The paper “ Diagnostic Assessment Conducted on Student in Mathematics, Number and Place Value Content Strand” is a thoughtful variant of a case study on education. This paper is an intervention report focused on establishing the grade of a primary school child using diagnostic assessment and laying down a foundation for a lesson plan which will reflect student’ s level of learning and Australian Curriculum requirement. Both the parent and the teacher were consulted for consent. For purposes of producing this report, the number and place value content strand in Mathematics was selected.
The report further sought to shed light on how formative and summative assessment was integrated in the planned lesson. Later, a reflection on the assessment cycle will be made which will lay a floor for a follow-up lesson. Student ProfileIn diagnostic assessment, student’ s prior knowledge and difficulties are deduced with the intention of improving the learning experience and achievement level. Failure to conduct diagnostic assessments hampers the level of student engagement with learning consequently reducing achievement. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (2013) give an outline of proficiencies required for number and algebra strand for a Year 1 child.
These proficiencies are majorly cognitive since they entail the use of the mind. Mark Anthony was selected to undergo diagnostic assessment in order to understand his achievement level specifically in number and place value content strand. Aged between five and six years, Mark had already gone through kindergarten and pre-primary stages thus able to recognize the number of objects by simply making an observation. This meant that the student was in a position to identify one, two, three objects by making a glance.
It is therefore evident that Mark could quantify a collection of objects, a skill that was developed either before schooling or during kindergarten and pre-primary stages. Besides, Mark was secured in his mind that regardless of changing the arrangement of objects, their sizes remained intact. This demonstrates that Mark had a strong foundation for operations such as additions and subtractions, which are vital for proficiency in problem-solving. The second element characterizing abilities of Mark was the acquired skill of counting, both forward and backward. This student was not only able to count numbers to at least five but was also confident in aligning the number of objects with number name i. e.
two for two objects. Apparently, Mark seemed to count numbers sequentially and any attempt by a teacher to change sequence did not result in confusion. This is a demonstration of fluency in dealing with numbers an element credited to classroom learning activities such as songs and chants. Thirdly, Mark had developed the capacity to sort and classify objects in line with similarity and difference. By putting together different objects with varying shapes, Mark classified the objects into groups of similar shapes.
Moreover, Mark related shapes with real-life objects i. e. circles for wheels of a bicycle. This was evidenced by the way he responded to the questions asked. Mayring and Rhö neck (2003) note that besides the cognitive variables, affective factors also influence learning. In line with the affective domain, teacher behavior influences learner behavior and mental development. This implies that a warm and receptive teacher effectively imparts in a learner positive behavior. It, therefore, explains why a Year 1 teacher is always considerate, understanding, receptive, friendly, and loving.
By extension, orderliness in a classroom setting is also explained by teacher behavior which has an effective impact on a student. This was elicited during contact with the student. To end a certain learner behavior, it was necessary to send particular behavior that conveyed a message to the student. Affective domain, particularly in Year 1 classroom, works efficiently in classroom management behavioral change.
Alastair, I. (2007). Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback. London, UK: Routledge.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/worksamples/Year1MathematicsPortfolioSatisfactory.pdf.
Chambers, P. (2008). Teaching Mathematics. London: Sage Public.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2013). Assessment Advice. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/support/pages/advice.aspx.
Gough, J. (2002). Diagnostic Mathematical Tasks. New South Wales: UNSW Press.
Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of Learning. London: Sage.
Mayring, P, & Rhöneck, C.V. (2003). Learning Emotions: The Influence of Affective Factors on Classroom Learning. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative Assessment. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
Santiago, P., Donaldson, G., Herman, J., & Shewbridge, C. (2011). OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Australia 2011. Wellington: OECD Publishing.
Westwood, P. (2008). What Teachers Need to Know About Numeracy. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Ed Research Ltd.