This article was downloaded by: [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola]On: 10 October 2014, At: 20:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Community College Journalof Research and PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

TECHNOLOGY MAKES ADIFFERENCE IN COMMUNITYCOLLEGE MATHEMATICSTEACHINGThomasenia Lott Adams aa College of Education , University of Florida ,Gainesville, Florida, USAPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Thomasenia Lott Adams (1997) TECHNOLOGYMAKES A DIFFERENCE IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE MATHEMATICS TEACHING,Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21:5, 481-491, DOI:10.1080/1066892970210502

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1066892970210502

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

TECHNOLOGY MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN COMMUNITYCOLLEGE MATHEMATICS TEACHING

Thomasenia Lott AdamsCollege of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

This study examines the influence of graphing calculators on a teacher's assessmentpractices in a college algebra course. The researcher focused on three techniques ofalternative assessment: oral discourse, teacher observations, and problem-solvinginvestigations. The teacher's assessment practices were revealed during 6 weeks ofclassroom observations. The researcher examined the teacher's assessment practicesbefore and after the teacher used graphing calculators as tools for teaching andlearning mathematics. The use of the graphing calculators enhanced the teacher'sassessment practices as related to oral discourse, classroom observations, andproblem-solving investigations. The results of the study indicate the potential fortechnological tools to influence teachers' practices of alternative assessment in themathematics classroom.

Assessment is viewed by many mathematics educators as a means ofreforming the teaching and learning of mathematics. This view isencouraged by the development of and emphasis on techniques ofclassroom assessment that allow educators to increase and improveinformation obtained about instruction and learning. In addition, thesenew, authentic techniques of assessment are purported to be replace-ments for or supplements to traditional methods of assessment. Tech-niques of authentic assessment are characterized by assessmentmethods that are implemented to obtain multiple facets of informationabout teaching and learning in order to improve teaching and learning.These techniques are alternatives to traditional forms of assessment,which often provide only a one-dimensional view of learning and verylittle information about teaching.

Many techniques of alternative assessment are applicable in themathematics classroom: constructed-response items, essays, oral dis-course, exhibitions, experiments, portfolios (Feuer & Fulton, 1992),

Address correspondence to Thomasenia Lott Adams, University of Florida, College ofEducation, Gainesville, FL 32611-7048, USA

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21:481-491, 1997Copyright © 1997 Taylor & Francis

1066-8928/97 $12.00 + .00 481

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

482 T. L. ADAMS

journals (Bagley & Gallenberger, 1992), projects, group work (Mathe-matical Sciences Education Board & National Research Council, 1993),observations, diagnostic interviews, problem-solving investigations(Sammons, Kobett, Heiss, Fennell, 1992), and self-reports (Ginsburg,Jacobs, & Lopez, 1993).

Various tools for teaching and learning (e.g., manipulatives) are usedin the mathematics classroom. It is important that educators viewassessment techniques in light of the tools used in the classroom.Mathematics educators heavily promote the use of computers andcalculators in mathematics classrooms at all grade levels (NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics, 1980, 1989,1991). As a means ofassessing students' learning of mathematics while using computers,calculators, or both, many researchers have examined the impact oftechnology on students' achievement in mathematics (e.g., Koop, 1982;Palmiter, 1991; Rich, 1990). In most instances, students in these studieswere assigned a score on an instrument before and after participationin an experimental use of computers or calculators. Like many tradi-tional methods of assessment, these scores provided only partial in-formation about students' mathematical strengths and weaknesses(Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics, 1992) and almost noinformation about the teaching that occurred. In the wake of assessmentreform in mathematics education, mathematics educators have rarelyaddressed the question of how the use of technology, particularly theuse of graphing tools, affects assessment practices in the mathematicsclassroom (Senk, 1992).

The framework of this study was built on three premises. First,among other things, assessment is a procedure for ascertaining whatstudents know (Webb & Briars, 1990; Mathematical Sciences EducationBoard, 1990). When teachers are able to determine what students know,they are more informed about the pace and effectiveness of the instruc-tion (Stiggins, 1988), and they are better equipped to inform studentsand other interested parties who are concerned about students' learning(Clarke, Clarke, & Lovitt, 1990). The idea that teachers should beinterested in what students know does not negate the idea that teachersshould not attend to students' mathematical weaknesses. However, bydirecting focus on students' mathematical knowledge and strengths,teachers can make more informed decisions about the appropriatenessof the curriculum and instruction.

Second, mathematical assessment in particular is "the comprehens-ive accounting of an individual's or group's functioning within mathe-matics or in the application of mathematics" (Webb, 1992, p. 663). Ifassessment is to be aligned with the curriculum, as suggested by Cainand Kenney (1992), then one must design assessment that reflects the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

COMMUNITY COLLEGE MATHEMATICS TEACHING 483

content of the curriculum and that provides some insight on the qualityof the interaction between the learner and the curriculum presented bythe teacher and between the learner and the instruction facilitated bythe teacher.

Last, the power of technology and its application in mathematics canbe realized when computers and calculators are used as tools for teach-ing and learning. Computers and calculators can play a significant rolein the teaching and learning of every mathematical topic. These toolscan have a great impact in the mathematics classroom (Leitzel, 1989).

I conducted the study reported here to examine a mathematicsteacher's classroom assessment practices before and after use of atechnological tool used for teaching and learning mathematics. Thepurpose of the study was to describe the effect of using graphingcalculators on three areas of the teacher's assessment of students: oraldiscourse, observation, and problem-solving investigations.

Oral discourse is characterized by conversations in the instructionalsetting that take meaning from the curriculum and instructional prac-tices. The oral discourse can be teacher directed or student directed andinvolves the exchange of information that takes its context from themathematics and the processes of teaching and learning mathematicsthat occur in the classroom environment. My focus was on the influenceof using graphing calculators on oral discourse as related to teachingand learning mathematics.

Teachers' observations of students' work and of students at work is avery important component of authentic, alternative assessment. I wasparticularly interested in the changes the teacher would make in re-gards to her observations of students' work and students at work duringthe use of technology.

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989, 1991) sug-gested that mathematics is problem solving and that the learningenvironment should reflect this position. I was interested in whetherthe teacher's assessment of the students' mathematical learning wouldbe founded in problem-solving investigations.

METHOD

SubjectsThe subjects consisted of a community college mathematics teacher andthe students enrolled in the teacher's college algebra course. The teacherhad a master's degree in mathematics. Of her 19 years of mathematicsteaching experience, 16 years were in community college teaching. Shehad taught college algebra on 25 occasions. Although she had used

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

484 T. L. ADAMS

computers as a tool for teaching and learning, she had never usedgraphing calculators to facilitate classroom instruction.

There were 56 students in the two intact college algebra classes. Eachstudent completed a demographic questionnaire. On analyzing theinformation provided by the students (e.g., age, sex, high school history,grade point average, etc.), I determined that there were no indicationsthat the students in the classes were significantly different from stu-dents enrolled in other sections of college algebra at the communitycollege. In addition, there were no indications that these students weresignificantly different from the national profile of community collegestudents.

Procedure

I provided the teacher with a Casio 7000G graphing calculator beforethe study and met with the teacher on a weekly basis to provideinstruction on the operation and capabilities of the graphing calculator.Because of the teacher's mathematical background and mathematicsteaching experience and to preserve her natural teaching style, I did notprovide her with specific guidelines for incorporating the tool intoinstruction. In addition, at no time did I discuss the issue of assessmentin the mathematics classroom with the teacher. We met as often as theteacher desired to discuss issues regarding the operation of thegraphing calculator and to answer questions regarding the graphingtool's capabilities.

At the beginning of the school term, I supplied the teacher with 35Casio 7000G graphing calculators. The teacher instructed the studentson use of the graphing calculators. As I directed, the teacher allowed allstudents to use the graphing calculators for class activities and assign-ments. Students were encouraged by the teacher to use the graphingcalculators freely, with and without prompting. The goal was to makethe graphing calculator a normal part of the learning environment.

All students enrolled in college algebra at the institution were re-quired to use the same text, and all teachers of college algebra wererequired to follow the topical outline provided by the mathematicsdepartment. During the course of the study, the teacher presented thefollowing topics: linear functions, algebra of functions, quadratic func-tions, and application of parabolic functions. I chose to conduct the studyduring the time when function was being presented because the graph-ing calculator has proven to be most beneficial for graphing and analyz-ing functions (Barrett & Goebel, 1991; Hector, 1992) and for providingstudents the opportunity to enhance their understanding and intuitionregarding the concept of function (Demana & Waits, 1991).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

COMMUNITY COLLEGE MATHEMATICS TEACHING 485

I observed the teacher and the two classes for 6 weeks. As a non-participant observer, I recorded data by means of field notes and a videocamera set up in the back of the classroom. The camera was in a verydiscrete location and remained stationary at all times. I received per-mission from the teacher to visit the classes on a random basis, and Irequested a course agenda from the teacher at the beginning of the termand thus was able to avoid days when the teacher was not facilitatinginstruction (e.g., holidays, intern visits, etc.). Three weeks of datacollection were conducted before the teacher introduced and began touse the graphing calculators in the classroom. During the remaining3 weeks, I observed the teacher and the students while they used thegraphing calculators during the designated unit on functions.

RESULTS

Oral Discourse

During the first 3 weeks of data collection, I observed that there weretwo distinctive categories for oral discourse: review of homework andpresentation of new content in the next section of the textbook. Thesetwo activities were completely teacher led. In both cases, teacher-student and student-student verbal interactions were limited in qualityand quantity. The teacher's style of instruction in both cases wasdominated purely by the lecture mode. Even as she wrote on thechalkboard, she verbalized the words as she wrote them.

The teacher began each class by reviewing the homework assignmentthat students should have completed for the designated class period.The oral discourse during this time consisted entirely of teacher ques-tions, student short-answer responses, and student questions, whichmost often were not academically motivated. As the teacher respondedto students' requests to present solutions to problems, she would askmany questions for which she did not receive responses. The followingis an example of oral discourse that took place while the teacherpresented a homework problem solution and represents the typicalclassroom discourse during the 3 weeks before the graphing calculatorwas introduced into the classroom.

Teacher: Is this okay? [Question was in reference to whether teacher hadcopied problem from book correctly.]Teacher: Does everybody see that?Students: Yeah. [Students responded randomly and in unison.]Teacher: What's the common denominator? [Students did not respond.Teacher wrote answer on board.]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

486 T. L. ADAMS

Teacher: Is that right?Students: Yeah. [Students responded randomly and in unison.]Teacher: Is everybody with me?Students: Yeah. [Students responded randomly and in unison]Teacher: What do we get? What method should we try? [Students did notrespond.]Teacher: What's the least common denominator? [Students did not re-spond. Teacher wrote answer on board.]Teacher: Is that okay?Students: Yeah. [Students responded randomly and in unison]Teacher: Do you see the advantage?Students: Yeah. [Students responded randomly and in unison]Student: When is the quiz?Teacher: We'll discuss that later.Student: How did you get that? [Teacher pointed to step in presentation.]Teacher: Does this agree with the answer in the book?Students: Yeah. [Students responded randomly and in unison]Teacher: How many solutions? [Students did not respond.]Teacher: Anything else?Student: Will you do the next problem?Teacher: Yeah.

During all of the classroom discourse, the teacher addressed thewhole class and did not attempt to engage in academic conversation withindividual students. I also observed that when the teacher addressedthe whole class and requested a response, some students would respond,and others would not. The teacher did not at any time attempt todetermine why some students did not respond to her questions. More-over, most of the responses were short-answer agreements to her ques-tions and not indicative of the students' conceptual understanding of thecontent. In addition, the students' responses were rarely challenged orsupported by the teacher.

The teacher introduced the students to the graphing calculators justbefore she started the unit on functions. The students were very accept-ing of the tool, although several students did express their dislike forcalculators and computers. Nevertheless, each student cooperated withthe teacher. The teacher taught the students to use the components ofthe graphing calculator that were applicable for the unit on functions.

The quality of the oral discourse in the classroom began to change onthe day that the teacher introduced the students to the graphingcalculator. I noted that there were drastic changes in the verbal com-munication initiated by the teacher. She no longer simply asked ques-tions, but also initiated communication that consisted of nonquestionexchanges between herself and the students. In addition, these ex-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

COMMUNITY COLLEGE MATHEMATICS TEACHING 487

changes and her questions were often directed at individual students.This was most evident when she walked to desks to speak with individ-ual students. I observed that the teacher's assessment of students'understanding of the content through oral discourse was aided by herwillingness to walk away from the chalkboard to address individualstudents. The graphing calculator provided the teacher with a mobileteaching tool that she could carry with her as she walked among thestudents. Rather than relying on random and unison responses, the teacheraddressed individual students in different parts of the classroom.

Moreover, student-to-student discourse increased when the studentsused the graphing calculator. Before the tool was introduced, the stu-dents did not engage in content-related discourse. However, whenstudents used the graphing calculator, they shared instructions andother assistance between themselves. They compared and discussedtheir individual results, and they engaged in challenges with the toolthat prompted discourse centered around what-if questions and look-what-happened-when-I-did discussions. The teacher-directed and stu-dent-directed questions and statements were more motivated by themathematics when the students were using the graphing calculators.Below is an example of oral discourse that occurred when the graphingcalculator was being used in the classroom.

Teacher: What is the equation for point-slope? [Directed question toindividual student.]Student: y = mx + bTeacher: What is the equation for a vertical line? [Directed question toindividual student.]Student: x = aTeacher: Two lines are parallel if? [Teacher pointed at individual student.]Student: The slopes are the sameTeacher: Which do you like graphing better: points or lines?Student: Lines. [Students responded randomly and in unison.]Student: Why do you use -4 for the ylTeacher: Think about the scale. Maybe your scale is screwed up. [Teacher'sresponse was in reference to the scale of the coordinate axis that thestudent had selected.]Student: Can we graph other things too?Teacher: Yeah. Let's talk through it together.

Teacher Observations

Before the graphing calculators were used in the classroom, the teacherspent all of her time at the chalkboard. In most cases, she faced thestudents when she had completed writing the homework solutions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

488 T. L. ADAMS

Before the introduction of the graphing calculators into the classroom,I did not observe the teacher leaving the front of the classroom to viewany student's work or any students at work.

The nature of the graphing calculator provides for individuality. Forexample, although numerous students can graph an identical functionequation, the images that appear on the many screens may differdrastically. The design of the image depends on the constraints createdby the user of the graphing calculator. In cases like these, the teacherwas willing to observe students' work and make comments and sugges-tions directly to the students about their results. She often walkedaround the classroom to observe students' work and to observe studentsat work.

One of the students in the class was deaf. He had an interpreter whosat directly in front of him and relayed all teacher talk to him. Becausethe student had to keep his focus on the interpreter at all times, he wasnot able to copy notes and homework problem solutions from the board.He did not respond through his interpreter when the teacher askedwhole group questions, and the teacher did not address him through hisinterpreter.

However, when the student learned how to use the graphing calcula-tor, he did not spend as much time watching the interpreter. Once heknew which problem he needed to work on, he concentrated on hisinteraction with the graphing calculator. I observed that the teacheroften approached this student to observe his work and him at work. Inaddition, the teacher relayed her observations and feedback to thestudent through the interpreter. This student also engaged in oraldiscourse through his interpreter with the teacher and with several ofhis classmates.

Often, after observing students' work and students at work, theteacher would return to her desk at the front of class and write notes.The teacher told me that she was making notes about her observationsof students' work and the students at work and would review her noteswhen assigning student grades.

Problem-Solving Investigations

The teacher-led homework reviews consisted mainly of students askingthe teacher to work certain homework problems on the board. In allinstances, the students asked the teacher to work problems for whichthey were not able to obtain a solution. Owing to the nature of theteacher-led homework reviews, the teacher did all of the writing on thechalkboard. Students were not encouraged to try similar problems, norwere they encouraged to continue attempts to determine the processes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

COMMUNITY COLLEGE MATHEMATICS TEACHING 489

to reach solutions. The teacher did not show any interest in the students'genuine problem-solving abilities as she provided most of the answersand solutions to the problems. In addition, she did not attempt to providemultiple solutions to problems when applicable, nor did she suggest thatthe students should seek alternative solutions. When the graphingcalculators were introduced, the students began to try the problemswithout teacher assistance. On entering the classroom each day, thestudents selected a graphing calculator and proceeded to use the tool toobtain solutions to the homework problems. The students still requestedthe teacher to provide some procedural assistance. However, the teacherdid not provide step-by-step solutions as she had previously done.Instead, she filled in missing gaps and encouraged the students to usethe graphing calculators to continue seeking solutions. In addition, afterreviewing homework problems using the graphing calculators, theteacher suggested more difficult problems that the students were to tryto solve by using the graphing calculator. During these events, thestudents worked in small groups of two or three, persons, with eachperson attempting to solve the problem with a graphing calculator.Moreover, this interaction led the students into investigations of multi-ple solutions to graphing problems.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of this exploratory study indicate that the use of technolog-ical tools can enhance the quality of assessment in the mathematicsclassroom. The use of the graphing calculator set the stage for moremeaningful assessment. It encouraged more oral discourse and provideda platform for oral discourse that reflected the mathematical content.The teacher's observation of students' work and students at work wasextremely limited before the graphing calculators were introduced intothe classroom. However, the tool provided the teacher with more mobil-ity and provided the teacher opportunities for observing students' workand students at work. Finally, the graphing calculators enhanced theproblem-solving potential of the classroom environment. Before thetools were introduced into the classroom, the atmosphere was very staticand not conducive to problem-solving activity. The teacher and thestudents were able to transform this classroom into one where problemsolving was a component of the teaching and learning experience.

Only one kind of educational tool and three kinds of assessmenttechniques were focused on in this study. However, the implication ofthe results of this study is that the use of graphing calculators and othertechnological tools can enhance and provide a positive environment forteachers' practices of alternative assessment techniques in the mathe-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

490 T. L. ADAMS

matics classroom. Although graphing calculators and other technologi-cal tools continue to play roles in the reformation of teaching andlearning mathematics, the results of this study suggest that these toolscan also play roles in the reformation of assessment of mathematicsteaching and learning at the community college level.

REFERENCES

Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics. (1992). Position statements ofthe Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher,39(6), 66.

Bagley, T., & Gallenberger, C. (1992). Assessing students' dispositions: Usingjournals to improve students' performance. Mathematics Teacher, 85(8),660-663.

Barrett, G., & Goebel, J. (1991). The impact of graphing calculators on theteaching and learning of mathematics. In M. J. Kenney (Ed.), Teaching andlearning mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 205-211). Reston, VA: NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics.

Cain, R. W., & Kenney, P. (1992). A joint vision for classroom assessment.Mathematics Teacher, 85(8), 612-615.

Clarke, D. J., Clarke, D. M., & Lovitt, C. J. (1990). Changes in mathematicsteaching call for assessment alternatives. In T. J. Cooney (Ed.), Teaching andlearning mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 118-129). Reston, VA: NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics.

Demana, F., & Waits, B. K. (1991). Enhancing mathematics teaching andlearning through technology. In M. J. Kenney (Ed.), Teaching and learningmathematics in the 1990s (pp. 212-222). Reston, VA: National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics.

Feur, M. J., & Fulton, K. (1992). The many faces of performance assessment.Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 478.

Ginsburg, H. P., Jacobs, S. F., & Lopez, L. S. (1993). Assessing mathematicalthinking and learning potential. In R. B. Davis & C. A. Maher (Eds.), Schools,mathematics, and the world of reality (pp. 237-262). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hector, J. H. (1992). Graphical insight into elementary functions. In J. T. Fey(Ed.), Calculators in mathematics education (pp. 131-137). Reston, VA:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Koop, J. B. (1982). Calculator use in the community college arithmetic course.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 50-60.

Leitzel, J. R. (1989). Critical considerations for the future of algebra instructionor a reaction to: Algebra: What should we teach and how should we teach it?In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teachingof algebra (pp. 25-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mathematical Sciences Education Board. (1990). Reshaping school mathemat-ics: A philosophy and framework for curriculum. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

COMMUNITY COLLEGE MATHEMATICS TEACHING 491

Mathematical Sciences Education Board & National Research Council. (1993).Measuring up: Prototypes for mathematics assessment. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action:Recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evalua-tion standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards forteaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Palmiter, J. R. (1991). Effects of computer algebra systems on concept and skillacquisition in calculus. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,22(2), 151-156.

Rich, B. S. (1990). The effect of using graphing calculators on the learning offunction concepts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1990). Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 5, 5203A.

Sammons, K. B., Kobett, B., Heiss, J., & Fennell, F. (1992). Linking instructionand assessment in the mathematics classroom. Arithmetic Teacher, 39(6),11-16.

Senk, S. L. (1992). Assessing students' learning in courses using graphics tools:A preliminary research agenda. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Mathematics assess-ment and evaluation (pp. 128-138). Albany: State University of New YorkPress.

Stiggins, R. J. (1988). Revitalizing classroom assessment: The highest instruc-tional priority. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(5), 363-372.

Webb, N. L. (1992). Assessment of student's knowledge of mathematics: Stepstoward a theory. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematicsteaching and learning (pp. 661-683). New York: Macmillan.

Webb, N., & Briars, D. (1990). Assessment in mathematics classrooms, K-8. InT. J. Cooney (Ed.), Teaching and learning in the 1990s (pp. 108-117). Reston,VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kun

glig

a T

ekni

ska

Hog

skol

a] a

t 20:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014