Mandatory numeracy tests have become commonplace in many countries, heralding a new era in school assessment. New forms of accountability and an increased emphasis on national and international standards (and benchmarks) have the potential to reshape mathematics curricula. It is noteworthy that the mathematics items used in these tests are rich in graphics. Many of the items, for example, require students to have an understanding of information graphics (for example, maps, charts and graphs) in order to solve the tasks. This investigation classifies mathematics items in Australia's inaugural national numeracy tests and considers the effect such standardised testing will have on practice. It is argued that the design of mathematics items is more likely to be a reliable indication of student performance if graphical, linguistic and contextual components are considered both in isolation and in integrated ways as essential elements of task design.
AdamsT.L. (2003). Reading mathematics: More than words can say. The Reading Teacher, 56(8), 786–795.
2.
Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (1997, October). Numeracy = everyone's business. Report for the Numeracy Education Strategy Development Conference: Adelaide, Australia.
3.
AvenellK. (2006). Standardised tests: Losing sight of our true purpose. Australian Educational Leader, 28(1), 34–35, 47.
4.
BertinJ. (1983). Sociology of graphics (trans. W. J. Berg). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. (Original work published 1967.)
5.
BoalerJ. (1993). The role of contexts in the mathematics classroom: Do they make mathematics more ‘real’?For the Learning of Mathematics, 13(2), 12–17.
6.
BoalerJ. (1994). When do girls prefer football to fashion? An analysis of female underachievement in relation to ‘realistic’ mathematic contexts. British Educational Research Journal, 20, 551–564.
7.
BrnaP.CoxR.GoodJ. (2001). Learning to think and communicate with diagrams: 14 questions to consider. Artificial Intelligence Review, 15, 115–134.
8.
CarpenterP.A.ShahP. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 75–100.
9.
CoyneM.HarnB. (2006). Promoting beginning reading success through meaningful assessment of early literacy skills. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 33–43.
Department for Education and Employment, UK. (1998). The implementation of the national numeracy strategy. The final report of the numeracy taskforce. London: Author.
12.
DiezmannC.M. (2008). Graphics and the national numeracy tests. In GoosM.BrownR.MakarK. (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions: Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2, 659–662. Sydney: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
13.
DiezmannC.M.LowrieT. (2008). The role of information graphics in mathematical proficiency. In GoosM.BrownR.MakarK. (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions: Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2, 647–650. Sydney: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
14.
DiezmannC.M.LowrieT.(in press). An instrument for assessing primary students' knowledge of information graphics in mathematics. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice.
15.
DiezmannC.M.LowrieT.KozakN. (2007). Essential differences between high and low performers' thinking about graphically-oriented numeracy items. In WatsonJ.BeswickK. (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice: Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 1, 226–235. Adelaide: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
16.
Educational Testing Centre. (2002). Year 6 Australian Schools Science Competition. Sydney: Educational Assessment Australia, The University of New South Wales. [Item 3 in the Appendix]
17.
Educational Testing Centre. (2001). Year 5 Australian Schools Science Competition. Sydney: Educational Assessment Australia, The University of New South Wales. [Item 1 in the Appendix]
18.
Educational Testing Centre. (1995). Year 7 Australian Schools Science Competition. Sydney: Educational Assessment Australia, The University of New South Wales. [Item 6 in the Appendix]
19.
GoldinG.A. (1998). Representational systems, learning and problem solving in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 17(2), 137–165.
20.
HattieJ. (2005). What is the nature of evidence that makes a difference to learning? InUsing data to support learning: Proceedings of the 10th national research conference of the Australian Council for Educational Research (pp. 11–21). Melbourne: ACER.
21.
HittlemanD.R. (1985). A picture is worth a thousand words … if you know the words. Childhood Education, 61–62, 32–36.
22.
JonesB.D.EgleyR.J. (2007). Learning to take tests or learning for understanding? Teachers' beliefs about test-based accountability. The Educational Forum, 71, 232–248.
23.
KirbyJ.R. (1994). Comprehending and using maps: Are there two modes of map processing? In SchnotzW.KulhavyW. (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 63–77). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B. V.
24.
KosslynS.M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
KulmG.WilsonL.D.KitchenR. (2005). Alignment of content and effectiveness of mathematics assessment items. Educational Assessment, 10(4), 333–356.
26.
LoganT.GreenleesJ. (2008). Standardised assessment in mathematics: The tale of two items. In GoosM.BrownR.MakarK. (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions: Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2, 655–658. Brisbane: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
27.
LowrieT.DiezmannC.M. (2005). Fourth-grade students' performance on graphical languages in mathematics. In ChickH.L.VincentJ.L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 265–272). Melbourne: Psychology of Mathematics Education.
28.
LowrieT.DiezmannC.M. (2007). Solving graphics problems: Student performance in the junior grades. Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 369–377.
29.
MackinlayJ. (1999) Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. In CardS.K.MackinlayJ.D.SchneidermanB. (Eds.), Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think (pp. 66–81). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
30.
McNeilL. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
31.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008a). National assessment program: Literacy and numeracy. Year 3 numeracy test. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
32.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008b). National assessment program: Literacy and numeracy. Year 5 numeracy test. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
35.
New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (1997). Basic skills test: Aspects of numeracy. Sydney: Author.
36.
New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2007). Basic skills test: Aspects of numeracy. Sydney: Author.
37.
O'DonnellS.SargentC.GrayJ. (2008). International review of curriculum and assessment frameworks internet archive comparative tables. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from International review of curriculum and assessment frameworks Internet archive http://www.inca.org.uk/INCA_comparative_tables_July_2008.pdf
38.
PaivioA. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
39.
PedullaJ.J.AbramsL.M.MadausM.K.RussellM.K.RamosM.A.MiaoJ. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Boston, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/statements/nbr2.pdf
40.
PostigoY.PozoJ. (2004). On the road to graphicacy: The learning of graphical representation systems. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 623–644.
41.
Queensland School Curriculum Council. (2001). 2001 Queensland Year 3 test: Aspects of numeracy. Brisbane: Author. [Item 5 in the Appendix]
42.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2002). 2002 Queensland Year 5 test: Aspects of numeracy. Brisbane: Author. [Item 4 in the Appendix]
43.
RothW.-M. (2002). Reading graphs: Contributions to an integrative concept of literacy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(2), 1–24.
44.
ShahP.HoeffnerJ. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 47–69.
45.
SmithV. (2005). School-based research: a new approach to school improvement. Professional Educator, 4(4), 8–12.
46.
StecherB.M.BarronS. (2001). Unintended consequences of test-based accountability when testing in ‘milepost’ grades. Educational Assessment, 7(4), 259–281.
