Abstract:

In this paper based on our experience of teaching mathematics courses at various levels of mathematics curriculum in the active learning environment we discuss development of assessment instruments that foster students learning.

Shute (2008)argues that efficacy of assessment depends on three factors. First of all, motive: students need it; second, means: students are willing and able to use it; and third, applicability: students receive it in time to use it. We believe that to meet these requirements and follow Shute’s recommendations in the active learning environment we can (and need) to blend assessment strategies (and developed assessment instruments) with students’ activities. In this presentation it will be discussed how it could be done in teaching mathematics at various levels with different teaching strategies.

Most scholars in curriculum development admit that there are four components of curriculum development: objectives (learning outcomes), content, teaching strategies (methods), and assessment . It is clear from the theoretical perspective that in planning assessment we should keep in mind objectives, strategies, and content. Analysis of assessment strategies and instruments indicates that in most cases assessment (and teaching) occur at the middle level of cognitive demand, namely, at the level of “apply” according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. In this paper we discuss some teaching strategies and assessment that focus on the lower level of cognitive demand (“understand”) and higher level of cognitive demand (“analyze”).

One of the activities, underestimated in developing learning activities (and corresponding assessment) is metacognition. Flavell, Miller, and Miller, (2002), define metacognition as ‘‘any knowledge or cognitive activity that takes as its object, or regulates, any aspect of any cognitive activity’’. Related to metacognition strategies and assessment will be discussed.

There has been a significant upsurge in scholarly papers related to active learning and assessment of active learning in the last few years. At the same time, analysis of the scholarly work also reveals an evident disparity between papers on active learning and those on the assessment of active learning, especially in mathematics, and moreover, this discrepancy has remained the same for the last decade. Thus, Gibson and Shaw wrote in 2010 ”The use of active-learning techniques has expanded in recent years, and so have the different assessment methods used to evaluate these teaching techniques. The scholarship of assessment, however, is not as comprehensively developed as the teaching methods itself” (2010). This presentation/paper is a follow up with the author’s recently published papers (2018), and it contributes to closing the gap between theory of active learning and assessment of active learning.

Keywords:

Active learning, assessment, metacognition, cognitive demand.