Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating pre-service teachers’ statistical literacy capabilities

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mathematics Education Research Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, numeracy has had an increasing focus in the Australian educational system, with policies and assessments in place for both students and teachers. In order to address the requirements of their careers, teachers need to have sufficient numeracy capabilities. In our study, we explored the numeracy capabilities of post-graduate pre-service teachers enrolled in a numeracy unit at an Australian university. Specifically, we investigated participants’ statistical literacy capabilities by examining responses to a multi-part question involving the analysis of Australian National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) data presented graphically. Participants’ multiple-choice answers were analysed quantitatively. To assess the depth of participants’ statistical literacy reasoning, the explanations for their responses were analysed qualitatively using an adaptation of the Structure of Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy levels. Although the vast majority of participants exhibited strong basic statistical literacy skills, few participants demonstrated high-level statistical reasoning. Surprisingly, there were few differences in the response patterns of participants who had or had not studied university mathematics in their undergraduate studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the Numeracy item, we determined 2012 to be the correct answer since, amongst the 4 years (i.e. 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013) when the school’s average was deemed to be “close to” the average for the comparison group, the value of the school’s average was the highest, plus the comparison group’s average was in the lower half of the error bar (whereas it was in the upper half for the other years).

    For the Reading item, we determined 2012 to be the correct answer since it was the only year in which the school’s average was deemed to be “substantially above”, per the NAPLAN classification system.

    For the Curricular Concern item, we determined Numeracy to be the correct answer since there were 4 years when the school’s average was “close to” and 2 years when the average was “below” that of the comparison group. In contrast, for Reading, there were 4 years with “substantially above” or “above” averages, 2 years with “close to” averages, and no years with “substantially below” or “below” averages, relative to the comparison group.

References

  • Australian Council for Educational Research. (2021). Literacy and numeracy test for initial teacher education students: About. https://teacheredtest.acer.edu.au/about

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.-a). General capabilities. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.-b). General capabilities: Numeracy. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/numeracy/

  • Australian Government: Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2021). Literacy and numeracy test for initial teacher education students. https://www.dese.gov.au/teaching-and-school-leadership/literacy-and-numeracy-test-initial-teacher-education-students

  • Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership. (2017). Australian professional standards for teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards

  • Ben-Zvi, D., & Garfield, J. (2004). Statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking: Goals, definitions, and challenges. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Garfield (Eds.). The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking (pp. 3–15). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2278-6

  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals (Handbook 1: Cognitive domain). Longman.

  • Brown, L., & O’Keeffe, L. (2016). Preparing for the numeracy skills test: Developing a self-perception of success. In B. White, M. Chinnappan, & S. Trenholm (Eds.). Opening up mathematics education research: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 158–165). Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

  • Catalogue of Bias. (2017). Volunteer bias. https://catalogofbias.org/biases/volunteer-bias/

  • Chick, H., & Pierce, R. (2013). The statistical literacy needed to interpret school assessment data. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 15(2), 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, K. F., & Romberg, T. A. (1992). Collis-Romberg mathematical problem solving profiles. The Australian Council for Educational Research.

  • Costa, J. R., Monteiro, C., Carvalho, L., Eugênio, R., & Francois, K. (2020). Statistical literacy in pre-service mathematics teacher education. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.). Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference (pp. 698–705). International Technology, Education and Development Conference.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.

  • Curcio, F. (1987). Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(5), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.18.5.0382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gal, I. (2004). Statistical literacy: Meanings, components, responsibilities. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Garfield (Eds.). The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking (pp. 47–78). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2278-6

  • Golsteyn, B. H. H., Vermeulen, S., & de Wolf, I. (2016). Teacher literacy and numeracy skills: International evidence from PIAAC and ALL. De Economist, 164(4), 365–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-016-9284-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2014). Transforming professional practice in numeracy teaching. In Y. Li., E. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.). Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 81–102). Springer.

  • Goos, M., Geiger, V., Dole, S., Forgasz, H., & Bennison, A. (2019). Numeracy across the curriculum. Allen & Unwin.

  • Hall, J., & Zmood, S. (2019). Australia’s Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education students: Trends in numeracy for low- and high-achieving students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(10), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2019v44n10.1

  • Kwok, H., & Lee, S. -Y. (2016). The search for factors affecting competences of school teachers in leading countries: Using PIACC data. Information, 19(4), 1057–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leder, G. C., Forgasz, H. J., Kalkhoven, N., & Geiger, V. S. (2015). Pre-service teachers and numeracy in and beyond the classroom. In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 349–356). Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

  • Monteiro, C., & Ainley, J. (2006). Student teachers interpreting media graphs. In A. Rossman & B. Chance (Eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference on Teaching Statistics (pp. 1–6). International Association for Statistical Education.

  • Nahdi, D. S., Jatisunda, M. G., Cahyaningsih, U., Kurino, Y. D., Juliar, E., & Bilda, W. (2021). Statistical literacy analysis of pre-service elementary teachers education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1764, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1764/1/012126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment Program. (2016a). NAPLAN. https://www.nap.edu.au/naplan

  • National Assessment Program. (2016b). National reports. https://www.nap.edu.au/results-and-reports/national-reports

  • O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, K. (2021, July 11–18). It is time pre-service teachers develop their numerate abilities to support their students’ numeracy learning [Paper presentation]. 14th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Shanghai, China.

  • Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (H. Weaver, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1966).

  • Pierce, R., & Chick, H. (2013). Workplace statistical literacy for teachers: Interpreting box plots. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0046-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, R., Chick, H., & Gordon, I. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of the factors influencing their engagement with statistical reports on student achievement data. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944113496176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellings, P., Felstead, K., & Goriss-Hunter, A. (2018). Developing pre-service teachers: The impact of an embedded framework in literacy and numeracy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n4.1

  • Shaughnessy, J. M. (2007). Research on statistical learning and reasoning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 957–1009). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatto, M. T. (2015). The role of research in the policy and practice of quality teacher education: An international review. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1017405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victoria State Government: Education and Training. (2020a). In our classrooms: Using NAPLAN and assessment data to inform teaching. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/classrooms/Pages/approachesNAPLANlearningplans20.aspx

  • Victoria State Government: Education and Training. (2020b). Literacy teaching toolkit: Reading and interpreting data. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/literacy/Pages/reading-and-interpreting-data.aspx

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Helen Forgasz, Jennifer Hall & Travis Robinson

Authors
  1. Helen Forgasz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Travis Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Forgasz.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for the conduct of this study was granted by the Monash University Human Ethics Committee (Project No. CF14/1295 2014000599). Participants were informed of the aims of the study on the first page of the online pre-unit questionnaire. After reading the information, informed consent was provided by completing the questionnaire.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. The NAPLAN question

Appendix. The NAPLAN question

Here are the NAPLAN Reading and Numeracy results for Grade 7 students at one Australian school (Aussie HS) taken from the My School website. The school’s results (diamond shape) are shown together with “similar schools” (orange circle).

Instructions for interpreting the graphs

Grade 7 Aussie high school: reading

  1. i.

    In which year did the Aussie HS students achieve best in Reading?

    • 2008

    • 2009

    • 2010

    • 2011

    • 2012

    • 2013

Please explain your answer:

Grade 7 Aussie high school: numeracy

  1. ii.

    In which year did the Aussie HS students achieve best in Numeracy?

    • 2008

    • 2009

    • 2010

    • 2011

    • 2012

    • 2013

Please explain your answer:

  1. iii.

    Based on the Reading and Numeracy NAPLAN results, what should the curriculum co-ordinator be concerned about?

    • Reading

    • Numeracy

    • Both Reading and Numeracy

    • Neither Reading nor Numeracy

    • Unsure

Please explain your answer:

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forgasz, H., Hall, J. & Robinson, T. Evaluating pre-service teachers’ statistical literacy capabilities. Math Ed Res J 36, 231–258 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00438-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00438-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation