See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230115361

Assessing Students' Mathematical Communication

Article in School Science and Mathematics · March 2010

DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10235.x

CITATIONS READS

70 3,272

3 authors, including:

Jinfa Cai
University of Delaware
240 PUBLICATIONS 8,081 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinfa Cai on 12 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Assessing Students9 Mathematical Communication
Jinfa Cai Mary S. Jakabcsin Suzanne Lane
Marquette University Robert Morris College University of Pittsburgh

Assessment of students’ mathematical communication through the use of open-ended tasks and scoring
procedures is addressed, as is the use of open-ended tasks to assess students9 mathematical communica-
tion by providing students opportunities to display their mathematical thinking and reasoning. Also, two
scoring procedures (quantitative holistic scoring procedure and qualitative analytic scoring procedure)
are described for examining students9 communication skills.

Conceivably every mathematics teacher, from kinder- strument [QCAI] (Lane, 1993). QUASAR (Quantita-
garten to graduate school, has had the experience of tive Understanding: Amplifying Student Achievement
asking a student to justify an answer and has had that and Reasoning) is a national project designed to im-
student immediately assume that the answer must be prove mathematics instruction for students attending
wrong. The student reacts in a way that indicates a middle schools (grades 6 - 8) in economically disad-
belief that the teacher is asking for a justification of an vantaged communities (Silver & Stein, 1996). The
error, the student appears to be formulating some quick QCAI is designed to measure middle school student
maneuver to "correct the mistake." Perhaps this hap- outcomes and growth in mathematics and to help
pens because it is so rare for students to provide evaluate attainment of the goals of mathematical in-
explanations in mathematics class, so strange to talk structional programs. The QCAI consists of a set of
about mathematics, and so surprising to justify an- open-ended tasks which ask students to construct their
swers. The fact that the experience described above is responses. The open-ended assessment tasks ask stu-
not unique and that so many teachers arc familiar with dents to show their solution processes and provide
the event helps to put the connection between commu- justifications for their answers. Also these tasks allow
nication and assessment into the forefront of discus- students to display various levels of mathematical
sion among mathematics educators and teachers. In understanding and mathematical communication. The
fact, since communication is essential to learning, authors hope these examples will help the readers to
understanding, and doing mathematics, assessment of become more competent in the assessment of their
student mathematical communication should become students’ mathematical communication.
an integral aspect of mathematics assessment (Na-
tional Council of Teachers in Mathematics [NCTM], Use of Open-ended Tasks for Assessing
1989,1995). As suggested by NCTM, The assessment Mathematical Communication
of students’ ability to communicate mathematics should
provide evidence that they can: For classroom assessment, teachers have various
express mathematical ideas by speaking, writing, sources which form the bases for the development of
demonstrating, and depicting them visually; open-ended tasks. Many recent textbooks and curricu-
understand, interpret, and evaluate mathematical lum materials contain tasks which arc appropriate for
ideas that arc presented in written, oral, or visual assessing communication skills in the mathematics
forms; classroom. Teachers might work together
use mathematical vocabulary, notation, and collaboratively to create and/or locate tasks that will
structure to represent ideas, describe relationships, assess mathematical communication. The National
and model situations (1989, p. 214). CouncnofTeacheisofMathematicsS^wd^r^(NCTM,
In recent years, several educational reform and 1989,1991,1995) are the important sources that pro-
assessment projects have undertaken the issue of the vide rich ideas for tasks that assess students’ math-
assessment of students’ communication skills in math- ematical communication as well as their problem-
ematics. This article addresses the assessment of solving and reasoning skills. It is also possible to
students’ communication skills in mathematics class- rework problems from textbooks so that they become
rooms through the use of open-ended tasks and scoring more open-ended (Butts, 1980). For example, teachers
procedures. Most examples used in this article were can transform some multiple-choice items into open-
drawn from the QUASAR Cognitive Assessment In- ended tasks by asking students to justify their answers.

School Science and Mathematics

 Mathematical Communication

Figure 1. An open-ended decimal task.

Circle the number that has the greatest value.

.08 .8 .080 .008000
Explain your answer.

Three students’ responses to the open-ended decimal task.

Response 1

.OW t^U(^
.OQ^OQQ ^\U.^\ JL.
\ooo ^ ftJut^ of-’ \000 I
^
’

Response 2 Response 3

Figure 1 shows an open-ended release task from the response, the student’s explanation suggested that the
QCAI that assesses students’ conceptual understand- student correctly transformed the decimals into equiva-
ing of decimal place value. lent fractions to explain why .8 is the greatest number
At first glance, the task appears to be a multiple- among the given four decimal numbers. In the second
choice item, but, because students are asked to explain response, although the student correctly circled the .8
their answers, a seemingly ordinary multiple-choice as the number with the greatest value, the answer is
item becomes an informative task that brings math- based on an inappropriate reason. Obviously, this
ematical communication into the assessment arena. student did not understand how the placement of zeros
Students’ explanations on the QCAI revealed various before and after the digit 8 affects the value of the
bases for the justifications and various types of math- decimal number. Most importantly, this response
ematical errors (Cai, Lane, & Jakabcsin, 1996a; shows the power of the open-ended task in assessing
Magone, Cai, Silver, & Wang, 1994; Cai, Magone, student understanding of decimal place value. In fact,
Wang, &Lane, 1996b). For example, students’ expla- if it were a multiple-choice task, once a student chose
nations displayed knowledge of decimal place value, .8 as an answer, it would be assumed that the student
relationships between the decimal numbers and the understands decimal place value as it is assessed by the
decimal point, and fractional equivalencies of the deci- item. However, the second response shows that the
mal numbers. student who chose .8 as the greatest number does not
Figure 1 also shows three middle school student necessarily have sufficient knowledge to support the
responses to the open-ended decimal task. In the first selection. The third response shows a student’s mis-

Volume 96(5), May 1996

 Mathematical Communication

conception about decimal place value. This student in the graph. For the Average Task, students were
used a "whole number rule" erroneously to explain asked to explain how they found their answers.
why .008000 is the number with the greatest value. It is important to indicate that, for a given task. one
This student appears to be confused about the differ- particular prompt may be more likely to elicit the
ence between the place values of whole numbers and intended mathematical reasoning and communication.
the place values of decimal numbers. It is also important to indicate that task context may
The decimal task illustrated that, even though a also facilitate student communication of mathematical
student may have chosen an answer considered to be thinking in solving open-ended tasks (Lane, 1993;
correct in a multiple-choice setting, the reasoning may Paike & Lane, 1993). Generally, the task context
have been invalid. In other assessments, when students should be familiar to students and should engage them
choose incorrect answers to a multiple-choice task, in the mathematics embedded in the task. The Pattern
they may actually have valid justifications for their Task (see Figure 2) is set in a classroom context where
"incorrect answers." For example, the Third National Miguel is instructed by his teacher to find the fifth
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 1985) figure in a pattern. Students arc asked to write descrip-
used a multiple-choice version of the following divi- tions for Miguel that show him how to find the fifth
sion-with-remainder (DWR) problem: "An army bus figure. In this task, the situation is friendly; students
holds 36 soldiers. If 1,128 soldiers are being bused to are almost tutoring another student while they solve the
their training site, how many buses arc needed?" In the Pattern Task. hi fact, this task evoked many different
multiple-choice version, only 32 is considered as the solution strategies (Cai, Magone, Wang, & Lane,
correct answer (NAEP, 1985). Recently, Silver and his 1996b). Not only arc many QCAI tasks set in familiar
associates developed an open-ended version of the contexts, but many also elicit multiple solution strat-
problem to examine U.S. students’ (Silver, Shapiro, & egies. For example, students used more than five
Deutsch, 1993) and international students’ (Cai & different strategies to solve the Number Theory Task
Silver, 1995) mathematical thinking and reasoning in (Magone et al., 1994).
the solution of the problem. The analysis of student hi addition to the directions used in the above
responses which were considered to be incorrect in a release tasks, shown in Figure 2, other directions or
multiple-choice version revealed many interesting as- prompts can be used to assess students’ mathematical
pects of students’ thinking. For example, some stu- communication skills (Lane, et al., 1992). Below arc
dents stated the answer could be 31 since the remaining several examples:
12 people could be "squeezed into" the 31 buses. Some Explain how you found your answer,
students even explained that the answer could be either Show how you find your answer;
31 or 32. They said that the answer could be 32 if Explain your answer and give an example;
another bus was ordered for the 12 remaining people; Describe the pattern of numbers;
or the answer could be 31 if 12 buses were chosen to Explain how you found your estimate;
hold one extra person (Cai & Silver, 1995). Write a description to justify your answer,
Show aU your woric;
Appropriate Prompts in Open-ended Tasks Explain your reasoning, and give an example.
Various directions orprompts can be used in open-
ended tasks to facilitate the assessment of students’ Scoring Procedures for Assessing Mathematical Com-
mathematical communication by allowing different munication
mathematical representations to be used (Lane, 1993; Student responses to the QCAI tasks have been
Lane, Paike, & Moskal, 1992). Figure 2 shows four scored using both a quantitative holistic scoring proce-
QCAI release tasks (Number Theory Task, Pattern dure and a qualitative analytical scoring procedure
Task, Average Task, and Graph Interpretation Task) (Cai et al., 1996b; Cai et al., 1996c; Lane, 1993;
which arc designed for middle school students (grades Magone et al., 1994). Both scoring procedures draw
6 - 8)1. Within these four tasks, different directions or on recent advances in cognitive psychology which
prompts were used to evoke students’ mathematical highlight the importance of moving beyond the cor-
communication. For example, in the Number Theory rectness of the answer to a task to examining solution
Task, students were asked to show the woric or solution processes, including mathematical communication,
processes they used to find their numerical answers. solution strategies, and mathematical errors.
For the Graph Interpretation Task, each student was Quantitative Holistic Scoring Procedure. In the
asked to write a story that describes the data presented quantitative holistic procedure, each student’s response

School Science and Mathematics

 Mathematical Communication

Figure 2. Four QCAI release tasks.

Number Theory Task Pnttern Task

YotoBaa « l«IU«f T brvurr Dalai a«l vkal IM «ld FT bemewrk MIttttl’i Ifcbcr uk«d him lo lli I (b«
la aria class. yilrni b«t«« d dn« lb« n(urr lb»( ift«uid corn* ntil.
Yoiaada uid. Oamisa. I 4 blockj in my maih elua today. Wh«a I
po«*p«d ih« blodu ia poupa of X I had I bloeJc l«ft over. Wh 1
{roupwl Ur blocU m (roupi oT }. I bad I block left ow. And wo I
fnwp«d ihc bloelu i« roup* of 4. I IQJI Ud 1 biocJi l«ft ow.*

D«nuu ulud. How muy bioclu did yo« h»v»r

What «r«« YolaBda’i swr

Mi|u«l d« kaow h«w c fiad the n««l n|ur««
( h«r brother’s q«««(toa7

Shew 7«ur wrk.

A. Draw the next Hiurt for Mi(ucl.

8. Wrir a dticripnon for MifUft iellin| him how you kn««i

which n|ur« comet nci.

Average Tash Graph Tnlerprptat.on T^k

Aniui has four 20-point projtCtt tor <cl«nc« clau. Anili’i icor«i M UM the following Information and the graph to write a »tory about
KM nr«t 3 project* r« (how bilow. Tony’t walk.
At noon. Tony ktarted walking to his grandmother’s
house. He arrived at her house at 3:00. The graph below
how Tony’i cpeed In miles per hour throughout his
walk.

Speed
|mile« per hour)

Pr<j»« PrafMl
2 3 Time
ARif |«t on Projtt 4 M that hw v«r«x« for Write a story about Tony’s walk. In your story, describe what Tony
l to 17?
might have been doing at the different times.

. ExRiaiM l
ancwr OB (h« (rapli.

Volume 96(5), May 1996

 Mathematical Communication

is assigned a score level ranging from 0 to 4 based on

Figure 3. Quantitative criteria for scoring math-
a set of specified criteria (Lane, 1993). Mathematical
ematical communication.
communication is one of the three components in the
criteria (the other two components are mathematical Level 4
knowledge and strategic knowledge). Figure 3 shows Provides a complete response with a clear, unam-
the quantitative scoring criteria of mathematical com- biguous explanation and/or description; may include an
munication. It should be indicated that the quantitative appropriate and complete diagram; communicates effec-
holistic scoring criteria reflect the conceptual frame- tively to the identified audience; presents strong support-
woric used to design the tasks. ing arguments which are logically sound and complete;
For each task on the QCAI, a specific scoring may include examples and counter-examples.
rubric was developed to score student responses. Fig- Level 3
ure 4 shows examples of students’ responses to the Provides a fairly complete response with reasonably
clear explanations or descriptions; may include a nearly
Average Task at each score level. To receive a score of complete, appropriate diagram; generally communicates
4, a students explanation or solution process must effectively to the identified audience; presents support-
show a correct and complete understanding of the ing arguments which are logically soundbut may contain
average concept in the context of the problem. At the some minor gaps.
score level 3, the explanation or solution process would Level 2
need to be correct and complete, with only a minor Makes significant progress toward completion of the
error, omission, or ambiguity. To receive a score of 2, problem, but the explanation or description may be
the explanation or solution process should show some somewhat ambiguous or unclear; may include a diagram
understanding of the average concept but would be which is flawed or unclear; communication may be
incomplete. If a student’s explanation shows a limited somewhat vague or difficult to interpret; and arguments
may be incomplete or may be based on a logically
understanding of the average concept, it would be unsound promise.
scored as 1. Ifastudent’sanswerandexplanationshow Level 1
no understanding of the average concept, the response Has some satisfactory elements but fail to complete
would receive a score ofO. As these responses indicate, or may omit significant parts ofthe problem; explanation
it is necessary for students to communicate their math- or description may be missing or difficult to follow; may
ematical thinking and problem-solvingprocesses clearly include a diagram which incorrectly represents the prob-
in order to receive a high score. It should be noted that lem situation, or diagram may be unclear and difficult to
only the score level headings of the specific rubric are interpret.
provided in Figure 4 and that the actual specific rubric Level 0
used to score student responses to each task is more Communicates ineffectively; words do not reflect
detailed than what is shown in Figure 4. the problem; may include drawings which completely
When scoring students’ responses, teachers should misrepresent the problem situation.
pay attention to the nature of the communication math-
Communication is one of the three components in the
ematically, rather than linguistically. In fact, if a quantitative holistic scoring procedure. See Lane (1993)
student’s explanation is linguistically sound, but not for complete description of the quantitative scoring crite-
mathematically sound, that student will receive a low ria.
score. On the other hand, if a student’s explanation is
mathematically sound and correct, but is lacking lin- skills, this student had a correct interpretation of the
guistically, the response will receive a high score. information in the graph, and the mathematical com-
Figure 5 shows two students’ responses for the Graph munication was good. Therefore, the second student
Interpretation Task (see Figure 2). From a linguistic response would be scored higher than the first re-
perspective, the first student has better writing skills sponse.
and produced a story that is more interesting than the Qualitative Analytic Scoring Procedure, The quali-
second student’s story. However, the first student has tative analytical procedure is more descriptive in na-
misinterpreted some ofthe information depicted in the ture than the quantitative holistic procedure. In the
graph. For example, the first student interpreted the qualitative analytical procedure, student responses arc
information in the graph to indicate that Tony was not given numerical scores, rather they are classified
walking at three miles per hour between 12:30 and into different categories according to their level of
1:00. This was certainly not the case. Although the mathematical communication, use of solution strate-
student in the second response may have poor writing gies, and types of errors (Cai et al., 1996b; Cai et al.,

School Science and Mathematics

 Mathematical Communication

Figure 4. Student responses at each score levelfor the Level 1

average task. This student has an incorrect answer, and the explanation
shows a limited understanding of the average concept in the
Level 4 context of the problem.
This student’s answer and explanation show a correct and
*""«" ^0_____ Draw fur
rour nrwr
tanur w
complete understanding of the average concept in the con- 00 Iht
(he iraph.
_ .- ... your ftBswr. ’7L. ft j I o- ’/
<raph. »

text of the problem. B. ri-i-

Cxplafa «._
hov yftu fouad , . .

% 7&(r7^ ^tf /^ ^s,

/

Draw year auwr OB tb« (r«pb.

A;^^^,/,.^^
B. Explain bow you fpund your
c»n p^o\e c^. <- sA\fl-c r \^o.ni7
>n,
Level 0
^^ mw^^-^- a. c\^ ... - /
- -t^1 This student has an incorrect answer; the work shows no
^<yVs\~"1 ,cn proper
^
jcj\ A-r^

.
-^^~r’\^aAV7
:5WV»c^s^o<^2p^a.NnQWr
So ’"^^Jan^}^
-|Wi r/
-»i * » » c^
^ understanding of the average concept

Level 3
Thisstudenthasacorrectanswer. The explanation showsan
understanding of the average concept in the context of the
problem, but the explanation is rather vague.
1996c; Magone et al., 1994).
In the qualitative analytical procedure, a student’s

’or^^^cjc/ H.^^f^
Draw your annr«r on the graph.

^Sl^LAAJtt^<y^joA(A <
^/L^U^- t^ ^^<^t/}-)
&? Q^^^^-/.
cr-

^ mathematical communication is examined in terms of

two distinct perspectives: quality ofmathematical com-
munication and representation of mathematical com-
munication. The quality of a student’s mathematical
communication involves the correctness and clarity of
3^^
7. ^W^i4^^^77
^A^^/^ /7^
the written communication. The representations of
mathematical communication involve the modes stu-
dents used to communicate how they found their an-
swers.
Level 2 In general, the quality ofstudents’ written descrip-
This student’s work shows some understanding of the aver- tions, explanations, or work are evaluated within the
age concept in the context of the problem but includes both following categories:
an error and incomplete work. Specifically, this student has complete and correct,
an incorrect answer and used a guess and check strategy, but nearly complete and correct,
h^/she stopped trying different numbers even though the partially complete,
remainder was not zero. vague,
procedural, and
A. What
t6«
K«r« Buct
roar
AaJta («(
projtcts b 177
Project 4 w that b«r v«rae not enough detailed information provided to
show their solution processes.
B. Explain kow you foood your amr«r. "Correct and complete" descriptions, explanations, or
J
^^’ef^- /J-2-
n^y-flnqcli^^
work clearly indicate which solution processes are
used to get the correct answers. Whereas, "nearly
^TCa^^^^L-
^q ^ 8S-5-
complete and correct" descriptions may omit some
information but are relatively good. For example,
while completing the Pattern Task (see Figure 2), a
student could draw a correct figure and describe the
rule by stating: "Every time it added an extra dot"

Volume 96(5), May 1996

[ Mathematical Communication

Figure 5. Two students’ examples/or the graph interpretation task.

Response 1

Q^dLu^ ^^SW^ >^/^^L

ULA^ . Q^J^^^. JL^t -^-^C^tr
^yt-ctu^ju

^L W 30 Pu^ ^^^y^- 3/u" /^’ ^w^,

ji^^^^^^^. ^ ^’
0»c^^ JL^ ^^.^t^A (x^A^ 3^.^ O^IA-. M^J^
a^mSi. ^r^^/^t. ^u^JLj^X^.A^^^-^
4^-<^<&- ^^n^A --^^-^^^^^^^A^.
^t" /^JLt^: ^L-/^.’^- xS^L^^A^^^ JL^^.
^A^^^^^^ 3^’.^-
Response 2

Since this sentence is incomplete with regard to the different solution strategies. In the first response, the
location of the added dot, the description is not com- student used the average formula to solve the problem.
pletely clear to the reader. The slight ambiguity in this In particular, this student used arithmetic expressions
example might be due to the level of the student’s to derive the scores for Project 4. In the second
linguistic skill rather than the level of mathematics response, the student used the average formula to solve
skill. For the Pattern Task, an example of a "partially the problem, but the studentused algebraic expressions
complete" description is one that indicates only how to determine the scores forProject4. The students who
the top row of the fifth figure was obtained. Some produced the third and fourth responses both used
students provide procedural descriptions which lack diagrams to explain how they found their answers, hi
connection to the specific details of their solution the third response, the student viewed the average
processes. For example, one student wrote: "I looked score (17) as a leveling basis to "line up" the scores for
at the figures, I guess there is a pattern. Then I followed projects 1,2,3, and 4. Since project 1 has 15 points, an
the pattern and got the fifth figure." additional 2 points are needed to "line up" to the
The QCAI tasks were designed to allow students to average of 17. Project 2 with 18 points has one extra
use multiple representations in theirsolution processes; point. Since project 3 has 16 points, it needs 1 addi-
among these are tables, charts, drawings, mathematical tional point to "line up" to the average. In order to "line
expressions, written text, or any combinations ofthese up" the scores for the four projects, project 4 must be
(Lane, 1993). Figure 6 shows examples of representa- 19 points. In the fourth response, the student plotted
tions that students used in solving the Average Task. the fournumbers (including average) on a number line.
Although these students all had the correct answer The average of 17 was viewed as a midpoint, and there
(19), they used different representations as well as were two numbers (15 and 16) on the left side of the

School Science and Mathematics

 Mathematical Communication

midpoint and one (18) onthe right side. In order to have to use its vocabulary, notation, and structure to express
"balance," the fourth project should be 19 points. and understand ideas and relationships" (NCTM, 1989,
p. 214). In fact, communication is considered as the
Conclusion means by which teachers and students can share the
processes of learning, understanding, and doing math-
Mathematics educators agree that communication ematics. It is especially importantthat students are able
is a component that is essential to and necessary in to express their thinking and problem-solving pro-
learning, doing, and understanding mathematics since cesses both in written and oral formats. Furthermore,
"communication in mathematics means that one is able theircommunicationmust be clearand completeenough
Figure 6. Examples of mathematical communication modes for solving the average task.
Response 1

Response 2 Response 3
^ »
^
/ Answer: -0. You may draw your

I
\
;
^|
answer on the graph.

Explain how you found your answer.

»5--M&^i4^X=<7x4’
4^-t-A^ U/<4-
:

^ A\
’-.
4-^ ^x=-<^8
^ \ =
^ A. Whit
ProjKl
12)
mutCt ^Kt

itor* mud Anil* |(t rr«j«ct 4

rn<j*c«
4

Ihil k«r
AVERAGE

v»r»»» fur

Response 4

Volume 96(5). May 1996

 Mathematical Communication

for others to understand. development of a mathematics performance assessment

This article addressed the need to assess students’ instrument Educational Measurement, Issues and Prac-
mathematical communication skills. One way to allow tice, 12 ,16-23.
students to communicate mathematically i$ for teach- Lane. S., Parke. C., & Moskal, B. (1992). Principles for
ers to use open-ended tasks which ask students to show developing performance assessments. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
their solution processes and explain their reasoning. Association, San Francisco, CA.
Some examples of QCAI release tasks that engage Magone, M., Cai, J.. Silver. E. A.. & Wang, N. (1994).
students in communicating their mathematical think- Validating the cognitive complexity and content quality of
ing and reasoning processes were provided in this a mathematics performance assessment. International Jour-
article. These examples may help mathematics teach- nal of Educational Research, 72,317-340.
ers to create classroom environments that foster math- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989).
ematical communication. In addition, the scoring Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathemat-
procedures presented in this article may be adopted by ics. Reston, VA: Author.
teachers to score student responses. Teachers might National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991).
use the scoring criteria to show their students the Professional standards for teaching school mathematics.
Reston, VA: Author.
expectations of high quality responses and use the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1995).
sample student responses to show the nature and levels Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA:
of mathematical communication. Teachers can also Author.
ask students to review lower-level responses to the Parke, C. S. & Lane, S. (1993). Designing performance
open-ended tasks and alter them in order to improve assessment: An examination of changes in task structure on
their clarity. Finally, students should be encouraged to student performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting
use various representations (e.g., drawings, mathemati- ofthe American Educational Research Association, Atlanta,
cal expressions, or written text) to communicate their GA.
thinking. Such uses will enhance students’ thinking Silver, E. A. & Stein, M. K. (1996). The QUASAR
and reasoning and improve their mathematical com- project: The "Revolution of the Possible" in mathematics
instructional reform in urban middle schools. Urban Educa-
munication. tion, 30(4), 476-521.
Silver, E. A., Shapiro, L. J., & Deutsch. A. (1993).
References Sense-making and the solution of division problems involv-
ing remainders: An examination of students’ solution pro-
Butts, T. (1980). Posing problems properly. In S. cesses and their interpretations of solutions. Journal for
Krulik & R. E. Reys (Eds.), Problem solving in school Research in Mathematics Education, 24,117-135.
mathematics (pp. 23-33). Reston, VA: Author.
Cai, J., & Silver. E. A. (1995). Solution processes and
interpretations of solutions in solving a division-with-re-
mainder story problem: Do Chinese and U.S. students have Footnote: additional release tasks can be obtained
similar difficulties? Journal/or Research in Mathematics from Suzanne Lane.
Education, 26(5), 491-497.
Cai. J., Lane. S., & Jakabcsin. M. S. (1996a). The role Author’s Note: Preparation of this article was
of open-ended tasks and scoring rubrics in assessing stu- supported, in part, by a grant from the Ford Foundation
dents’ mathematical reasoning and communication. InP.C. (grant number 890-0572) for the QUASAR project Any
Elliott (Ed.), Communication in mathematics: K-12 and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do
beyond (pp. 137-145). Reston. VA: Author. not necessarily represent the views of the Ford Founda-
Cai, J., Magone, M., Wang, N.. & Lane S. (1996b). A tion. The authors are grateful to several anonymous
cognitiveanalysisofQUASAR’ssperformance assessments reviewers for their encouragement and valuable com-
and their sensitivity to measuring changes in middle school ments concerning an earlier version of this manuscript.
students’ thinking. Research in Middle Level Education
Quarterly, 79(3). 65-96. Editors Note: Jinfa CaTs address is Department of
Cai, J., Magone, M., Wang. N., & Lane, S. (1996c). Mathematics, Statistics, & Computer Science, Marquette
Assessment: Describing student perfomance qualitatively. University, Milwaukee, WI 53233. Mary Jakabcsin’s
Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(10). 828- address is Robert Moms College, Narrows Run Road,
835. Coroapolis. PA 15108. Suzanne Lane’s address is LRDC,
Lane, S. (1993). The conceptual framework for the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.

School Science and Mathematics