Journal of Educational Practice for Social Change 2012 | Page 10

MICHELLE LAVICKA

A

ssessment in mathematics is a well-worn topic—much effort in classrooms
and research outside of them has gone into determining what to assess and
when (Baldi et. al, 2007; Confrey, 2006; RAND, 2008). National standards

mean instructional topics are tied to annual tests managed by national, state, and local
agencies in an effort to determine how much progress students have made as they
continue up the mathematical ladder (Confrey, 2006). The challenge, however, seems
despite more effort and more money spent on standardizing testing, increasing testing
frequency while streamlining instructional material and tying both to national
standards, significant student improvement does not seem to be forthcoming (Packer,
2009).
Serving on dissertation committees means I am frequently presented with
doctoral candidates who wish to explore what can be done to increase student
performance on mathematics tests. Study proposals cite low national scores, poor
international comparisons, and overall drops in interest in the science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, and each proposal includes a research
design intended to provide what the doctoral student hopes will be the panacea for our
national math ills. The statistics seem dire, the suggested approaches are hopeful, and
the results are not usually implemented on a scale large enough to effect lasting
change.
Perhaps increased technology in mathematics classrooms will improve student
test scores (Computing Technology for Math Excellence, 2007). . . or perhaps using
manipulatives, videos, calculators, group projects, New Math, or New New Math
(Herrera & Owens, 2001) will make the difference and be the silver bullet that turns
around US mathematics achievement (Alsup & Sprigler, 2003; Anastasiow et al., 1970).
The debate between each group espousing a different approach is divisive, spawning
the term Math Wars, and indicating just how strongly each side feels about the
appropriate approach to mathematics instruction (Colvin, 1999; Davidson & Mitchell,
2008; Marshall, 2003; Quirk, 1998-2005).

10