Beyond test scores: A framework for reporting mathematics assessment results to enhance teaching and learning

Abstract

In this article we propose a framework for reporting mathematics results from national assessment surveys (NAS) such that effective use of the resulting reports can enhance teaching and learning. We explored literature on factors that may contribute to non-utilisation of assessment data as a basis for decision-making. In the context of South Africa, we identified the form and formats in which results of NAS are reported as a possible limiting factor to the effective use of summative assessment results for formative purposes. As an alternative, we propose a standards-based reporting framework that will ensure accurate measurement of, and meaningful feedback on, what learners know and can do. We illustrate how, within a properly designed reporting framework, the results of a NAS in mathematics can be used for formative purposes to enhance teaching and learning and, possibly, improve learner performance.

Using meta-analysis to explore the transferability of education mid-range theories to Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria and Niger: Final academic report – Evidence synthesis

“…As such, individual feedback sessions with learners in difficulties are rare. Likewise, Naylor & Sayed (2014), Moloi & Kanjee, (2017) explains that inadequate teacher preparation and support, large classrooms, lack of resources and entrenched cultural and pedagogical practices hamper the process of changing teaching styles in Africa. Govender (2019) argues that some teachers in South Africa who have completed Assessment for Learning trainings experience difficulties integrating formative assessment in their daily practice.…”

Using standard setting to promote meaningful use of mathematics assessment data within initial teacher education programmes

“…However the utility of this information for identifying specific learning needs of students, or determining the specific sets of knowledge and skills that students master, is limited (Bond & Fox, 2007;Montgomery & Connoly, 1987). Raw scores on their own cannot be used qualitatively to indicate what students were able or not able to do in a test (Bond & Fox, 2007;Moloi & Kanjee, 2018). Raw scores, including percentages, are sample-and test-dependent.…”

“…The choice of the OSS method was informed by our research that indicates this method as being both cost-effective and providing curriculum-rich information for meaningful reporting of assessment results. Interested readers can refer to Moloi and Kanjee (2018) for general procedures of standard setting and to Stone (2001) for specific technical procedures of the OSS method. The information gathered from the standard setting session was used to conduct an intensive audit of the knowledge and skills that characterise students at each performance level to establish the PLDs.…”

“…For relative ease and accuracy of reporting we proposed the use of four reporting levels defined as Not Achieved, Partly Achieved, Achieved and Advanced. The process of the development of PLs, their policy definitions as well as their generic descriptions has been presented in detail in Moloi and Kanjee (2018). The definition of PLs includes information on the implications of the PL in terms of student progression and necessary intervention (Figure 3).…”

From measuring impact to informing course design: The second design trial of the Maths Intensive course

“…This paper is situated within the literature on assessment-particularly assessment purposes and utility to improve teaching and learning. Moloi and Kanjee (2018) reported that a challenge facing South African teachers is the inadequacy of meaningful reporting and effective utilisation of evidence from assessment. They argued that meaningful reporting includes finding effective ways of converting raw data into information that can inform decision-making and explained: At classroom level, "meaningful information" refers to information that the teacher could use for determining what learners at a particular grade level know or do not know, and can or cannot do, and to develop relevant interventions to address specific learning needs of learners.…”