Assessment for Learning in a Math Classroom

  • Sharon FriesenEmail author
Part of the The Enabling Power of Assessment book series (EPAS, volume 3)


A design-based research (DBR) approach was used to investigate how a mathematics geometry study which employed the principles of universal design for learning (UDL) within a discipline-based inquiry which embedded assessment for learning impacted student learning, and teacher learning and instructional designs. Qualitative and quantitative data informed the research findings and indicated: (i) all students showed significant improvement in achievement, (ii) all students made gains in the five strands of mathematical proficiency, (iii) all students can engage with difficult mathematical ideas when they are provided with assessment for learning, (iv) the principles of UDL permit teachers to break the stranglehold of the procedural script for teaching mathematics, (v) access to technology is a critical factor in an accessible mathematics classroom, (vi) introducing UDL and assessment for learning into the mathematics classroom is a disruptive innovation, and (vii) creating accessible mathematics classrooms, consistent with UDL and assessment for learning principles and practices, requires increased teacher knowledge and support for on-going professional development.


Discipline-based inquiry Assessment for learning Mathematics learning Student-centred leadership 


  1. Adams, R., & Wu, M. (Eds.). (2002). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Retrieved from:
  2. Alberta Education. (2007). Mathematics kindergarten to grade 9 program of studies. Alberta Education. Retrieved from:
  3. Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge School of Education. Retrieved from:
  4. Bausch, M., & Hasselbring, T. (2005). Using AT: Is it working? Threshold, 2(1), 7–9.Google Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(3), 321–327.Google Scholar
  6. Black, P. (2004). The nature and value of formative assessment for learning. Assessment for Learning Group. Retrieved from:
  7. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2002). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. London, UK: King’s College London School of Education.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carver, S. (2006). Assessing for deep understanding. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 205–224). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. CAST. (2013). Retrieved from:
  12. Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 30–43.Google Scholar
  13. Clifford, P., & Marinucci, S. (2008). Testing the waters: Three elements of classroom inquiry. Harvard Educational Review, 78(4), 675–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, A. (2002–2003). Finding proof of learning in a one-to-one computing classroom. Courtenay, BC, Canada: Connections Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dolan, R. P., & Hall, T. E. (2001). Universal design for learning: Implications for large-scale assessment. IDA Perspectives, 27(4), 22–25.Google Scholar
  18. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. (2005). Pulling threads. In M. S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom (pp. 569–590). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  19. Edyburn, D. (2006). Failure is not an option: Collecting, reviewing, and acting on evidence for using technology to enhance academic performance. Learning and Leading with Technology, 34(1), 20–23.Google Scholar
  20. Firchow, N. (2002). Universal design for learning: Improved access for all. Retrieved from:
  21. Friesen, S. (2006). Inside an accessible classroom. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  22. Friesen, S. (2009). Teaching effectiveness: A framework and rubric. Toronto, ON, Canada: Canadian Education Association. Retrieved from:
  23. Fuson, K., Kalchman, M., & Bransford, J. (2005). Mathematical understanding: An introduction. In M. S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom (pp. 217–256). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  24. Galileo Educational Network. (2013). Discipline-based inquiry rubric. Retrieved from:
  25. Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed.). New Jersey, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
  26. Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? The knowledge society and the future of education. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta analyses. New York, NY: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  29. Jardine, D., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2002). Back to the basics of teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Jardine, D., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2008). Back to the basics of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, E. (2007). Out of the labyrinth: Setting mathematics free. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kelly, A., Lesh, R., & Baek, J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. Leininger, M. M. (1985). Ethnography and ethnonursing: Models and modes of qualitative data analysis. In M. M. Leininger (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in nursing (pp. 33–72). Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  35. Meo, G. (2005). Curriculum access for all: Universal design for learning. Harvard Education Letter, 21(5). Retrieved from:
  36. Mighton, J. (2003). The myth of ability: Nurturing mathematical talent in every child. Toronto, ON, Canada: House of Anansi Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mighton, J. (2007). The end of ignorance: Multiplying our human potential. Toronto, ON, Canada: Knopf Canada.Google Scholar
  38. Newmann, F., Bryk, A., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from:
  39. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2000). Programme for international student assessment: Sample tasks from the PISA 2000 assessment: Reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Policy brief. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from:
  41. Research Points. (2006). Do the math: Cognitive demand makes a difference. Research Points, 4(2). AERA.Google Scholar
  42. Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. ASCD. Retrieved from:
  45. Rose, D., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (Eds.). (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rothberg, M., & Treviranus, J. (2006). Accessible e-learning demonstrations using IMS accessibility specifications. In ATIA National Conference, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from:
  48. Sawyer, K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Scardamalia, M. (2001). Getting real about 21st century education. The Journal of Educational Change, 2, 171–176. Retrieved from:
  50. Shanker Institute. (2005, May 5). From best research to what works: Improving the teaching and learning of mathematics: A forum. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  51. Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappius, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student achievement: Doing it right – Using it well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.Google Scholar
  52. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  53. Swain, J., & Swan, M. (2007). Thinking through mathematics: Research report. NRDC. Retrieved from:
  54. The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA). (2003). Trying to teaching, trying to learn: Listening to students. Edmonton, AB, Canada: The Alberta Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  55. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Werklund School of EducationUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations