HOW A LOCAL ORAL EXAMINATION CONSIDERS

AFFECTIVE ASPECTS OF KNOWING MATHEMATICS

Anne Birgitte Fyhn
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
There are aspects of knowing mathematics that are difficult for a written test to
assess. Motivation, attitudes, beliefs and creativity are among these. Since the early
1990s, Norwegian pupils have to undergo a local oral examination at the end of the
compulsory school. Rules and guidelines for this examination has developed over
time. This paper investigates how this local examination considers affective aspects
of knowing mathematics. The analysis indicate that the 1992 examination considers
more affective aspects of knowing mathematics than the 2014 examination. However,
the 2014 examination provides each school more opportunities to choose how to deal
with affective aspects of knowing mathematics.
Key words: oral examination, assessment, motivation, attitudes, beliefs, creativity.
Different groups of people can have very different views of what counts, or
should count, in mathematics (Schoenfeld, 2007a, p. 3), so what it means to know
mathematics is far from a simple question. Researchers use different terms and
concepts, more or less describing the same phenomenon. The question of how to
assess what people know is even more complicated. A common problem with tests
and surveys is that there are aspects of knowing mathematics that are difficult for a
written test to reveal. Affective aspects are among these. This paper aims at
enlightening how a local oral test considers motivation, attitudes, beliefs and
creativity.
At the end of grade ten, Norwegian pupils may undergo a local oral mathematics
examination in addition to the national written test. The National guidelines for the
oral examination has evolved, since its introduction in 1992. The research question is
How do the 1992 National guidelines and 2014 National rules for the local oral
mathematics examination consider affective aspects of knowing mathematics?

This paper first presents how Norwegian curricula deal with affective aspects of
knowing mathematics. Then motivation, attitudes, beliefs, and creativity are
presented in a separate paragraph. These reflect affective aspects of knowing
mathematics, aspects that are found in central documents for Norwegian mathematics
education. Assessment in mathematics is presented, before the analysis of the 1992
National guidelines (KUF, 1992) and the 2014 National rules (Udir, 2014) for the
local oral examination.
THE MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM IN NORWAY RECENT HISTORY
Crowther et al. (1959) introduced the term numeracy as a parallel to literacy. Just
as "literacy includes more than the words dictionary sense of the ability to read and

write, so "numeracy" means more than mere ability to manipulate the rule of three.
Numeracy has come to be an indispensable tool to the understanding and mastery of
all phenomena, and not only of those in the relatively close field of the traditional
natural sciences. The educated man, therefore, needs to be numerate as well as
literate. The report from Cockroft et al. (1982) points out, that those who set out to
make their pupils numerate should pay attention to the wider aspects of numeracy
and not merely to the development of computation skills. In Norway, the 1987
curriculum (KUD, 1987) focuses on project work and development of local curricula.
The 1987 mathematics syllabus overarching aims include pupils logical thought,
responsible decisions, imagination and creative enthusiasm. In addition problem
solving was introduced as a separate domain. This curriculum lead to the local oral
examination; a test that includes project work and the local curriculum.
The Ministry of Church, Education and Research initiated the project Quality in
Mathematics Education, KIM (Brekke, 2002/1995). The aims of KIM was to develop
test material, to make a survey of pupils attitudes and beliefs towards mathematics
and mathematics teaching, and to describe the specter of pupils performances in
different subject domains. KIM describes what it means to know mathematics in five
points: 1. facts, 2. skills, 3. conceptual understanding, 4. strategies, and 5. beliefs and
attitudes. The 1997 mathematics curriculum (KUF, 1996a) includes a list of six main
aims of mathematics education. The first main aim is that the pupils develop positive
relations with mathematics, experience the subject as meaningful, build self-respect,
and have confidence in their own possibilities in the subject. One more aim is that the
pupils are stimulated to use their imagination, their resources and their knowledge to
find solution methods and alternatives through investigative and problem solving
activities and conscious choices of tools and instruments. So attitudes and beliefs are
on top of the list of aims, while problem solving and pupils imagination also are
important. The aims of the curriculum is in line with what it means to know
mathematics in KIM (Brekke, 2002/1995).
The Danish project Competencies and learning of mathematics, KOM (Niss &
Hjgaard Jensen, 2002) constitutes basis for the interpretation of mathematical
competence in the recent Norwegian mathematics curriculum (Matematikksenteret,
2014). Competence is someones insightful readiness to act in response to the
challenges of a given situation. KOM describes a set of eight delimited dimensions
that together generate mathematical competence: Mathematical thinking competence,
problem tackling competence, modelling competence, reasoning competence, aids
and tools competence, communicating competence, symbol and formalism
competence, and representing competence. No affective aspects of competence are
explicitly listed, but KOM points out that mathematics teaching competence includes
the ability to motivate and inspire pupils. Affective aspects of knowing mathematics
are not reflected in the recent Norwegian mathematics curriculum.

ATTITUDES, BELIEFS, CREATIVITY AND MOTIVATION

When individuals are doing mathematics, the affective system is not just supporting
the cognition, it plays a central role. Affect as a representational system is intertwined
with cognitive representation (Goldin, 2002). Goldin subdivide affective
representations into four sub-domains: a) emotions, rapidly changing, usual local or
connected to context, b) attitudes, moderately stable, predispositions toward certain
sets of classes of situations, c) beliefs, often highly stable, the attribution of some sort
of external truth or validity, and d) values, including ethics and morals, refer to deep
personal truths. This paper focuses on attitudes and beliefs, because the Norwegian
KIM project (Brekke, 2002/1995) highlighted those. The 1987 curriculum includes
project work and work with local curricula, thus it highlights attitudes. The first main
aim in the 1997 mathematics curriculum concern what Goldin (2002) denotes as
belief structures: beliefs about oneself in relation to mathematics, including ones
ability, integrity, motivations and self-concept.
Sriraman (2009/2004) identifies creativity as part of mathematicians work. He points
out that creating original mathematics requires a very high level of motivation,
persistence and reflection, all of which are considered indicators of creativity. For
example, one could be in an environment that is non-supportive of creative efforts,
but a high level of motivation would possibly overcome this and pursue creative
endeavours. According to Sternberg and Lubart (1999) creativity may not only
require motivation, but also generate it. So given the chance to be creative, pupils
who might otherwise lose interest in school instruction might find that it instead
captures their interest. The 1987 curriculum underlined the pupils imagination and
creative enthusiasm.
Self-determination theory proposes that all human beings have fundamental
psychological needs for being competent, autonomous and related to others. People
are assumed to proactively initiate engagement with their environments. The basis for
this activity is intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012). The foundations of Selfdetermination theory reside in a dialectical view, which concerns the interaction
between an active, integrating human nature, and social contexts that either nurture or
impede the organisms active nature. The three basic needs provide the basis for
categorizing aspects of the environment as supportive versus antagonistic to
integrated and vital human functioning. Relatedness concerns the psychological sense
of being with others in a secure communion or unity. Autonomy refers to being the
perceived origin or source of ones own behavior; it concerns acting from interest and
integrated values. Autonomy enables individuals to deal with novelty and generate
creative products (Diezmann & Watters, 2000), so autonomy is part of creativity.
According to Hannula (2006) motivation is not a new sub-category of affective
representations. Motivation is observable only as it manifests itself in affect,
cognition and behavior, for example as beliefs, values and emotional reactions.
Motivation provides a different perspective that illuminates new aspects of affect.
Student centered classrooms with a lot of teamwork going on, may rely on pupils

exhibiting their autonomy and social interactions. According to DeBellis and Goldin
(2006), each person constructs complex networks of affective pathways and
competencies. These networks have more or less mathematical problem-solving
power and their meanings are context-dependent for the individual. The 1997
curriculum (KUF, 1996a) included the domain mathematics in everyday life; this
curriculum is interpreted to explicitly focus on time and context.
The Core curriculum (KUF, 1996b) is continued in the 2006 curriculum. The Core
curriculum expands on six themes from the Acts governing education in Norway:
Moral outlook, creative abilities, work, general education, cooperation and natural
environment. Creativity is in focus. The word motivation occurs only once:
successful learning depends on the teacher as well as on the pupil. The Core
curriculum highlights the pupils attitudes, for example: Knowledge, skills and
attitudes develop in the interplay between old notions and new impressions. The 1997
mathematics curriculum is in line with the core curriculums perspectives on
creativity, while the 2006 mathematics curriculum is not.
ASSESSMENT
According to Wiliam (2007), the use of assessment should support learning in any
assessment regime; classroom assessment must first be designed to support learning.
Schoenfeld (2007a) claims that assessments can serve useful purposes for the pupils,
but the challenge is to make them do so. Schoenfeld (2007b) discusses how to assess
mathematical proficiency; what a pupil knows, can do, and is disposed to do
mathematically. Hence, he describes four aspects of mathematical proficiency:
Knowledge base (what does it mean to know a content)
Strategies (ability to formulate, represent, and solve mathematical problems)
Metacognition (Using what you know effectively)
Beliefs and Dispositions

Knowledge base here includes problem solving and conceptual understanding as well
as skill-based knowledge. Pupils who experience skill-based instruction tend to
succeed on tests of skills, but they do not succeed well when tested in problem
solving and conceptual understanding. On the other hand, students who study
more broad-based curricula tend to do reasonably well on tests of skills (p. 63),
while on tests of conceptual understanding and problem solving, these pupils succeed
much better than those who just exercise in skills. So the nature of testing is highly
critical because what you test is what you get: Teachers feels pressured to teach to
tests. If the test focuses on skills, other aspects of mathematical proficiency tend to be
given less attention.
Regarding strategies, Schoenfeld refers to Polya (1945, p. 114), who pointed out If
you cannot solve the proposed problem do not let this failure afflict you too much but
try to find consolation with some easier success, try to solve first some related
problem; then you might find courage to attack your original problem again.
Reflecting on progress while engaged in problem solving, and acting according to

this, is one aspect of metacognition. If you spend too much time on unproductive
approaches, then you might never get to try to solve some useful related problem.
Beliefs are important because if you believe that mathematics is not supposed to make
sense, your work will reflect this. The pupils pick up their beliefs about the nature of
mathematics from their experiences in the mathematics classroom. Typical pupil
beliefs are
Mathematical problems have one and only one answer.
The only one correct way to solve any mathematics problem is usually the rule
that the teacher has most recently demonstrated to the class.
Mathematics is done by individuals in isolation.
The mathematics learned in school has little or nothing to do with the real
world.
Boesen, Lithner and Palm (2010) investigated relations between task characteristics
and the mathematical reasoning pupils use when solving tasks in a test situation.
Their results show that when solving tasks similar to those in their textbooks, the
pupils mostly were trying to recall facts or algorithms. The pupils did not have to
construct new reasoning or consider any intrinsic mathematical properties. In
contrast, the tasks that were not similar to those encountered in the textbook were
mostly approached with creative mathematical reasoning.
Morgan (1999) has identified two main strands in research related to assessment in
mathematics education. One focuses on the design of the tests to be used. The other is
critiquing traditional forms of assessment and often proposing new forms of
assessment more aligned with curriculum objectives. In both strands the aim is
generally to look at what pupils produce to attempt to find instruments that may
produce truer representations of the pupils knowledge. Morgan points out that
there is a need to focus on how the pupils work is interpreted, valued and used. Her
concern is that assessment practices and their consequences should become more
transparent, allowing opportunities for teachers and pupils to resist them and take
control of them. A local oral examination where the context to some extent is the
pupils previous project work, allows the teacher and the pupil control of the
situation. But despite the amount of research literature on assessment and
mathematics, it is difficult to find papers about oral examinations at school level.
THE LOCAL ORAL MATHEMATIC EXAMINATION
Norwegian pupils may undergo two different examinations in mathematics at the end
of the compulsory school: A national written mathematics examination and a local
oral mathematics examination. Just a sample of the pupils undergo each examination.
In 1990 and 1991, every Norwegian pupil experienced a local oral examination in the
end of the compulsory school (KUF, 1992). This oral examination was in
mathematics or in another subject. It was a supplement to the national written
examination. The examiner (most common the mathematics teacher) leads the

talk/discussion with the pupil, while the sensor decides the grade afterwards. The
schools mainly positive experiences with this examination form, lead to the aim for
the 1992 oral mathematics examination: assess aspects of the teaching aims,
which may be difficult to show in a written test (authors translation). The schools
also expressed that this examination form stimulated their work with the development
of local curricula. The Ministry designed and published booklets with guidelines and
guiding material for preparations of the local oral test. The national guidelines for the
1992 local examination (ibid.) are difficult accessible, so they are listed here:
- The tasks have to be designed so that a conversation form is natural.
- The test has to include tasks from at least three of the ten main subject areas in
the syllabus.
- The test has to give room for use of different methods, creativity and
imagination.
- The test has to include tasks where the pupil may explain procedures and rules
that she/he use in solving the tasks. It might be satisfactory that the pupil just
sketch how she/he will solve the task.
- The test has to include tasks in mental calculations and approximations.
- The test might include tasks where the pupils are free to use technical artifacts
as calculator and computer.
- If there is information about project work or similar, then the test has to include
questions related to this work.
In 2014, the responsibility for the local (oral) examination guidelines belongs to the
school owners. The Education Act (Lovdata, 2013) regulates the oral examination,
and The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, Udir, has elaborated the
regulations for the National rules (Udir, 2014). There are 24 hours mandatory
preparation time, which starts with one day at school with all kinds of aids permitted.
In the beginning of the preparation time, the pupil gets a theme or a problem. What
goes on in the preparation time is not included in the assessment. Each pupil has a
right to pedagogical aid during the preparation day at school. The pupils present their
theme or problem during the examination. The sensors then use this presentation as
basis for a mathematical discussion, where the teacher has prepared questions for the
pupil. The sensors cannot ask questions just from a narrow part of the subject. The
discussion has to cover at least 2/3 of the examination time. The examination has to
be organized so that the pupil can show her/his competency in the subject; to show
competency here is interpreted to mean to show that the competence aims in the
curriculum are reached. The Curriculum clarifies the meaning of oral skills:
Oral skills in mathematics involves creating meaning by listening, speaking and
conversing about mathematics participating in discussions, communicating ideas and
elaborating on problems, solutions and strategies with other pupils this development
starts with a basic mathematics vocabulary that leads to precise professional terminology,
the use of specific concepts and other modes of mathematical expression. (p. 4-5)

The schools can make local guidelines for how to carry out the local examination, but
there is a large room for maneuver. Two sensors assess the examination. One sensor
needs to be a teacher from another school.
ANALYSES OF NATIONAL GUIDELINES AND RULES
To measure whether and to what extent pupils know mathematics is complicated.
Schoenfeld (2007a) points out, that there is more to mathematical proficiency than
being able to reproduce standard content on demand. He warns against what he calls
the illusion of competence by asking: Have you learned the underlying ideas, or are
you only competent at things that are precisely like the ones youve practiced on?
One intention with introducing the local oral examination in Norway was to test for
what is difficult to show in a written test. The oral examination started in 1990-1992,
and it has developed into the 2014 examination form. In order to investigate how the
rules and guidelines for these examinations consider affective aspects of knowing
mathematics, a framework is built on theories from Deci and Ryan (2012), Hannula
(2006), Sriraman (2009/2004), DeBellis and Goldin (2006) and Goldin (2002). This
generates four affective aspects of knowing mathematics: motivation, creativity,
attitudes and beliefs. The data in this study is the 1992 National guidelines for the
local oral examination (KUF, 1992) and the 2014 National rules for the local oral
examination (Udir, 2014).
The framework clearly point out tree points in the 1992 Guidelines: the conversation
form, the use of creativity and imagination, and the inclusion of pupils project work.
The Guidelines explicitly underline that the examination shall aim at a conversation
form. The conversation form opens for the teacher to focus on each of the
frameworks four categories. The use of creativity and imagination directly points at
creativity and indirectly point at motivation. The inclusion of the pupils project work
is an important aspect of the oral examination; according to the National guidelines
(KUF, 1992), project work is based on the pupils interests, ideas or experiences with
social practice. Interests are part of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012). Our
emotional feelings are highly context-dependent (DeBellis & Goldin, 2006) and thus
related to social practice. It turns out that most of the teaching aims in the curriculum
(KUF, 1987) can be assessed in a written test. Exceptions are skills in mental
calculations, the use of sketches and free drawing in geometry, and tasks from
economy that are easy for the pupils to imagine and that also engage them.
According to the 2014 National rules (Udir, 2014), the examination conversation may
consider all the framework categories, but it is explicitly written that the teacher and
the external sensor choose context for the examination. These two may provide the
pupil one or more open tasks for the prepared presentation. The National rules here
open for each school to make their choice. The examination aims to assess the pupils
competence in mathematics, with respect to the competence aims for grade ten in the
National mathematics curriculum (Udir, 2013). It turns out to be one single
competence aim that a written test cannot assess: to develop, use and elaborate on

methods for mental calculations. Based on the competence aims, the teacher can
provide each pupil problems so that the four categories in the framework are covered,
but the National rules leaves this choice to the schools.
Creativity and the pupils project work are not explicit issues to assess in the 2014
examination. So the teacher may provide the pupils problems that concern the pupils
attitudes, beliefs, motivation and creativity, but the 2014 National rules do not
highlight this like the 1992 National guidelines did.
CLOSING WORDS
Both the 1992 and the 2014 oral examinations aim at the form of a mathematical
conversation. In 1992, the pupils would give a short presentation of their previous
project work or similar, and then discuss this with their teacher who asked questions.
The pupils project work as basis for the examination, means that interests,
motivation and beliefs are valued. Regarding the Norwegian curriculum, the analysis
reveals that the Core curriculum (KUF, 1996b) highlights creativity and to some
extent also beliefs and attitudes, while motivation is almost left out. The teaching
aims in the 1987 curriculum (KUD, 1987) as well as in the recent curriculum (Udir,
2013) are interpreted to prepare the pupils for a written test. The overarching aims for
mathematics in the curricula are not to prepare for a written test.
In 2014, the pupils have one day at school to prepare a presentation of a problem
given by the teacher. At the examination they discuss this presentation with the
teacher and the external sensor. So the pupils social practice is not highlighted as it
was in 1992. Creativity, which is explicitly pointed out in the 1992 National
guidelines, is not included in the 2014 National Rules. Creativity has aspects of
attitudes, beliefs and motivation. The analyses indicate that an oral examination can
consider motivation, attitudes, beliefs and creativity. These are aspects of knowing
mathematics that are difficult to assess in a written test. The 1992 guidelines
considers these aspects to a larger extent than the 2014 rules. One reason for this may
be that the local oral examination aims to test the competence aims in the curriculum.
These competence aims are formulated so they are not difficult to assess in a written
test. These competence aims do not explicitly focus on affective aspects of knowing
mathematics. In addition project work is excluded from the examination. Further
research is necessary to provide a more thorough analysis of this issue.
References
Boesen, J., Lithner, J. & Palm, T. (2010). The relation between types of assessment
tasks and the mathematical reasoning students use, Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 75, 89 105.
Brekke, G. (2002). Introduksjon til diagnostisk undervisning i matematikk. N: Oslo:
Utdanningsdirektoratet.
Assessed
January
5
2015
from
http://bestilling.utdanningsdirektoratet.no/Bestillingstorg/PDF/59447_KAR_MAT
_007_innmat.pdf Original work published 1995.

DeBellis, V. A. & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and Meta-Affect in Mathematical

Problem Solving: A Representational Perspective, Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 63, 131 147.
Cockroft, W. H. et al. (1982). Mathematics Counts. Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools. GB: London: Her Majestys
Stationary Office.
Crowther, G. et al. (1959). 15 to 18. A report of the Central Advisory Council for
Education (England). Volume 1. Report. GB: London: Her Majestys Stationary
Office: Ministry of Education.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, Personality and Development within
Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination Theory. In R. M.
Ryan (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, (pp 85 108). Assessed
August
29,
2014
from
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.001.00
01/oxfordhb-9780195399820-e-6
Diezmann, C. M. & Watters, J. J. (2000). An Enrichment Philosophy and Strategy for
Empowering Young Gifted children to Become Autonomous Learners in Science,
Gifted and Talented International, 15 (1), 6 18.
Goldin, G. A. (2002). Affect, Meta-Affect, and Mathematical Belief Structures. In G.
C. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Trner (Eds.) Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in
Mathematics Education? (pp. 59 72). NL: Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Hannula, M. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in emotions,
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 165 178.
KUD, Ministry of Church and Education (1987). Mnsterplan for grunnskolen. N:
Oslo: Aschehoug & Co (W. Nygaard).
KUF, Ministry of Church, Education and Research (1996a). Lreplanverket for den
10-rige grunnskolen. N: Oslo: Nasjonalt lremiddelsenter.
KUF, Ministry of Church, Education and Research (1996b). The core curriculum for
primary, secondary and adult education in Norway. Assessed January 5 2015 from
http://www.udir.no/Upload/larerplaner/generell_del/5/Core_Curriculum_English.p
df?epslanguage=no
KUF, Ministry of Church, Education and Research (1992). Planlegging og
organisering av muntlig avgangsprve i grunnskolen. Veiledningshefte. Vedlegg til
rundskriv nr. 3 1992. Saksnr. 91/268. N: Oslo: Ministry of Church, Education
and Research. The secretariat for the compulsory school.
Lovdata (2013). Forskrift til opplringslova. Kapittel 3. Individuell vurdering i
grunnskolen og vidaregande opplring. (Regulations of the Education Act.
Chapter
3.)
Assessed
September
4,
2014,
from
http://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2006-06-23724/KAPITTEL_4#KAPITTEL_4
Matematikksenteret, The Norwegian Centre for Mathematics Education (2014).
Kompetanser og grunnleggende ferdigheter. Assessed January 7 2015 from

http://www.matematikksenteret.no/content/2380/Kompetanser-og-grunnleggendeferdigheter
Niss, M. & Hjgaard Jensen, T. (2002). Kompetencer og matematiklring.
Utdannelsesstyrelsens temahfteserie nr. 18-2002. DK: Copenhagen:
Undervisningsministeriet.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007a). Chapter 1. Issues and Tensions in the Assessment of
Mathematical Proficiency. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed) Assessing Mathematical
Proficiency. MSRI Publications (53), pp. 3 16. GB: Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007b). Chapter 5. What is Mathematical Proficiency and How
Can It Be Assessed? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed) Assessing Mathematical
Proficiency. MSRI Publications (53), pp. 59 - 73. GB: Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sriraman, B. (2009). The characteristics of mathematical creativity, ZDM
Mathematics Education, 41, 13 27. Original work published 2004, The
Mathematics Educator, 14 (1), 19 34.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and
Paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed) Handbook of Creativity, pp. 3 15. GB:
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Udir, The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2014). Muntlig
eksamen.
Assessed
September
8,
2014,
from
http://www.udir.no/Vurdering/Eksamen/Muntlig-eksamen/
Udir, The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2013). Mathematics
subject
curriculum.
Assessed
September
6,
2014,
from
http://data.udir.no/kl06/MAT1-04.pdf?lang=eng Original work published 2006.
Wiliam, D. (2007). Keep Learning on Track: Classroom Assessment and the
Regulation of Learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.) Second Handbook of Research on
Mathematics Teaching and Learning. A Project of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics. (pp. 1051 1098). US: NC: Charlotte: Information Age
Publishing.