Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
formative assessment
on quadratic functions
with senior secondary students
Karina J. Wilkie
Monash University, Victoria, Australia
<karina.wilkie@monash.edu>
Senior secondary mathematics students who develop conceptual understanding that moves
them beyond “rules without reasons” to connections between related concepts (Skemp,1976,
2002, p. 2) are in a strong place to tackle the more difficult mathematics application prob-
lems. Current research is examining how the use of challenging tasks at different levels of
schooling might help students develop conceptual knowledge and proficiencies in mathemat-
ics as promoted in the Australian curriculum—understanding, fluency, problem solving,
and reasoning (ACARA, 2009). Challenging tasks require students to devise solutions to
more complex problems that they have not been previously shown how to solve, and for
which they might develop their own solution methods (Sullivan et al., 2014). Another key
area of research is on formative assessment which has been found to be effective for increas-
ing student motivation and achievement under certain conditions (for example, Brookhart,
2007; Karpinski & D’Agostino, 2013).
This article describes one study within a larger project on challenging tasks. It explored
87 Year 10 students’ responses to a quadratics task, and their views on learning with chal-
lenging tasks and with multiple solution methods. Some ideas are shared on the potential for
using challenging tasks, not only for conceptual learning, but also for formative assessment.
This increases the benefit to students by not only providing opportunities for them to grapple
with mathematics concepts relationally, but also giving them timely feedback that motivates
them to address gaps between their knowledge and learning goals. It also provides teachers
with valuable information on their students’ current levels of understanding to help them
make adjustments in their teaching approaches during the learning process.
Process
functions
Interpreting
Constructing
Object
Interpreting
Figure 1. A functions framework for developing students’ knowledge conceptually with multiple
representations and perspectives (Moschkovich, et al., 1993; Romberg, et al., 1993).
Table 1. Formative assessment rubric for Year 10 quadratics task Part 1 with illustrative examples.
Rubric
score:
A1.1
B2.1
C1.1
Figure 4. Sample student response to Part B—generalisation for 3 types of positive parabolas
(but with misconception about k).
Figure 5 shows a sophisticated response in which the relationship between a and k has
been described in order to generalise for any parabola (quadratic functions, not sideways
parabolas!) to meet the given conditions. A step beyond this example would see students
looking at connections between the turning point form of an equation, the general equation,
the use of b2 – 4ac and also the factorised form of an equation. Making these connections
between different expressions of parabolas supports conceptual learning rather than isolated
procedural knowledge about different formulae.
Figure 7. Sample student response to Part C— partial generalisation for given example.
Figure 7 shows the use of words to describe generalisations for the particular parabola
given as a starting point in Part C. This response demonstrates a conceptual understanding
of the different horizontal lines that meet the given conditions. A step beyond this would
involve expressing these ideas mathematically to capture all possible lines, before then
using these to generalise for any positive or negative parabola.
Figure 8 shows an attempt to generalise for all positive parabolas by connecting the k
value in the turning point equation to the value of y for a horizontal line. Unfortunately,
this has led to an inaccurate expression mathematically (a region rather than a set of hori-
zontal lines) which means that the response can’t be scored as C3 on the suggested rubric.
Quite a few similar responses occurred with this particular cohort; using this task
for formative rather than summative assessment flags to the teacher the need for further
discussions about how generalisations are expressed mathematically.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge with appreciation the teacher and student
participants from the Encouraging Persistence, Maintaining Challenge project, funded by
an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP110101027), who contributed
to the study on which this article is based.
References
Anthony, G. (1996). Classroom instructional factors affecting mathematics students’ strategic learning
behaviours. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Mathematics education research
group of Australasia (MERGA), University of Melbourne.
Australian curriculum assessment and reporting authority (ACARA). (2009, January, 2011).
The Australian curriculum: Mathematics. Retrieved January 3, 2014,
from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Curriculum/F–10
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment In Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment.
Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Expanding views about formative classroom assessment: A review of the literature.
In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 43–62). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2007). Boosting achievement with messages that motivate. Education Canada, 47(2),
6–10. Dweck, C. S. (2010). Mind-sets and equitable education. Principal Leadership, 10(5), 26–29.
Fontana, D. ,& Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence
of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils. British Journal Of Educational Psychology,
64(3), 407– 417.
Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the development of mathematical
concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics
(pp. 1–23). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Harlen, W. (2007). Formative classroom assessment in science and mathematics. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.),
Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 116 –135). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning.
In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1,
pp. 371–404). Charlotte, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Information Age Publishing.
Karpinski, A. C., & D’Agostino, J. V. (2013). The role of formative assessment in student achievement.
In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 202–204).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels.
In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2,
pp. 707–762). Charlotte, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Information Age Publishing
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review,
a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination
performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(4), 319–333.