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