of a more general nature. The report describes how the group members trialled the criteria and how the data analysis led to the development of robust assessment procedures. It also introduces the use of criteria for the assessment of student posters.
Izard, J. (1997). Assessment of Complex Behaviour as Expected in Mathematics Projects and Investigations. In S.K. Houston, W. Blum, I. Huntley and N.T Neill, (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Modelling, pp. 109–124. Chichester: Albion Publishing (now Horwood Publishing). No single assessment method is capable of providing evidence about the full range of achievement. This paper reviews the problems faced in devising better assessments to monitor learning, and provides practical suggestions for meeting these problems. The methods presented are applicable to traditional examinations, project and investigation reports, presentations and posters, judgements of performance and constructed projects, observations of participation, collaborative group work and ingenuity. The paper concludes with advice on monitoring the quality of the assessment process.
Joint Policy Board for Mathematics (1994). Recognition and Rewards in the Mathematical Sciences. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Discussion of faculty expectations in relation to institutional rewards. Findings include a general dissatisfaction with current methods of evaluating teaching as well as uncertainty about the weight of effective teaching in college expectations and rewards.
Katz, Stanley N. (1994). Defining Education Quality and Accountability. Chronicle of Higher Education, November 16, A56. An op-ed statement by the president of the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS). Urges that colleges and universities heed the wake-up call of assessment from elementary and secondary schools and figure out how to define educational quality in terms that are worthy of higher education.
Linn, Robert L. and Herman, Joan L. (1997). A Policymaker’s Guide to Standards-Led Assessment. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Analysis of policy implications involved in shifting from norm-referenced assessments (which compare each students’ performance to that of others) to standards-led assessments which incorporate pre-established performance goals, many of which are based on real-world rather than ‘artificial’ exercises.
Madison, Bernard (1992). Assessment of Undergraduate Mathematics. In Lynn A. Steen (Ed.), Heeding the Call for Change: Suggestions for Curricular Action, Washington, pp. 137–149. DC: Mathematical Association of America. Analysis of issues, benefits, worries, and pressures associated with the increasing demand for assessment of undergraduate mathematics. A background paper preceding release of the CUPM report on assessment.
Mathematical Sciences Education Board (1993). Measuring What Counts: A Conceptual Guide for Mathematics Assessment. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Intended primarily as advice for K-12 mathematics assessment, this report stresses the need for assessment to measure good mathematics, to enhance learning, and to promote access for all students to high quality mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1995). Assessment Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. This third and final volume in NCTM’s original set of standards for school mathematics focuses on six standards: effective assessment should reflect appropriate mathematics, enhance learning, promote equity, be based on an open process, promote valid inferences, and fit together coherently.
Niss, Mogens (Ed.) (1993). Investigations into Assessment in Mathematics Education — An ICMI Study. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. This book is one of two resulting from the ICMI Assessment Study. The book offers a variety of approaches to the conceptual, philosophical, historical, societal, and pedagogical investigation of assessment in mathematics education, by prominent mathematics educators from Europe, North America and Australia. Both survey chapters and specific empirical or theoretical studies are included in the book.
Open University Course Team (1998). Assessment of Key Skills in the Open University Entrance Suite. MU120, MST121, MS221. Open University, Milton Keynes.
Romer, Roy (1995). Making Quality Count in Undergraduate Education. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Report by the then-Governor of Colorado on behalf of all U.S. state governors concerning what parents and students expect of higher education and what research says about the characteristics of high-quality undergraduate education. Concludes with recommendations for steps to make higher education more accountable to its public purposes.
Schilling, Karen Maitland and Schilling, Karl L. (1993). Professors Must Respond to Calls for Accountability. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 24, A40. An op-ed column arguing that faculty must take seriously the public’s demand for evidence that students are learning, and learning the right things. Suggests portfolio assessment as an effective strategy.
Schoenfeld, Alan (1997). Student Assessment in Calculus. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. Report of an NSF working group convened to support assessment of calculus reform projects by providing a conceptual framework together with extensive examples. Emphasizes the ‘fundamental tenet’ that, since tests are statements of what is valued, new curricula need new tests.
Seldin, Peter (1993). The Use and Abuse of Student Ratings of Professors. Chronicle of Higher Education, July 21, A40. An op-ed column lamenting the propensity of colleges to misuse student evaluations of faculty. Gives research-based advice for how to use such ratings intelligently and effectively.
Smith, G., Wood, L., Coupland, M., Stephenson, B., Crawford, K. and Ball, G. (1996). Constructing Mathematical Examinations to Assess a Range of Knowledge and Skills. Int J Math Edu Sci Technol, 27, 65–77.
Steen, Lynn Arthur (1999). Assessing Assessment. Preface to Bonnie Gold, Sanda Z. Keith and William A. Marion (Eds.), Assessment Practices in College Mathematics, pp. 1–6. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. An exploration of issues, principles, and options available to address the wide variety of assessment challenges facing college mathematics departments.
Stevens, Floraline, Lawrenz, Frances and Sharp, Laure (1993). User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. A ‘how-to’ guide to effective assessment for project directors who have neither experience in nor enthusiasm for evaluation.
Tucker, Alan C. and Leitzel, James R. C. (1995). Assessing Calculus Reform Efforts. Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America. A ‘mid-term’ review of the NSF-supported calculus reform movement in the United States, providing background on the motivation and goals of the movement, as well as evidence of changes in content, pedagogy, impact on students, faculty, departments, and institutions.
Wiggins, Grant (1989). A True Test: Toward More Authentic and Equitable Assessment. Phi Delta Kappa, May, 703–713. Argues that misunderstanding about the relation of tests to standards impedes progress in educational improvement. Suggests that only tests that require the ‘performance of exemplary tasks’ can truly monitor students’ progress towards educational standards.
Wiggins, Grant (1990). The Truth May Make You Free, but the Test May Keep You Imprisoned: Toward Assessment Worthy of the Liberal Arts. In Assessment 1990: Understanding the Implications, pp.17–31 Washington, DC: The American Association for Higher Education. (Reprinted in 1992, Lynn A. Steen (Ed.). Heeding the Call for Change: Suggestions for Curricular Action, pp. 159–162. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.) Philosophical reflections on the purposes of education in the liberal arts or in basic science or mathematics. Focuses on ten principles of education that testing tends to destroy (e.g., justifying one’s opinions; known, clear, public standards and criteria; self-assessment in terms of standards of rational inquiry; challenging authority and asking good questions).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Houston, K. (2001). Assessing Undergraduate Mathematics Students. In: Holton, D., Artigue, M., Kirchgräber, U., Hillel, J., Niss, M., Schoenfeld, A. (eds) The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level. New ICMI Study Series, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47231-7_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47231-7_36
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-7191-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-306-47231-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive