Artefact 5.

1A
Excerpt from EDMA360 Learning and Teaching Mathematics Assessment Task

Formative modes of assessment, such as interviews, have been identified as effective

measures to undertake in order to attain informed subsequent instructional judgments for
teaching, in conjunction with enabling students to self-assess their learning and to receive
constructive feedback (Black & William, 1998). Interviews also provide mathematics educators
with an in depth understanding of knowledge students currently possess; their metacognitive
and preferred problem-solving thinking processes; as well as their dispositions pertaining to
mathematics (Clarke & Wilson, 1994; Van De Walle, Karp, & Bay-Williams, 2014). However, it is
dependent on the style of interview that will inform to what degree students are able to make visible
their thinking, motivation, self-efficacy and prior knowledge in relation to mathematics (Hattie &
Tiperley, 2007). Affective assessment interviews for example, can make evident helpful factors that
will support individual students to self-regulate their learning and maintain confidence in subsequent
mathematics tasks (McDonough, 2014).

Interviews with students and the dialogue that takes place, elicits substantial evidence of
emerging understandings and misconceptions, which when interpreted effectively, assists in
closing the gap of what skills and knowledge are yet to be acquired (Heritage, Kim, Vendlinski,
& Herman, 2009). In light of this, educators need informed understandings of the specific
mathematical concepts being targeted within an interview, in order to accurately interpret students
mathematical capabilities. Without this, educators are unable to fulfill their responsibility of redirecting
partial or misguided mathematical thinking strategies to provide effective provisions for future learning
(Van De Walle et al., 2014). However, interviews exhibit considerable value when performed in
one-on-one arrangements, in that they enable documentation of individual learning to take
place at the present time, when often assessment of learning during and after whole class
instruction can become less feasible (Clarke, & Wilson, 1994). In spite of this, a fundamental
consequence of interviews are that the time and need to respond immediately may cause students to
feel apprehensive and disheartened, particularly if they grow an awareness that they may be
providing inaccurate or inadequate responses (Lampert 1990). This may be the result of already
existing pressures many alternate test conditions demand that also require speedy immediate
responses and accurate solutions (Franke & Carey, 1997).