Abstract
The results of comparative studies of United States students’ mathematical achievement (McKnight et al., 1987; Crosswhite et al., 1987; Dossey et al., 1988) in national and international arenas have heightened the United States’ awareness of the importance of mathematics as a tool for stability in an era of rapid change (MSEB, 1989a, 1989b; Adelman & Alsalam, 1988; Johnson & Packard, 1987). At the same time, mathematics educators and others set out to describe how the United States’ society might measure both the growth of mathematical ability in individuals and in the society itself (Alexander & James, 1988; Kulm, 1990; Raizen & Jones, 1985; Resnick, 1987; NCTM, 1989). These attempts also brought with them a number of reports dealing with the dangers of testing and the role testing might play in stratifying society (National Commission on Test and Public Policy, 1990).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adelman, C. & Alsalam, N.: 1988, December, ‘Mathematics study after high school, and its correlates in the careers of young adults’, paper presented at Mathematical Sciences Education Board’s ‘Mathematics Education: Wellspring of U.S. Industrial Strength’ Symposium, Irvine, CA.
Airasian, P.W.: 1985, ‘Test reviews’ [Review of Stanford Achievement Test Forms E and Fl, Journal of Educational Measurement, 22 (2), 163–172.
Alexander, L. & James, H. (Eds.): 1987, The nation’s report card: Improving the assessment of student achievement, The National Academy of Education, Cambridge, MA. American College Testing: 1977, ACT general information, Iowa City, IA.
Burton, N., Lewis, C. & Robertson, N.: 1988, Sex differences in SAT scores, The College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
California Assessment Program: 1989, A question of thinking: A first look at students’ performance on open-ended questions in mathematics, California State Department of Education. Sacramento, CA.
Cameron, R.G.: 1989, The common yardstick: A case for the SAT, College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
Cannell, J.J.: 1990, How public educators cheat on standardized achievement tests, Friends for Education, Albuquerque, MN.
College Entrance Examination Board: 1988, 1988 National ethnic/sex profiles,New York. College Entrance Examination Board: 1989, Taking the SAT,New York.
College Entrance Examination Board: 1990, Major Revisions in SAT approved by trustees. Memo to the members,New York (October 31, 1990).
Crosswhite, F.J., Dossey, J.A., Swafford, J.O., McKnight, C.C., Cooney, T.J., Downs, F.L.
Grouws, D.A. & Weinzweig, A.I.: 1986, Second international mathematics study: Detailed report for the United States, Second International Mathematics Study, Urbana, IL.
Crouse, J.: 1986, ‘Should a million and a half students be required to take the SAT next year?’, Phi Delta Kappan, 67 (5), 346–352.
Crouse, J. & Trusheim, D.: 1988, The case against the SAT, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Dodge, S.: 1990, ‘Average score on verbal section of ’89–90 SAT drops to lowest level since 1980; Math score unchanged’, The Cronicle of Higher Education, September 5, A33–A34.
Dossey, J.A., Mullis, I.V.S., Lindquist, M.M. & Chambers, D.L.: 1988, The mathematics report card: Are we measuring up?, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
Educational Research Service, Inc.: 1981, Testing for college admissions: Trends and issues, Arlington, VA.
Freeman, DJ., Kuhs, T.M., Porter, A.C., Floden, R.E., Schmidt, W.H. & Schwille, J.R.: 1983, ‘Do textbooks and tests defme a national curriculum in elementary school mathematics’?, Elementary School Journal,Li (5), 501–513.
Hambleton, R.K.: 1990, Setting achievement levels for the 1990 NAEP Mathematics Assessment, NAGB, Washington, DC.
Johnson, W.B. & Parket, A.D.: 1987, Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st Century, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN.
Kulm, G. (Ed.): 1990, Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.
Lindquist, M. (Ed.): 1989, Results from the Fourth Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NCTM, Reston, VA.
Mathematical Sciences Education Board: 1989a, Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Mathematical Sciences Education Board: 1989b, Mathematics education: Wellspring of U.S. industrial strength, Washington, DC.
Mathematical Sciences Education Board: 1990, Grant request for national summit.
McKnight, C.C., Crosswhite, F.J., Dossey, J.A., Kifer, E., Swafford, J.0., Travers, K.J. & Cooney, T.J.: 1987, The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective, Second International Mathematics Study, Urbana, IL.
Mehrens, WA. & Lehmann, I.J.: 1987, Using standardized test in education ( 4th ed. ), Longman, New York.
Mullis, I.V.S.: 1990, 77re NAEP guide, NAEP, Princeton, NJ.
Mullis, I.V.S., Dossey, JA., Owen, E.H. & Phillips, G.W.: 1991, The State Mathematics Achievement: NAEP’s 1990 Assessment of the Nation and Trial Assessment of the States, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
Massachusetts Educational Assessment Program: 1989, On Their Own: Student Responses to Open-Ended Tests in Mathematics, Massachusetts Department of Education, Quincy, MA.
Massachusetts Educational Assessment Program: 1990, Beyond Paper & Pencil, Massachu-setts Department of Education, Quincy, MA.
National Assessment of Educational Progress: 1988, Mathematics Objectives: 1990 Assessment, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
National Commission on Testing and Public Policy: 1990, From gatekeeper to gateway: Transforming testing in America, Boston, MA.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: 1989, Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics, Reston, VA.
Paney, T. : 1991, A Sampler of Mathematics Assessment,California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA.
Raizen, S.A. & Jones, L.V. (Eds.): 1985, Indicators of precollege education in science and mathematics, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Resnick, L.B.: 1987, Education and teaming to think, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Romberg, TA., Wilson, L. & Khatleka, M.: in press, ‘An examination of six standard mathematics tests for grade eight’, in Romberg, TA. (Ed.), Perspectives on mathematics tests and teaching,State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Romberg, TA., Zarinnia, A. & Williams, S.: 1989, 77:e influence of mandated testing on mathematics instruction: Grade 8 teachers’ perceptions, University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education.
Rosser, P.: 1989, The SAT gender gap: Identifying the causes, Center for Women Policy Studies, Washington, DC.
Smyth, F.L.: 1989, ‘Commercial coaching and SAT scores: The effects on college preparatory students in private schools’, The Journal of College Admissions, 123 (Spring, 1989), 2–9.
Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S.G.: 1990, Educational measurement and testing, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Wilder, G.Z. & Powell, K.: 1989, Sex differences in test performance: A survey of the literature, The College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
Willingham, W.W. & Ramis, L.: 1982, ‘The SAT debate: Do Trusheim and Crouse add useful information?’, Phi Delta Kappan, 64 (3), 207–208.
Wilson, R.: 1990, ‘Students should be coached for admissions tests: True or false?’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 5, A33–A34.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1993 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dossey, J.A., Swafford, J.O. (1993). Issues in Mathematics Assessment in the United States. In: Niss, M. (eds) Cases of Assessment in Mathematics Education. New ICMI Study Series, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0980-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0980-4_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4230-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0980-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive