“What we have described above is a set of predispositions and experiences with which teachers approach the task of constructing their knowledge of students.”

This quote made me think of my own practice with regards to evaluating students, and how the mark is in some ways a construct of my own knowledge of a student in relation to his or her mathematical knowledge. As a result, because I am always limited in the information I am privy to, that evaluation will always be lacking.

With regards to the first study mentioned in the Morgan and Watson article, I think it would be interesting and unnerving to have someone sit in the back of my class and observe the class on an ongoing basis – it would probably feel like teacher’s college all over again. I would imagine, like the teachers in the study, there would be behaviours that I would fail to notice. I would like to believe that I do not mix my assessment with my impressions of a student, but there are undoubtedly times that I likely do. I think a third party would be better able to observe when I do this. Related to this thought is the quote:

“On the contrary, the study suggests that informal assessments, including those that furnish information for summative assessments of performance, are inevitably and unavoidably influenced by a variety of factors that may have little to do with mathematical achievement.”

This illustrates the problem I have with informal assessment – how do I do it without being biased? I know that this is next to impossible and as a result I don’t think it is fair to count towards a grade. If need be, in parent teacher interviews or discussing marks, I would rather give my impression of what I think is going on and make it known that I only have a limited snapshot of the situation pertaining to a student’s work or achievement.