Keywords
How to Cite
Share
Abstract
The study explored the assessment processes and its implications on candidates’ performance in Mathematics Ordinary level at the General Certificate of Education examination in the South west region of Cameroon. This study adopted an exploratory design and examined a collection of the mathematics GCE O level national examinations, in particular, the cognitive demands of the examinations made on students. The instrument used to examine the cognitive demands of the test items in this study was an adaptation from the model of Smith et al – the MATH taxonomy, as the descriptors in this model matched with the assessment objectives of the ordinary level mathematics syllabus 570. The instrument included six categories of mathematical knowledge and skills, arranged into three groups A, B, and C, in the MATH taxonomy, assessing students’ mathematical understanding. The five assessment objectives for O-level mathematics stated in the GCE Mathematics Ordinary Level Syllabus 570 document were matched with the six categories of cognitive demands in the derived set of assessment standards. The two researchers did the matching independently and afterwards compared their results and differences which they reconciled to come to a common consensus. It was found that all mathematics GCE O-level examinations, analysed in this study were heavily biased towards assessing knowledge and skills in Group A category, with almost 50% or more of the items focusing on (A3) Routine Procedures and 18 - 30% on (A2) Comprehension, though only 9.4% on (A1) Factual Knowledge in the GCE O-level assessments Examination. It was recommended that enough attention should be directed to developing a more balanced assessment that not only includes items that assess the various categories of cognitive demands but also assesses all dimensions of understanding in the different topics.
References
Bennie, K. (2005). The MATH taxonomy as a tool for analysing course material in Mathematics: A study of its usefulness and its potential as a tool for curriculum development. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 81-95.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay
D’Souza, S. M., & Wood, L. N. (2003). Designing assessment using the MATH taxonomy. In Mathematics Education Research: Innovation, Networking, Opportunity. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of MERGA Inc., Deakin University, Geelong, Australia (pp. 294-301).
Gierl, M. J. (1997). Comparing cognitive representations of test developers and students on a mathematics test with Bloom's Taxonomy. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(1), 26-32.
Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F. L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics education may prepare students for the society of the future? Int J of Sci and Math Educ, 15(Suppl 1), 105
Nfon, F. N. & Ahidjo, R. A. (2022). Mock Mathematics examination as a predictor of the GCE performance in ordinary level mathematics in Fako Division, South West region of Cameroon. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Researcn Studies. 2 (3) 407- 413.
Österman, T. & Bråting, K. (2019). Dewey and mathematical practice: revisiting the distinction between procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1594388.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Sintha, S.D.; Samsul, H.; Mulin, N. (2021). The application of Item Response Theory in analysis of characteristics of Mathematical literacy test Items. Ilkogretim Online - Elementary Education Online, 2
Smith, G., Wood, L., Coupland, M., Stephenson, B., Crawford, K., & Ball, G. (1996). Constructing mathematical examinations to assess a range of knowledge and skills. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 27(1), 65-77.
Tan, K. H. K. (2007). Is teach less, learn more a quantitative or qualitative idea? In Proceedings of the Redesigning Pedagogy: Culture, Knowledge and Understanding Conference. Singapore.
Thompson, D. R., & Kaur, B. (2011). Using a multi-dimensional approach to understanding to assess students’ mathematical knowledge. In B. Kaur & K. Y. Wong (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom, (pp. 17-32). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing
Thompson, T. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ interpretation of higher-order thinking in Bloom’s Taxonomy. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 96-109.
Usiskin, Z. (1985). We need another revolution in secondary school mathematics. In C. R. Hirsch (Ed.), The Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum, 1985
Wong, L. F., & Berinderjeet Kaur. (2015). A study of mathematics written assessment in Singapore secondary schools. The Mathematics Educator, 16(1), 19-44. Retrieved from http://math.nie.edu.sg/ame/matheduc/tme/tmeV16_1/TME16_2.pdf
Usiskin, Z. (1985). We need another revolution in secondary school mathematics. In C. R. Hirsch (Ed.), The Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum, 1985
Wong, L. F., & Berinderjeet Kaur. (2015). A study of mathematics written assessment in Singapore secondary schools. The Mathematics Educator, 16(1), 19-44. Retrieved from http://math.nie.edu.sg/ame/matheduc/tme/tmeV16_1/TME16_2.pdf
