Implicit aspects of paper and pencil mathematics assessment that come to light through the use of the computer

Educational Studies in Mathematics

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 335-348

  Threlfall, John ^a   Pool, Peter ^a   Homer, Matthew ^a   Swinnerton, Bronwen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assessment; Computer based; Key stage tests; Mathematics assessment; Paper and pencil; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548472870     PISSN: 00131954     EISSN: 15730816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-006-9078-5     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Beevers, C. E., Youngson, M. A., McGuire, G. R., Wild, D. G., & Fiddes, D. J. (1999). Issues of partial credit in mathematical assessment by computer. Alt-J (Association for Learning Technology Journal), 7, 26-32.
2. Brown, J., Stillman, G., & Herbert, S. (2004). Can the notion of affordances be of use in the design of a technology enriched mathematics curriculum. In I. Putt, R. Faragher, & M. McLean (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia, vol. 1, pp.119-126.
3. Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SOGHCI) conference on human factors in computing systems. New Orleans, pp. 79-84.
4. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
5. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
6. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory. Principles and application. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
7. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8. McGuire, G. R., & Youngson, M. A. (2002). Assessing ICT Assessment in Mathematics. Maths CAA Series, Maths, Stats and OR network. http://ltsn.mathstore.ac.uk/articles/maths-caa-series/mar2002/index.htm Accessed 11/11/2005.
9. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings of the Graphics Interface 2000. Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society (pp. 179-186), Toronto.
10. Raikes, N., & Harding, R. (2003). The horseless carriage stage: Replacing conventional measures. Assessment in Education, 10(3), 267-277.
11. Russell, M., Goldberg, A., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Computer-based testing and validity: a look back into the future. Assessment in Education, 10(3), 278-293.
12. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
13. Threlfall, J., & Pool, P. (2004). How might the assessment of mathematics through dynamic interactive computer items be different from that in conventional tests?. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Mathematics Education (ICME 10), Copenhagen, Denmark, July 4-11.
14. Watson, A. (2003). Affordances, constraints and attunements in mathematical activity. In Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 23(2), pp. 103-108.