Consider this math problem:
In 1974, the state that had the highest population density was New Jersey with a population density of 1305 people/sq. mi. In the years that followed the decline of the auto industry, the populations began to shift away from the major industrial centers (like many of the cities in New Jersey). By 2015, New Jersey’s population density had dropped to 1210 people/sq. mi. If New Jersey has a total size of 8700 square miles, how many fewer people live in New Jersey in 2015 than in 1974?
The math of this problem isn’t really that sophisticated. Take your densities, multiply them both by the area to get total populations. Subtract the bigger population from the smaller population and there you go.
However, what is making me struggle with this problem is the undeniable literacy component. When I consider the reasons a student might get this problem wrong…
- Made computational errors
- Did computations correctly, but computed the wrong numbers.
- Didn’t know how to set up the computation because they got lost in the vocabulary or notation.
- Didn’t know how to set up the problem because the task was unclear.
- Got frustrated and skipped it because the US Census keeps records of state populations that can be referred to instead of having to crunch numbers.
From an assessment standpoint, what does a correct answer from a student reveal to us about what that student understands and is able to do?
- We know that student can work with rates and units in context.
- We know that student can multiply and subtract strategically and accurately.
- We know that student has the ability to accurately comprehend a piece of reading equivalent to about a seventh or eighth grade level.
I want to talk about that last one. The reading one.
If that question appeared on a math test, what would be the value of exploring their ability to read? It seems like we have tests for that. Won’t they reveal those things? Shouldn’t the result a math test be based simply on a student’s ability to do math?
Well, I’m going to go ahead an add a wrinkle. Michigan just adopted the SAT as the state-sanctioned offering to the legal requirement that all juniors in the state of Michigan will take a college-readiness test before they leave high school. (From 2008-2014 it was the ACT.)
The literacy component of the SAT Math test is quite heavy. The problem that I highlighted (which I made up… along with most the data in the problem) resembles the SAT Math questions pretty well.
So, the College Board (authors of the SAT and most the AP Tests) seem to be making the statement that college readiness includes the ability to read. I’m not sure there would have been much argument for that in general, however, there are SAT portions for reading comp and an essay. The literacy bases seem covered.
So, why put such a high emphasis on reading in math?
Perhaps The College Board is making the statement that math proficiency includes the ability to fluently read mathematical scenarios.
I’m of two minds on this issue, so I’d really like some reader participation in the comments. I’m not at all attempting to challenge the value of reading, but some students really struggle with reading. Does a reading struggle apply a ceiling to future math growth?
And if there is an essential connection between math and reading, what role do math teachers play in teaching reading? Should we be developing strategic interventions for math-based reading?
I hope you’ll feel comfortable adding a comment, idea, or question that I’m not thinking about.
In my next post, I’m going to further break down this idea with respect to my limited understanding of Universal Design for Learning.