Taxonomy matters: Cognitive levels and types of mathematical activities in mathematics examinations

We argue that there are intrinsic difficulties in using the Subject Assessment Guidelines for Mathematics (SAGM) for evaluating the standard of a South African matriculation mathematics examination and for determining how it aligns with the curriculum. Our argument has two prongs. First, the SAGM ta...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Margot Berger, Lynn Bowie, Lovemore J. Nyaumwe
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: AOSIS 2010-07-01
Series:Pythagoras
Subjects:
Online Access:https://pythagoras.org.za/index.php/pythagoras/article/view/4
id doaj-d718d2c404b744838ffdd16372a43975
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d718d2c404b744838ffdd16372a439752020-11-24T23:48:01ZengAOSISPythagoras1012-23462223-78952010-07-01071304010.4102/pythagoras.v0i71.44Taxonomy matters: Cognitive levels and types of mathematical activities in mathematics examinationsMargot Berger0Lynn Bowie1Lovemore J. Nyaumwe2Marang Centre for Mathematics and Science Education, University of the WitwatersrandMarang Centre for Mathematics and Science Education, University of the WitwatersrandMarang Centre for Mathematics and Science Education, University of the WitwatersrandWe argue that there are intrinsic difficulties in using the Subject Assessment Guidelines for Mathematics (SAGM) for evaluating the standard of a South African matriculation mathematics examination and for determining how it aligns with the curriculum. Our argument has two prongs. First, the SAGM taxonomy conflates cognitive level with type of mathematical activity; we contend that such a conflation leads to problems in assessing the complexity of the examination item. Second, the SAGM taxonomy provides no space for important mathematical activities such as justification and conjecturing despite the promotion of these activities in key curriculum documents (Department of Education, 2003). This absence may obscure weak alignment of the examination and the curriculum. These arguments are illustrated through examples taken from the 2008 Department of Education (DOE) and Independent Examination Board (IEB) Grade 12 Mathematics examination papers. We also examine other well‐known taxonomies in order to discern those aspects of a taxonomy which may be useful for evaluation and alignment. We conclude with the construction of a matrix that could provide an appropriate taxonomy for the South African matriculation Mathematics examination. It has activities on one axis and levels of complexity on the other.https://pythagoras.org.za/index.php/pythagoras/article/view/4taxonomy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Margot Berger
Lynn Bowie
Lovemore J. Nyaumwe
spellingShingle Margot Berger
Lynn Bowie
Lovemore J. Nyaumwe
Taxonomy matters: Cognitive levels and types of mathematical activities in mathematics examinations
Pythagoras
taxonomy
author_facet Margot Berger
Lynn Bowie
Lovemore J. Nyaumwe
author_sort Margot Berger
title Taxonomy matters: Cognitive levels and types of mathematical activities in mathematics examinations
title_short Taxonomy matters: Cognitive levels and types of mathematical activities in mathematics examinations
title_full Taxonomy matters: Cognitive levels and types of mathematical activities in mathematics examinations
title_fullStr Taxonomy matters: Cognitive levels and types of mathematical activities in mathematics examinations
title_full_unstemmed Taxonomy matters: Cognitive levels and types of mathematical activities in mathematics examinations
title_sort taxonomy matters: cognitive levels and types of mathematical activities in mathematics examinations
publisher AOSIS
series Pythagoras
issn 1012-2346
2223-7895
publishDate 2010-07-01
description We argue that there are intrinsic difficulties in using the Subject Assessment Guidelines for Mathematics (SAGM) for evaluating the standard of a South African matriculation mathematics examination and for determining how it aligns with the curriculum. Our argument has two prongs. First, the SAGM taxonomy conflates cognitive level with type of mathematical activity; we contend that such a conflation leads to problems in assessing the complexity of the examination item. Second, the SAGM taxonomy provides no space for important mathematical activities such as justification and conjecturing despite the promotion of these activities in key curriculum documents (Department of Education, 2003). This absence may obscure weak alignment of the examination and the curriculum. These arguments are illustrated through examples taken from the 2008 Department of Education (DOE) and Independent Examination Board (IEB) Grade 12 Mathematics examination papers. We also examine other well‐known taxonomies in order to discern those aspects of a taxonomy which may be useful for evaluation and alignment. We conclude with the construction of a matrix that could provide an appropriate taxonomy for the South African matriculation Mathematics examination. It has activities on one axis and levels of complexity on the other.
topic taxonomy
url https://pythagoras.org.za/index.php/pythagoras/article/view/4
work_keys_str_mv AT margotberger taxonomymatterscognitivelevelsandtypesofmathematicalactivitiesinmathematicsexaminations
AT lynnbowie taxonomymatterscognitivelevelsandtypesofmathematicalactivitiesinmathematicsexaminations
AT lovemorejnyaumwe taxonomymatterscognitivelevelsandtypesofmathematicalactivitiesinmathematicsexaminations
_version_ 1725487710833999872