Mathematics lecturers' views of examinations: tensions and possible resolutions

Abstract

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Abstract: If assessment drives learning and the closed book examination dominates the pattern of assessment for undergraduate mathematics (as it does in the UK), lecturers need to ensure that examinations reflect the learning they value. This paper uses a mixed method approach to explore lecturers' views of the closed book examination in relation to other assessment methods, their preferences for different types of methods and the extent to which they discriminate between stronger and weaker students. A survey of staff views confirms the dominance of closed book examinations, but an accompanying interview study shows hidden complexity to this view. In particular a tension between the potential and the reality of examinations is uncovered and suggestions are made for resolving that tension.

Professional skills development for mathematics undergraduates

“…Undergraduate mathematics is typically taught via traditional 'chalk and talk' lecturing (Duah, et al, 2014;p. 554), while assessment is "overwhelmingly" dominated by the closed book examination (Iannone and Simpson, 2014;p. 71).…”

“…Undergraduate mathematics is typically taught via traditional “chalk and talk” lecturing (Duah et al , 2014, p. 554), while assessment is “overwhelmingly” dominated by the closed book examination (Iannone and Simpson, 2014, p. 71). Hibberd (2005) believes that these methods of teaching and assessment might be “strong” for “the attainment of knowledge” but they make more limited contributions to skills development (p. 6).…”