I really like graphs. I like the way graphs turn numbers into pictures. A good graph is elegant. It uses a few well-placed lines to communicate what would take a paragraph of text. And like a good piece of literature or art, a good graph continues to give, beyond the first reading. I love looking at my YouTube and WordPress graphs. These graphs tell me stories. The WordPress analytics tell me that when I put up a new post, I get more hits, but that everyday more than 1000 people read one of my posts. The YouTube analytics tell me stories about when people want to know about different aspects of statistics. It is currently the end of the North American school year, and the demand is for my video on Choosing which statistical test to use. Earlier in the year, the video about levels of measurement is the most popular. And not many people view videos about statistics on the 25^{th} of December. I’m happy to report that the YouTube and WordPress graphs are good graphs.

Spreadsheets have made it possible for anyone and everyone to create graphs. I like that graphs are easier to make. Drawing graphs by hand is a laborious task and fraught with error. But sometimes my heart aches when I see a graph used badly. I suspect that this is when a graphic artist has taken control, and the search for beauty has over-ridden the need for truth.

Three graphs spurred me to write this post.

The first was on a website to find out about property values. I must have clicked onto something to find out about the property values in my area, and was taken to the qv website. And this is the graph that disturbed me.

Sure it is pretty – uses pretty colours and shading, and you can find out what it is saying by looking at the key – with the numbers beside it. But a pie or donut chart should not be used for data which has inherent order. The result here is that the segments are not in order. Or rather they are ordered from most frequent to least frequent, which is not intuitive. Ordinal data is best represented in a bar or column chart. To be honest, most data is best represented in a bar or column chart. My significant other suggested that bar charts aren’t as attractive as pie charts. Circles are prettier than rectangles. Circles are curvy and seem friendlier than straight lines and rectangles. So prettiness has triumphed over truth.

It may be a little strong to call bad communication lack of truth. Let’s look at another example. In a way it is cheating to cite a pictogram in a post like this. Pictograms are the lowest form of graph and are so often incorrect, that finding a bad one is easier than finding a good one. In the graph below of fatalities it is difficult to work out what one little person represents.

A quick glance, ignoring the numbers, suggests that the road toll in 2014 is just over half what it was in 2012. However, the truth, calculated from the numbers, is that the relative size is 80%. 2012 has 12 people icons, representing 280 fatalities. One icon is removed for 2013, representing a drop of 9 fatalities. 2011 has one icon fewer again, representing a drop of 2 fatalities. There is so much wrong in the reporting of road fatalities, that I will stop here. Perhaps another day…

And here is the other graph that perplexed me for some time. It came in the Saturday morning magazine from our newspaper, as part of an article about inequality in New Zealand. Anyone who reads my blog will be aware that my politics place me well left of centre, and I find inequality one of the great ills of the modern day. So I was keen to see what this graph would tell me. And the answer is…

I have no idea. Now, I have expertise in the promulgation of statistics, and this graph stumped me for some time. Take a good look now, before I carry on.

I did work out in the end, what was going on in the graph, but it took far longer than it should. This article is aimed at an educated but not particularly statistically literate audience, and I suspect there will be very few readers who spent long enough working out what was going on here. This graph is probably numerically correct. I had a quick flick back to the source of the data (who, by the way, are not to be blamed for the graph, as the data was presented in a table) and the graph seems to be an accurate depiction of the data. However, the graph is so confusing as to be worse than useless. Please post critiques in the comments. This graph commits several crimes. It is difficult to understand. It poses a question and then fails to help the reader find the answer. And it does not provide insights that an educated reader could not get from a table. In fact, I believe it has obscured the data.

Graphs are the main way that statistical analysts communicate with the outside world. Graphs like these ones do us no favours, even if they are not our fault. We need to do better, and make sure that all students learn about graphs.

Here is a suggestion for teachers at all levels. Have a “graph a day” display – maybe for a month? Students can contribute graphs from the news media. Each day discuss what the graph is saying, and critique the way the graph is communicating. I have a helpful structure for reading graphs in my post: There’s more to reading graphs than meets the eye;

Here is a summary of what I’ve said and what else I could say on the topic.

- The choice of graph depends on the purpose
- The text should state the purpose of the graph
- There is not a graph for everything you wish to communicate
- Sometimes a table communicates better than a graph
- Graphs are part of the analysis as well as part of the reporting. But some graphs are better to stay hidden.
- If it takes more than a few seconds to work out what a graph is communicating it should either be dumped or have an explanation in the text
- Truth (or communication) is more important than beauty
- There is beauty in simplicity
- Be aware than many people are colour-blind, or cannot easily differentiate between different shades.

Late last year I posted four graphs of the same data and asked for people’s opinions. You can link back to the post here and see the responses: Which Graph to Use.

The interesting thing is not which graph was selected as the most popular, but rather that each graph had a considerable number of votes. My response is that it depends. It depends on the question you are answering or the message you are sending. But yes – I agree with the crowd that Graph A is the one that best communicates the various pieces of information. I think it would be improved by ordering the categories differently. It is not very pretty, but it communicates.

I recently posted a new video on YouTube about graphs. It is a quick once-over of important types of graphs, and can help to clarify what they are about. There are examples of good graphs in there.

I have written about graphs previously and you can find them here on the Collected Works page.

I’m interested in your thoughts. And I’d love to see some beautiful and truthful graphs in the comments.

]]>

This morning at the Twitter chat for teachers, (#bfc630nz) the discussion question was, How and what will you teach your students about life this year? As I lurked I was impressed at the ideas and ideals expressed by a mixed bunch of teachers from throughout New Zealand. I tweeted: “I wonder how often maths teachers think about educating the heart. Yet maths affects how people feel so much.”

My teaching philosophy is summed up as “head, heart and hands”. I find the philosophy of constructivism appealing, that people create their own understanding and knowledge through experiences and reflection. I believe that learning is a social activity, and I am discovering that mathematics is a social endeavour. But underpinning it all I am convinced that people need to feel safe. That is where the heart comes in. “People do not care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Relationships are vital. I wrote previously about the nature of teaching statistics and mathematics.

In the culture of NZ Maori, when someone begins to address a group of people, they give a mihi, which is an introductory speech following a given structure. The mihi has the role of placing the person with respect to their mountain, their river, their ancestors. It enables the listeners to know who the person is before they begin to speak about anything else. I am not fluent in te reo, so do not give a mihi in Maori (yet), but I do introduce myself so that listeners know who I am. Learners need to know why I am teaching, and how I feel about the subject and about them. It can feel self-indulgent, thinking surely it is about the subject, not about me. But for many learners the teacher is the subject. Just look at subject choices in high school students and that becomes apparent.

Recently I began studying art at an evening class. I am never a passive learner (and for that reason do feel sympathy for anyone teaching me). Anytime I have the privilege of being a learner, I find myself stepping back and evaluating my responses and thinking of what the teacher has done to evoke these responses. Last week, in the first lesson, the teacher gave no introduction other than her name, and I felt the loss. Art, like maths, is emotionally embedded, and I would have liked to have developed more of a relationship with my teacher, before exposing my vulnerability in my drawing attempts. She did a fine job of reassuring us that all of our attempts were beautiful, but I still would like to know who she is.

I suspect that some people believe that maths is a dry, sterile subject, where things are right or wrong. Many worksheets give that impression, with columns of similar problems in black and white, with similarly black and white answers. Some attempt to sweeten the broccoli by adding cartoon characters and using bright colours, but the task remains devoid of adventure and creativity. Now, as a child, I actually liked worksheets, but that is probably because they were easy for me, and I always got them right. I liked the column of little red ticks, and the 100% at the end. They did not challenge me intellectually, but I did not know any better. For many students such worksheets are offputting at best. Worksheets also give a limited view of the nature of mathematics.

I am currently discovering how narrow my perception of mathematics was. We are currently developing mathematical activities for young learners, and I have been reading books about mathematical discoveries. Mathematics is full of creativity and fun and adventure, opinion, multiple approaches, discussion and joy. The mathematics I loved was a poor two-dimensional faded version of the mathematics I am currently discovering.I fear most primary school teachers (and possibly many secondary school maths teachers) have little idea of the full potential of mathematics.

Some high school maths teachers struggle with the New Zealand school statistics curriculum. It is embedded in real-life data and investigations. It is not about calculating a mean or standard deviation, or some horrible algebraic manipulation of formulae. Statistics is about observing and wondering, about asking questions, collecting data, using graphs and summary statistics to make meaning out of the data and reflecting the results back to the original question before heading off on another question. Communication and critical thinking are vital. There are moral, ethical and political aspects to statistics.

I cannot express strongly enough that the teaching of mathematics and statistics is a political act. It is a question of social justice. In my PhD thesis work, I found that social deprivation correlated with opportunities to learn mathematics. My thoughts are that there are families where people struggle with literacy, but mostly parents from all walks of life can help their children with reading. However, there are many parents who have negative experiences around mathematics, who feel unable to engage their children in mathematical discussions, let alone help them with mathematics homework. And sadly they often entrench mathematical fatalism. “I was no good at maths, so it isn’t surprising that you are no good at maths.”

Our students need to know that we love them. When you have a class of 800 first year university students it is clearly not possible to build a personal relationship with each student in 24 contact hours. However the key to the ninety and nine is the one. If we show love and respect in our dealings with individuals in the class, if we treat each person as valued, if we take the time to listen and answer questions, the other students will see who we are. They will know that they can ask and be treated well, and they will know that we care. When we put time into working out good ways to explain things, when we experiment with different ways of teaching and assessing, when we smile and look happy to be there – all these things help students to know who we are, and that we care.

As teachers of mathematics and statistics we have daunting influence over the futures of our students. We need to make sure we are empowering out students, and having them feel safe is a good start.

]]>

The term, STEM, originated in the USA in the late 1990s to describe specific careers and education for these careers. There seems to be no universally agreed-upon definition of STEM. From a careers perspective, the focus is on making sure that there are enough skilled workers in the STEM areas for future development. A common (engineering?) analogy is that of a pipeline. Industrialised nations need people with STEM skills, so need to ensure there are enough people entering and staying in the pipeline in order to fill future demand. There are also identified equity issues, as STEM jobs tend to be higher-paying, and also tend to be dominated by white males. A consequence of the higher demand and pay for people with STEM skills and qualifications is that there is often a shortage of teachers in STEM subjects.

There are multiple ways of viewing STEM Education. One category is specific STEM Projects which I refer to as STEM-Ed, and another is education in STEM subjects, as they currently exist in the school curriculum.

It is believed that one way to encourage children and young people to continue in STEM subjects, is to embed STEM into the curriculum. There has been a move towards specific STEM-based lessons or projects, particularly at middle-school or older primary level. Pinterest is full of attractive STEM-Ed lessons based around engineering and the design process. These include tower and bridge building, making boats to carry certain weights, creating a mechanism that will protect an egg from a fall or launching projectiles a maximum or specified distance. STEM-Ed lessons use a wide range of materials, including Lego bricks, spaghetti, marshmallows, masking tape, newspaper, recycled materials – just about anything you can think of. The makerspace movement ties in with STEM-Ed.

A good STEM-Ed project is described by Anne Jolly in her post Perfect STEM lessons. Anne Jolly suggests that a “perfect” STEM lesson uses an engineering approach as a framework, applies maths and science content through authentic experiences, deals with real world issues, involves hands-on and open-ended exploration with multiple right answers for students working in teams with the teacher in a facilitator role. A STEM project should also engage students in communicating, remove the fear of failure, appeal equally to boys and girls and promote authentic assessment.

It seems that when primary/elementary school teachers talk about STEM, it is usually STEM-Ed they are referring to. Certainly material under the STEM label on Pinterest, a popular source of inspiration for teachers, tends to be STEM-Ed.

In order to encourage and enable students to continue on to STEM careers, they must study the individual subjects that make up STEM. At school level, maths, physics and chemistry are often the areas where students make decisions that limit their later opportunities in STEM areas. (Where they leak out of the pipeline?) This is where teachers of STEM subjects have a part to play. Tying their subjects to authentic, real world contexts and teaching using STEM-Ed projects can help engagement.

However, there is also a need to learn the mathematics that does not appear in a “good STEM lesson”. Current mathematics education thinking aims to enable children to become mathematicians, not just engineers. To quote Tracey Zager’s excellent book, “Becoming the math teacher you wish you’d had“, mathematicians take risks, make mistakes, are precise, rise to a challenge, ask questions, connect ideas, use intuition, reason, prove, and work together and alone. Mathematics curriculum overlaps well with STEM-Ed in the areas of measurement, geometry and statistics. Number skills are practised in context. However, to provide enough exposure to other areas of mathematics, specific STEM-Ed lessons would need to be carefully designed. I suspect that there are areas of the curriculum that are more effectively learned through other methods than STEM-Ed.

There is a push to add Arts to STEM, making it STEAM. The relevance of this addition depends on viewpoint. It does not seem relevant to include Arts when talking about high-shortage career paths. But at the same time, STEM jobs also require other skills, not the least being communication skills. There is a strong link between fine art and technology, through design. The inclusion of A in STEM also depends on the definition of Art. The term “Arts” can include painting, music, dance, literature, film, design and the even the humanities. Including these into STEM (as a career or subject description) seems a trifle incongruous and begs the question whether there is anything that is not included in STEAM. Physical education and foreign languages?

However, when we look at STEM-Ed, there is a rationale for the inclusion of art. Good design does have an artistic component, as is all too clear when we look at some communist-era architecture and much amateur web-design. And written and oral communication are well-developed in many STEM-Ed projects.

Statistics clearly has a place in both STEM and STEM-Ed. There is a demand for statisticians, and people who can use statistics in what they do. The study of the discipline of statistics gives important insights into the nature of variability in our world. STEM-Ed projects could involve collecting and analysing data in a non-trivial way, though I have not seen evidence of this. The barrier to this is the statistical understanding of the teachers creating the STEM-Ed tasks, and points to an area where statistics educators need to be involved. Another barrier can be the time taken to collect an adequate sample, clean the data and analyse it. This is why specific tasks need to be designed for this.

We do need to think about the focus on STEM and wonder about the philosophical underpinnings. Are we educating our students to provide workers for the industrial machine? Is this the right thing to be doing? I found a very interesting book: Philosophy of STEM Education: A Critical Investigation by Nataly Z. Chesky and Mark R. Wolfmeyer . They ask these important questions.

STEM-Ed also needs to be approached carefully. Dayle Anderson, a lecturer in science education emphasised at a Primary Maths Symposium that teachers need to keep their eye on the learning. When a project is engaging it can be seductive to think that the learning is taken care of. There are so many demands on time in a school, that STEM-Ed lessons need to be well-designed for specific learning.

I am quite taken with the 4 Cs of 21^{st} Century Skills, which have been defined as Critical thinking and problem solving, Communicating, Collaborating and Creativity and innovation. These correspond well to the five Key Competencies in the New Zealand curriculum – thinking, using language, symbols, and texts, managing self, relating to others and participating and contributing. These skills are needed by people who work in STEM jobs. They need to be able to communicate and work with others.

These 21^{st} Century skills can be developed in STEM-Ed lessons, as students are required to work together, solve problems, think, innovate and communicate their results.

Overall I am excited about STEM and STEM-Ed. A knowledge of how the world around us works is empowering to all, whether or not they join the STEM pipeline. Making mathematics, statistics and other related subjects more relevant and desirable is always going to be a good thing. Statistics educators need to be involved make sure that statistics is a vital part of STEM-Ed.

Any suggestions on how this is best achieved? And if you are interested in STEM-Ed, please Like and Follow our Facebook page to keep up with the discussion and find out about our contribution.

]]>

Class size is a perennial question in education. What is the ideal size for a school class? Teachers would like smaller classes, to improve learning. There is evidence of a small positive effect size due to reducing class size from meta-analysis published in John Hattie’s Visible Learning. But it makes sense, teachers argue – fewer children in the class means more opportunities for one-to-one interactions with the teacher. It makes for easier crowd control, less noise and less stress for teachers and pupils. And in these days of National Standards, it makes the assessment load more realistic.

I’d just like to point out that educational research is difficult. One of my favourite readings on educational research is an opinion piece by David Berliner, Educational Research: The hardest science of all, where he explains the challenge of educational research. It was written in response to a call by the US Government for evidence-based practices in education. Berliner reminds us of how many different factors contribute to learning. And measuring learning is itself an inexact science. At one point he asks: “It may be stretching a little, but imagine that Newton’s third law worked well in both the northern and southern hemispheres—except of course in Italy or New Zealand—and that the explanatory basis for that law was different in the two hemispheres. Such complexity would drive a physicist crazy, but it is a part of the day-to-day world of the educational researcher.”

So with this in mind, I decided to ask the experts. I asked NZ primary school teachers who are just gearing up for the 2017 school year. These teachers were invited via a Facebook group to participate in a very short poll using a Google Form. There were just eight questions – the year level they teach, the minimum, maximum and ideal size for a class at that level, how many children they are expecting in their class this year and how long they have been teaching. The actual wording for the question about ideal class size was: “In your opinion what is the ideal class size that will lead to good learning outcomes for the year level given above?” There were also two open-ended questions about how they had chosen their numbers, and what factors they think contribute to the decision on class-size.

Every time I do something like this, I underestimate how long the analysis will take. There were only eight questions, thought I. How hard can that be…. sigh. But in the interests of reporting back to the teachers as quickly as possible, I will summarise the numeric data, and deal with all the words later.

There were about 200 useable responses. There was a wide range of experience within the teachers. A third of the teachers had been teaching for five years or shorter, and 20% had been teaching for more than twenty years. There was no correlation between the perceived ideal class size and the experience of the teacher.

The graph below displays the results, comparing the ideal class-size for the different year levels. Each dot represents the response of one teacher. It is clear that the teachers believe the younger classes require smaller classes. The median value for the ideal class size for a New Entrant, Year 1 and/or Year 2 class is 16. The median value for the ideal class size for Year 3/4 is 20, for Year 5/6 is 22 and for year 7/8 is 24. The ideal class size increases as the year level goes up. It is interesting that even numbers are more popular than odd numbers. In the comments, teachers point out that 24 is a very good number for splitting children into equal-sized groups.

It is interesting to compare the maximum class size the teachers felt would lead to good learning outcomes. I also asked what class size they will be teaching this year. The table below gives the median response for the ideal class size, maximum acceptable, and current class size. It is notable that the current class sizes are all at least two students more than the maximum acceptable values, and between six and eight students more than the ideal value.

Median response | ||||

Year Level | Number of respondents |
Ideal class size | Maximum acceptable | Current |

New Entrant Year 1/2 | 56 |
16 | 20 | 22 |

Year 3/4 | 40 |
20 | 24.5 | 27.5 |

Year 5/6 | 53 |
22 | 25 | 30 |

Year 7/8 | 46 |
24 | 27 | 30 |

It appears that most teachers will be teaching classes that are considerably larger than desired. This looks like a problem. But it is also important to get the financial context. I asked myself how much money would it take to reduce all primary school classes by four pupils (moving below the maximum, but more than the ideal)? Using figures from the Ministry of Education website, and assuming the current figures from the survey are indicative of class sizes throughout New Zealand, we would need about 3500 more classes. That is 3500 more rooms that would need to be provided, and 3500 more teachers to employ. It is an 18% increase in the number of classes. The increase in salaries alone would be over one hundred million dollars per year. This is not a trivial amount of money. It would certainly help with unemployment, but taxes would need to increase, or money would need to come from elsewhere.

Is this the best way to use the money? Should all classes be reduced or just some? How would we decide? How would it be implemented? If you decrease class sizes suddenly you create a shortage of teachers, and have to fill positions with untrained teachers, which has been shown to decrease the quality of education. Is the improvement worth the money?

My sympathies really are with classroom teachers. (If I were in charge, National Standards would be gone by lunchtime.) I know what a difference a few students in a class makes to all sorts of things. At the same time, this is not a simple problem, and the solution is far from simple. Discussion is good, and informed discussion is even better. Please feel free to comment below. (I will summarise the open-ended responses from the survey in a later post.)

]]>

Louise (name changed) is a bright, hard-working young woman, who has finished an undergraduate degree at a prestigious university and is now doing a Masters degree at a different prestigious university, which is a long way from where I live and will remain nameless. I have been working through her lecture slides, past and future and attempting to develop in her some confidence that she will survive the remainder of the course, and that statistics is in fact fathomable.

After each session with Louise I have come away shaking my head and wondering what this lecturer is up to. I wonder if he/she really understands statistics or is just passing on their own confusion. And the very sad thing is that I KNOW that there are hundreds of lecturers in hundreds of similar courses around the world teaching in much the same way and alienating thousands of students every year.

And they need to stop.

Here is the approach: You have approximately eight weeks, made up of four hour sessions, in which to teach your masters students everything they could possibly need to know about statistics. So you tell them everything! You use technical terms with little explanation, and you give no indication of what is important and what is background. You dive right in with no clear purpose, and you expect them to keep up.

Frequently Louise would ask me to explain something and I would pause to think. I was trying to work out how deep to go. It is like when a child asks where babies come from. They may want the full details, but they may not, and you need to decide what level of answer is most appropriate. Anyone who has seen our popular YouTube videos will be aware that I encourage conceptual understanding at best, and the equivalent of a statistics drivers licence at worst. When you have eight weeks to learn everything there is to know about statistics, up to and including multiple regression, logistic regression, GLM, factor analysis, non-parametric methods and more, I believe the most you can hope for is to be able to get the computer to run the test, and then make intelligent conclusions about the output.

There was nothing in the course about data collection, data cleaning, the concept of inference or the relationship between the model and reality. My experience is that data cleaning is one of the most challenging parts of analysis, especially for novice researchers.

And maybe one of the worst problems with Louise’s course was that there were no specific learning objectives. One of my most popular posts is on the need for learning objectives. Now I am not proposing that we slavishly tell students in each class what it is they are to learn, as that can be tedious and remove the fun from more discovery style learning. What I am saying is that it is only fair to tell the students what they are supposed to be learning. This helps them to know what in the lecture is important, and what is background. They need to know whether they need to have a passing understanding of a test, or if they need to be able to run one, or if they need to know the underlying mathematics.

Take for example, the t-test. There are many ways that the t-statistic can be used, so simply referring to a test as a t-test is misleading before you even start. And starting your teaching with the statistic is not helpful. We need to start with the need! I would call it a test for the difference of two means from two groups. And I would just talk about the t statistic in passing. I would give examples of output from various scenarios, some of which reject the null, some of which don’t and maybe even one that has a p-value of 0.049 so we can talk about that. In each case we would look at how the context affects the implications of the test result. In my learning objectives I would say: Students will be able to interpret the output of a test for the difference of two means, putting the result in context. And possibly, Students will be able to identify ways in which a test for the difference of two means violates the assumptions of a t-test. Now that wasn’t hard was it?

Louise likes to understand where things come from, so we did go through an overview of how various distributions have been found to model different aspects of the world well – starting with the normal distribution, and with a quick jaunt into the Central Limit Theorem. I used my Dragonistics data cards, which were invented for teaching primary school, but actually work surprisingly well at all levels! I can’t claim that Louise understands the use of the t distribution, but I hope she now believes in it. I gave her the analogy of learning to drive – that we don’t need to know what is happening under the bonnet to be a safe driver. In fact safe driving depends more on paying attention to the road conditions and human behaviour.

Louise tells me that her lecturer emphasises assumptions – that the students need to examine them all, every time they look at or perform a statistical test. Now I have no problems with this later on, but students need to have some idea of where they are going and why, before being told what luggage they can and can’t take. And my experience is that assumptions are always violated. Always. As George Box put it – “All models are wrong and some models are useful.”

It did not help that the lecturer seemed a little confused about the assumption of normality. I am not one to point the finger, as this is a tricky assumption, as the Andy Field textbook pointed out. For example, we do not require the independent variables in a multiple regression to be normally distributed as the lecturer specified. This is not even possible if we are including dummy variables. What we do need to watch out for is that the residuals are approximately modelled by a normal distribution, and if not, that we do something about it.

You may have gathered that my approach to statistics is practical rather than idealistic. Why get all hot and bothered about whether you should do a parametric or non-parametric test, when the computer package does both with ease, and you just need to check if there is any difference in the result. (I can hear some purists hyperventilating at this point!) My experience is that the results seldom differ.

Instructors need to concentrate on the big ideas of statistics – what is inference, why we need data, how a sample is collected matters, and the relationship between a model and the reality it is modelling. I would include the concept of correlation, and its problematic link to causation. I would talk about the difference between statistical significance and usefulness, and evidence and strength of a relationship. And I would teach students how to find the right fishing lessons! If a student is critiquing a paper that uses logistical regression, that is the time they need to read up enough about logistical regression to be able to understand what they are reading.They cannot possibly learn a useful amount about all the tests or methods that they may encounter one day.

If research students are going to be doing their own research, they need more than a one semester fly-by of techniques, and would be best to get advice from a statistician BEFORE they collect the data.

So here is my take-home message:

Stop making graduate statistical methods courses so outrageously difficult by cramming them full of advanced techniques and concepts. Instead help students to understand what statistics is about, and how powerful and wonderful it can be to find out more about the world through data.

Am I right or is my preaching of the devil? Please add your comments below.

]]>

I have been pondering about the efficacy and side-effects of the Numeracy Project in New Zealand. I have heard criticisms from Primary and Secondary teachers, and defense and explanation from advisors. I have listened to a very illuminating podcast from one of the originators of the Numeracy Project, Ian Stevens, I have had discussions with another educational developer who was there at the beginning. I even downloaded some of the “pink booklets” and began reading them, in order understand the Numeracy Project.

Then I read this article from the US organisation, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Strategies are not Algorithms, and it all started to fall into place.

The authors explain that researchers analysed the way that children learn about mathematics, and the stages they generally go through. It was found that “Students who used invented strategies before they learned standard algorithms demonstrated better knowledge of base-ten number concepts and were more successful in extending their knowledge to new situations than were students who initially learned standard algorithms.” They claim that in the US “(t)he idea of “invented strategies” has been distorted to such a degree that strategies are being treated like algorithms in many textbooks and classrooms across the country.” I suspect this statement also applies in New Zealand.

Whitacre and Wessenberg refer to a paper by Carpenter et al, A Longitudinal Study of Invention and Understanding in Children’s Multidigit Addition and Subtraction. I was able to get access to read it, and found the following:

“Although we have no data regarding explicit instruction on specific invented strategies, we hypothesize that direct instruction could change the quality of children’s understanding and use of invented strategies.** If these strategies were the object of direct instruction, there would be a danger that children would learn them as rote procedures in much the way that they learn standard algorithms today**.” (Emphasis added)

Were they right? Are the strategies being taught as rote procedures in some New Zealand classrooms? Do we need to change the way we talk about them?

The NDP started as a way to improve teacher pedagogical content knowledge to improve outcomes for students. It was intended to cover all aspects of the New Zealand Mathematics and Statistics curriculum, not just number. Ian Stevens explained: “Numeracy was never just Number. We decided that in New Zealand numeracy meant mathematics and mathematics meant numeracy.”

The Numeracy Development Project provided a model to understand progression of understanding in learning mathematics. George Box once said “All models are wrong and some models are useful.” A model of progression of understanding is useful for identifying where we are, and how to progress to where we would like to be, rather like a map. But a map is not the landscape, and children differ, circumstances change, and models in education change faster than most. I recently attended a talk by Shelley Dole, who (I think) suggested that by emphasising additive thinking in the early school years, we may undo the multiplicative and proportional thinking the students had already. If all they see is adding and subtracting, any implication towards multiplicative and proportional thinking is stifled. It is an interesting premise.

The Numeracy Project (as it is now commonly called) suggested teaching methods, strongly based around group-work and minimising the use of worksheets. Popular invented strategies for arithmetic operations were described, and the teaching of standard algorithms such as vertical alignment of numbers when adding and subtracting was de-emphasised.

An unintended outcome is that the Numeracy Project has replaced the NZ curriculum in some schools, with “Number” taking centre stage for many years. Teachers are teaching invented strategies as algorithms rather than letting students work them out for themselves. At times students are required to know all the strategies before moving on. Textbooks, worksheets and even videos based around the strategies abound, which seems anathema to the original idea.

So where do we go from here?

To me empowerment of teachers is pivotal. Teachers need to understand and embrace the beauty of number theory, the practicality of measurement, the art and challenge of geometry, the detective possibilities in data and the power of algebra to model our world. When mathematics is seen as a way to view the world, and embedded in all our teaching, in the way literacy is, maybe then, we will see the changes we seek.

]]>

The student gave no explanation, but rather a set of data and a choice of graph-type. I have changed the data a little. As the data was about numbers of men and women in different roles in an organisation, I assume the question regards gender equity.

I have used the ubiquitous Microsoft Excel to create some candidate graphs, and I would like you to vote on which you think is the most useful. (And yes – I know that it depends, but in the absence of further information, I’m interested to see what the crowd comes up with.) Pie chart was not an option. Pie chart is almost never an option.

Here are four possible answers for the student. If you click on the graphic it should get bigger and clearer.

I will post later with my opinion, but I would rather get yours first.

]]>

I am writing this post in a spartan bedroom in Glenn Hall at La Trobe University in Bundoora (Melbourne, Australia.) Some outrageously loud crows are doing what crows do best outside my window, and I am pondering on how to get the most out of conferences. In my previous life as a University academic, I attended a variety of conferences, and discovered some basic hints for enjoying them and feeling that my time was productively used. In the interests of helping conference newcomers I share them here. They are in no particular order.

Sad, but true, many conference presentations are obvious, obscure or dull. And some are annoying. If you happen to hit an interesting and entertaining presentation – make the most of it. I have talked to several newbies this afternoon whose experience of the MAV conference could be described as underwhelming. This is not the fault of the conference, but rather a characteristic of conferences as a whole. My rule of thumb is that if you get one inspiring or useful presentation per day you are winning. (Added later) You can generally find something positive in any presentation, and it is good to tweet that. (Thanks David Butler for reminding me!)

When I first went to conferences I would make sure that I attended every session, feeling I needed to fulfil my obligations to the University that was kindly funding (or in those days, part-funding) my trip and attendance. Fortunately I was saved from exhaustion by my mentor, who pointed out that you had diminishing returns, if not negative returns on continued attendance beyond a certain point. Consequently I have learned to take a break and not attend every single presentation I can. Some down-time is also good for contemplating what you have heard. Conferences are also a chance to step back from the daily grind, and think about your own teaching practice or research.

When I used to teach operations research, many of the research talks went whizzing over my head. But every now and then I would find a gem, which for me would be a wonderful story I could tell in lectures of how operations research had saved money, lives or the world from annihilation. You never know what you might find.

It may be my colonial cringe, but I tend to be a little in awe of the “big names” in any field. These are the people who have been paid to attend the conference, who give keynote addresses, and you have actually heard of before. Next year at the NZAMT conference in October, Dan Meyer is going to be a keynote speaker. I have to say I am a little in awe of him, but at the same time know that that is silly. Dick de Veaux is one of my favourite keynote speakers and you could not ask for a nicer or more generous person. The point is that speakers are people too, and are playing a certain role at a conference, which means that they should give the punters some of their time. – So this is my advice to paid keynote speakers – be nice to people. It can’t hurt, and it can make a real difference in their lives. Because of my YouTube videos I have a small level of celebrity among some teachers and learners of statistics in New Zealand. (I said it was small) I LOVE it when people talk to me, and hope no one would feel reluctant. If it is in your power to do good, do it

This can be daunting and tiring, but is essential to make the most of a conference opportunity. The point of conferences is to bring people together, so if you do not talk to anyone other than the people you came with, you could have stayed home and watched presentations on YouTube. I am learning that some conversation topics are easy starters : “Where are you from?”, “What do you teach/research?”, “Have you been to any good sessions?” “What did you think of the Keynote?” are all reasonably safe. To my surprise, criticising the US President elect was not universally well received, so I have learned to avoid that one. Being positive is a good idea, and one I need to remember at all times. When I do not agree with what a speaker is saying I have a tendency to growl in a Marge Simpsonesque way. This can be disturbing to the people around me and I am attempting to stop it.

At the 2016 MAV conference I had yellow hair, and immediately found kinship with a delightful and insightful young teacher with magenta hair. Now if we could just have found an attendee with cyan hair we could have impersonated a printer cartridge! I went to Sharon’s presentation and she to mine, and I believe we were both the better for it.

The biennial NZ Association of Maths teachers conference is being held in Christchurch on 3rd to 6th October 2017. I strongly believe we need more input from primary teachers, and more collaboration across primary, secondary and tertiary. It would be SOO wonderful to have many primary teachers giving workshops or presentations of work they are doing in their maths classrooms.

The abstracts are due by the end of May and if any primary teachers would like some help putting one together, I would be really happy to help.

The companies that have trade displays pay a considerable amount for the right to do so. I believe that teachers need producers of educational resources, and when you visit producers and give them the opportunity to talk about their product, it makes it worthwhile for them to sponsor, thus keeping the price down. And you never know – you might find something really useful!

If two or more of you come from the same school or organisation, it is a good idea to plan your programme together. When there are 40 – or even 10 presentations to choose from in any one slot, it is more sensible to attend different ones.

It is really helpful to know when conferences are approaching, so I have added links below to the maths teaching conferences I know about, in the hope that many of you may think about attending. Do let me know any you know about that I haven’t listed.

This particularly applies to the MAV conference at La Trobe University. It is held on a massive campus, which is particularly confusing to get around, so one tends to cover far more ground than intended. I was pleased I sacrificed style for comfort in this particular instance, after a bad attack of blisters last year.

Any other conference attenders here – what other suggestions could you make?

Primary Mathematics Association 25 March 2017, Auckland

AAMT 11 – 13 July 2017, Canberra, Australia

2017 MANSW Annual Conference 15-17 September 2017.

NZAMT 3 – 7 October 2017 Christchurch New Zealand

MAV Early Dec 2017 Melbourne, Australia

]]>

Whenever I have posted my ideas on Twitter (hashtag @Rogonic) and Facebook (Statistics Learning Centre) they have proved popular. So I thought it would be good to put them in a less transient location – this blog.

Here is one to start with:

You can ask any question you like. I suggest, “Which of the models, A to H is most like the model in the middle?”

Then listen to what your learners have to say. Feel free to vote here:

I would love to hear what comes of this discussion. Please put your ideas in the comments below. In a follow-up post, I will talk about some of the concepts that might have arisen in discussions. A follow-up activity for your students (or you) is to come up with a new model that is most like the one in the middle, but not exactly the same.

Explanation of the placement of the letter ‘s’ with respect to Maths with Lego. The Danish company that makes Lego does not approve of the use of Legos as a word. The plural of one Lego brick is two Lego bricks. In New Zealand we talk about Lego as a collective noun, as in “I am going to play with my Lego” and “Pick up your Lego before I stand on it.” We also follow the UK tradition of talking about the subject of Maths, rather than Math. I am aware that my friends in the US would talk about Math with Legos, but I am not in the US so I reserve the right to talk about Maths with Lego. I am refraining from making any statement about the state of politics in the US at present… With difficulty.

Disclaimer

This website uses Lego (R) bricks to teach mathematical and statistical concepts. There is no official affiliation with the Lego(R) company. Lego is a registered trademark of the Lego company.

]]>

In 1984 I was a tutor in Operations Research to second year university students. My own experience of being in tutorials at University had been less than inspiring, with tutors who seemed reserved and keen to give us the answers without too much talking. I wanted to do a good job. My induction included a training session for teaching assistants from throughout the university. Margaret was a very experienced educational developer and was very keen for us to get the students discussing. I tried to explain to her that there really wasn’t a lot to discuss in my subject. You either knew how to solve a set of linear equations using Gauss-Jordan elimination or you didn’t. The answer was either correct or incorrect.

I suspect many people have this view of mathematics and its close relations, statistics and operations research. Our classes have traditionally followed a set pattern. The teacher shows the class how to do something. The class copies down notes and some examples into their books, and then they individually work through exercises in the textbook – generally in silence. The teacher walks around the room and helps students as needed.

So when we talk about discussion in maths classes, this is not something that mathematics and statistics teachers are all familiar with. I recently gave a workshop for about 100 Scholarship students in Statistics in the Waikato. What a wonderful time we had together! The students were from all different schools and needed to be warmed up a little with prizes, but we had some good discussion in groups and as a whole. One of the teachers commented later on the level of discussion in the session. Though she was an experienced maths teacher she found it difficult to lead discussion in the class. I am sure there are many like her.

It is difficult for many students to learn in solitary silence. As we talk about a topic we develop our understanding, practice the language of the discipline and experience what it means to be a mathematician or statistician. Explaining ideas to others helps us to make sense of them ourselves. As we listen to other people’s thinking we can see how it relates to what we think, and can clear up misconceptions. Some people just like to talk, (who me?) and find learning more fun in a cooperative or collaborative environment. This recognition of the need for language and interaction underpins the development of “rich tasks” that are being used in mathematics classrooms throughout the world.

I have previously stated that “Maths learning should be communal and loud and exciting, not solitary, quiet and routine.”

One thing that was difficult at the Scholarship day was that the students did not know each other, and came from various schools. In a regular classroom the teacher has the opportunity of and responsibility for setting the tone of the class. Students need to feel safe. They need to feel that giving a wrong answer is not going to lead to ridicule. Several sessions at the start of the year may be needed to encourage discussion. Ideally this will become less necessary over time as students become used to interactive, inquiry-based learning in mathematics and statistics through their whole school careers.

“Number talks” are a tool to help students improve their understanding of number, and recognise that there are many ways to see things. For example, the class might be shown a picture of dots and asked to explain how many dots they see, and how they worked it out. Several different ways of thinking will be discussed.

Children are encouraged to think up multiple ways of thinking about numbers and to develop discussion by following prompts, sometimes called “talk moves”. Talk moves include revoicing, where the teacher restates what she thinks the student has said, asking students to restate another students reasoning, asking students to apply their own reasoning to someone else’s reasoning (Do you agree or disagree and why?), prompting for further participation (Would someone like to add on?), and using wait time (teachers should allow students to think for at least 10 seconds before calling on someone to answer. These are explained more fully in The Tools of Classroom talk.

Google Image is awash with classroom posters outlining “Talk moves”. I have been unable to trace back the source of the term or the list, and would be very pleased if someone can tell me the source, to be able to attribute this structure.

The essence of good discussion is good questions. Question ping pong is not classroom discussion. We have all experienced a teacher working through examples on the board, while asking students the answers to numerical questions. This is a control technique for keeping students attentive, but it can fall to a small group of students who are quick to answer. I remember doing just this in my tutorial on solving matrices, when I didn’t know any better.

Teachers should avoid asking questions that they already know the answers to.

It is not a hard-and-fast rule, but definitely a thing to think about. I like to use True/False quizzes to help uncover misconceptions, and develop use of statistical language. I just about always know the answer to the question, but what I don’t know is how many students know the answer. So I ask the question not to know the answer, but to know if the students do, and to provoke discussion. Perhaps a more interesting question would be, how many students do you think will say “True” to this statement. It would then be interesting to find out their reasoning, so long as it does not get personal!

Where possible we need to ask questions that can have a number of acceptable answers. A discussion about what to do with outliers will seldom have a definitive answer, unless the answer is that it depends! Asking students to make a pictorial representation of an algebra problem can lead to interesting discussions.

The MathTwitterBlogosphere has many attractive ideas to use in teaching maths.

I rather like “Which one doesn’t belong”, which has echoes of “One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn’t belong, can you guess…” from Sesame Street. However, in Sesame Street the answer was usually unambiguous, whereas with WODB there are lots of ways to have alternative answers. There is a website dedicated to sets of four objects, and the discussion is about which one does not belong. In each case all four can “not belong” for some reason, which I find a bit contrived, but it can lead to discussion about which is the strongest case of not belonging.

Some discussions work well for a whole class, while others are better in small groups or pairs. Matching or ordering paper slips with expressions can lead to great discussion. For example we could have a set of graphs of the same data, and order them according to how effective they are at communicating the aspects of the data. Or there could be statements of possible events and students can place them in order of likelihood. The discussion involved in ordering them helps students to clarify the nature of probability. Desmos has a facility for teachers to set up card matching or grouping exercises, which reduces the work and waste of paper.

Our own Dragonistics data cards are great for discussion. Students can be given a number of dragons (more than two) and decide which one is the best, or which one doesn’t belong, or how to divide the dragons fairly into two or more groups.

It can seem to be wasting time to have discussion. However the evidence from research is that good discussion is an effective way for students to learn mathematics and statistics. I challenge all maths and stats teachers to increase and improve the discussion in their class.

]]>