Building a learning

resource to enhance
mathematical reasoning
A Presentation to the Biennial Conference of
the Australian Association of Mathematics
Teachers held in Adelaide, July 2015

by Professor Dianne Siemon (RMIT University),

Natalie Banks (Rosebery Middle School) and
Will Morony (AAMT)
 Overview:
• The STEM imperative
• The Australian Mathematics & Science
Partnership Programme (AMSPP)
• Round 1 – Multiplicative Thinking (RMF)
• Round 2 – Mathematical Reasoning (RMFII)
o Approach
o Indicative tasks
o Anticipated outcomes
• Where to from here?
o How you can help
o AAMT role
© Dianne Siemon Rosebery Middle School 2
The STEM imperative
The average performance of Year 8
44% or 5.1 million jobs students in mathematics has not
at risk from digital
changed since TIMSS 1995 2
disruption 1

37% of Australian
Shifting 1% of More than 20% of Year 8 Year 8 students did
workforce into students were being not achieve the
STEM roles taught by mathematics by Intermediate
would add $57.4 teachers who reported international
billion to GDP feeling only “somewhat” benchmark (the
over 20 years 1 confident in teaching the minimum proficient
subject 2 standard expected) 2

Number of Year 12
75% of the fastest growing students studying STEM
occupations require STEM 1 subjects is declining 1

1. Price-Waterhouse Report (April, 2015). A Smart Move: Future proofing Australia’s workforce by growing skills in science,
mathematics, engineering and maths (STEM)
2. Thompson, S., Hillman, K. & Wernet, N. (2012). Monitoring Australian Year 8 student achievement internationally: TIMSS
2011. Melbourne: ACER
The STEM imperative
The number of students taking
intermediate and advanced maths at
secondary school has fallen by 34%
over the last 18 years 3

Interpreting, applying and evaluating mathematical outcomes is

an area of relative strength for Australian 15-year olds but formulating
situations mathematically and employing mathematical concepts,
facts, procedures and reasoning are areas of weakness 4

Australia’s mean mathematical literacy performance

declined significantly between PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 and
males significantly outperformed females 4

20% of mathematics and physics

teachers are teaching out-of-field 5

3. The Australian Industry Group (March, 2015). Progressing STEM skills in Australia. Melbourne: AiGroup
4. Thompson, S.De Bortoli, L. & Buckley, S. (2013). PISA 2012: How Australia measures up. Melbourne: ACER
5. Weldon, R. (March, 2015). Policy Insights. The teacher workforce in Australia: Supply and Demand Issues
 AMSPP Objectives:
The objectives of the Australian Mathematics and Science
Partnership Program (AMSPP) are to:
(i) build the theoretical and pedagogical skills of school teachers to
deliver maths and science subjects;
(ii) increase the number of school students undertaking maths and
science subjects to Year 12;
(iii) improve outcomes for these students; and
(iv) encourage more students to study science, technology,
engineering and maths (STEM) courses at university through
innovative partnerships between universities, schools, and other
relevant organisations.

https://education.gov.au/australian-maths-and-science-
partnerships-program

© Dianne Siemon 5
 Two AMSPP Project Rounds:
1. Priority Project Round (2013)
Submissions for one-year, ‘road-ready’ projects: total funding pool $5M,
announced January 2013, awarded August 2013
Reframing Mathematical Futures Priority Project - focus on
multiplicative thinking in Years 7 to 10 using the Scaffolding Numeracy
in the Middle Years (SNMY) resources

2. Competitive Grant Round (2014-2017)

Submissions for extended research projects: total funding pool $19M,
announced May 2013, awarded July 2014
Reframing Mathematical Futures II Competitive Grant Project –
aimed at building a learning and teaching framework for algebraic,
spatial and statistical reasoning in Years 5 to 9

© Dianne Siemon 6
Reframing Mathematical Futures (RMF)
(AMSPP Priority Project, 2013):
Aim: To improve student outcomes in relation to
multiplicative thinking and proportional reasoning in
Years 7 to 10.
Focus: Students whose future would otherwise be
constrained by lack of access to these critical aspects of
school mathematics.
Approach: Support school-based specialists in a sample of
Australian Secondary schools to work with the Scaffolding
Numeracy in the Middle Years (SNMY) materials to:
• identify student learning needs,
• deepen teacher knowledge in this domain, and
• improve teacher responsiveness to student learning
needs.
© Dianne Siemon
7
 Why multiplicative thinking?
Middle Years Numeracy Research Project (MYNRP) commissioned by
the public, independent and Catholic school systems in Victoria
(1999-2000) – explored number sense, measurement & data sense
and spatial sense using rich tasks and Item Response Modelling (IRM)
- identified multiplicative thinking as the area most responsible for
the seven-year range in student mathematics achievement in
Years 5 to 9 (Siemon, Corneille & Virgona, 2001)*

Scaffolding Numeracy in the Middle Years (SNMY) Linkage Project with

the Departments of Education in Victoria and Tasmania (2003-2006) -
explored the development of multiplicative thinking in Years 4 to 8
using rich assessment tasks and IRM– confirmed MYNRP result,
produced research-based Learning and Assessment Framework
for Multiplicative Thinking (LAF), two formative test options and
teaching resources (Siemon, Breed, Dole, Izard & Virgona, 2006)*

* The Final Reports of both projects can be found on the DEECD website
© Dianne Siemon 8
Notion of targeted teaching that requires:
• access to accurate information about what
each student knows;
• a grounded knowledge of learning
trajectories (key steps in the development of
big ideas and how to scaffold these);
• an expanded repertoire of teaching
approaches which accommodate and nurture
discourse, help uncover and explore student s
ideas in constructive ways, and ensure all
students can participate in and contribute to the
enterprise;

• sufficient time with students to develop trust and supportive

relationships; and
• flexibility to spend time with the students who need it most.

© Dianne Siemon
(MYNRP, Final Report, 2001) 9
Scaffolding Numeracy in the Middle Years
(SNMY Project, 2004-2006)
• Multiplicative thinking operationalised in terms of
(i) core content knowledge (multiplication, division, fractions,
decimals, proportion etc),
(ii) ability to apply that knowledge in unfamiliar situations, and
(iii) capacity to communicate and justify solution strategies
• Hypothetical Learning Trajectory (Simon, 1995) for multiplicative
thinking derived from related literature
• HLT used to locate, design, and trial rich assessment tasks
• Cluster-based purposeful sample of 3200 Year 4 to 8 students in
Victoria and Tasmania, pre/post test design, support for targeted
teaching
• Rasch analysis (e.g., Bond & Fox,2001) used to identify shift over
time and test HLT
© Dianne Siemon 10
© Dianne Siemon, RMIT University
 …

” “
”

“
”

“ ”

A Year 6 Student Response to Adventure Camp Short Task (SNMY, May 2004)
Results … Zone 4 can be viewed as a transitional zone from additive
to multiplicative thinking, suggesting that about 40% of Year 7 and 30% of
Year 8 students might be deemed to be ‘left behind’ in terms of
curriculum expectations …
100%
90% Zone 8
80% Zone 7
70%
Zone 6
60%
Zone 5
50%
Zone 4
40%
Zone 3
30%
Zone 2
20%
Zone 1
10%
0%
Year Year Year Year Year
4 5 6 7 8
Proportion of Students at each Level of the LAF by Year Level, Initial Phase of
SNMY, May 2004 (N=3169)
© Dianne Siemon 12
A 7-8 year range in any one class …

LAF Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Expected End of End of End of End of End of End of End of End of

by Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

Year 4 9 7 5 4 1 1 1 0

Year 5 4 5 6 5 2 2 2 0

Year 6 2 3 4 6 4 4 4 0

Year 7 2 2 4 7 3 3 4 1

Year 8 1 2 4 5 4 4 5 2

Implied class distribution by Year Level based on Initial 2004

SNMY data (N = 3169)
© Dianne Siemon 13
13
Targeted teaching works
For example, students in an identified sub-sample of at-
risk students within the SNMY Project demonstrated major
shifts in achievement against the Learning and Assessment
Framework for Multiplicative Thinking (LAF) as a result of
an 18 week, 2 sessions per week teaching program*
(Breed, 2011)

Participants: 9 Year 6 students identified at Level 1

of the Framework in May 2004
Results: All 9 students achieved at Level 4 or 5
of the Framework in November 2005

* A copy of the Intervention Teaching Program for At Risk Students is included in the SNMY
Project Findings, Materials and Resources available on the DEECD and TasEd websites.
© Dianne Siemon 14
 Products of SNMY Research:

• A set of valid and reliable tasks that can be used with

confidence to assess multiplicative thinking across Year
levels;
• An evidence-based Learning Assessment
Framework for Multiplicative Thinking that can be
used to inform targeted teaching approaches;
• 8 Learning Plans per cluster (24 in all), one for each
zone/level of the framework; and
• A number of school-based authentic tasks.

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/
discipline/maths/assessment/Pages/scaffoldnum.aspx

© Dianne Siemon 15
Reframing Mathematical Futures (RMF)
(AMSPP Priority Project, 2013):
Aim: To improve multiplicative thinking and proportional
reasoning in Years 7 to 10 using the SNMY materials and a
supported targeted teaching approach …

Something more needed …

• At-risk student responses to MYNRP interviews (Siemon,
Virgona & Corneille, 2001)
• Variable success of targeted teaching in secondary
schools (SNMY Final Report, 2006)
• Role of affect and relationships in effective targeted
teaching (Breed, 2011)

© Dianne Siemon
16
Views of ‘at risk’ students
Change the way it s explained, they need to think about how you
understand, not how they explain” (Vincent, Year 9, MYNRP, 2001)

Disengagement has as much to do with student perceptions of how

they are treated by their teachers as the teaching practices used …
A sense of cultural connectedness and mutual respect appears
more likely to encourage constructive, risk-taking, explorative
behaviour than feelings of alienation or uncertainty.
Engagement comes with self-esteem, identity and agency. It is
a consequence of success not a pre-requisite for success.

It requires sufficient time with students to develop trust

and supportive relationships and the flexibility to spend
time with those who need it the most.

Final Report of the Middle Years Numeracy Research Project (1999-2000)

Adolescent Learners
Learn best when they:
• have high levels of confidence and self-esteem,
• are strongly motivated to learn, and
• are able to learn in an environment characterised by ‘high challenge
coupled with low threat’.
OECD (2002). Understanding the brain: towards a new learning science.
Paris: OECD Publications Service

Sagor and Cox (2004) identified five essential feelings they believe are
crucial to a young person’s well-being and success at school:
• the need to feel competent,
• the need to feel they belong, Sagor, R. & Cox, J. (2004). At-risk
• the need to feel useful, students: Reaching them and teaching
them. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education
• the need to feel potent, and
• the need to feel optimistic.
Expectations of RMF Specialists:
• Identify participating teachers (two per school)
• Administer SNMY Assessment Options (at least four
classes per school)
• Use project grants* to meet with team:
o to mark and moderate SNMY responses
o plan targeted teaching approach (when, where, how… CBUPO)
o identify and source relevant resources and activities
o review progress, share activities, build up resources
• Liaise with the project mentor to identify professional
learning needs, seek advice
• Contribute to Collaborate sessions to share
observations, resources, ideas and activities
* Two grants of $4500/school to fund time release, resources etc
© Dianne Siemon 19
 Dripstone Middle School
Rosberry Middle School
Sanderson Middle School
Batchelor Area School St Peter Claver College
St Theresa’s CC
Seton College
Unity College
Whyalla HS St Patrick’s College

Victor Harbour HS AMSPP Priority

Valley View HS Project Schools
Roma Mitchell SC 2013
Le Fevre HS Preston Girls SC
Murray Bridge HS Hampton Park SC
North Geelong SC
Millicent HS Cranbourne SC
Mentors:
Margarita Breed Naracoorte HS Hume Central SC
Sue Gunningham
Sharyn Livy Wynyard HS
Jude Ocean Parklands HS
Di Siemon Sheffield School
Ulverstone Hs Montrose Bay HS
© Dianne Siemon 20
Data Collection:
Data collected July/August and November 2013
• Complete SNMY data sets from just over 1700 students
across Years 7 to 10
• Student surveys (attitudes, perceptions of competence,
belonging, usefulness, potency and optimism)
• Specialist and Teacher surveys (experience, pedagogical
content knowledge, reflections)
• Field notes from school visits
• Artifacts (resources, photos, posters, planning
documents)
• Student journals (where available)
• Principal report on funding, in-kind support, perceived
value of project and future intentions
© Dianne Siemon 21
One school’s experience:
Specialist: Natalie Banks

• 4 Year 8 classes. Do Daillies

• 2 x 50 min RMF lessons/week
• 2 classes combined for RMF lessons
• students grouped into SNMY Zones for RMF lessons
• 2 teachers and specialist (1 teacher to 2-3 Zones)
© Dianne Siemon 22
• Resources organised
• Project books
provided

© Dianne Siemon 23
Results for students who completed the
SNMY Tests in August and November 2013
30

25

20

15 Aug-13

10 Nov-13

0
Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

August 2013 November 2013

Effect Adj
No. Av.
Mean SD Mean SD Correl Size / Effect
School Students Diff
Year Size
Rosebery Middle
70 3.49 1.87 4.31 2.12 0.713 0.83 1.66 1.18
School

No. Zones Moved -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

No. of Students 1 13 0 18 15 4 2 1
© Dianne Siemon 24
Positives of the targeted teaching approach
• Increased engagement - reduction in
challenging behaviour – improved outcomes
• Improved reflective practice of students and
teachers
• Students felt empowered and there was greater
ownership of their own learning
• Increased resilience … student leadership [The] students were highly
engaged and loved project time.
Peer tutoring just happened.
Their post surveys indicated they
were enjoying maths …
Students wanted to know what
they needed to know to move to
the next zone – this inspired
them to engage even more.
The student’s reflections became
very clearly focussed on what
they learnt and what they needed
to learn (Natalie Banks, 2014)
© Dianne Siemon 25
Challenges of the targeted teaching
approach
• Demanding on teachers, particularly at the
outset
• Providing feedback on journal entries time
consuming but worth the effort
• Need to be organised, understand
activities and build up resources
• Activities need to be clear and students
need to access to material/resources
• ESL students need additional support
• Some students need to be encouraged to
work in groups
• Need dedicated marking, moderating and
planning time
• Set timetable, shared spaces and Seen to be worth it!
designated tutor needed for greatest The ‘RMF targeted teaching’
benefit approach was extended to the
whole school in 2014
© Dianne Siemon 26
Results for students who completed the
SNMY Tests in February and November
2014
Year 7 (N = 136) Effect Size = 0.97
No. Zones Moved -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
No. of Students 1 5 10 31 31 26 23 7 1 1

Year 8 (N = 139) Effect Size = 0.4

No. Zones Moved -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
No. of Students 2 3 10 25 41 33 18 5 2 0 0

Year 9 (N = 110) Effect Size = 0.37

No. Zones Moved -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
No. of Students 3 6 5 20 22 19 25 3 6 0 1

Some issues with implementation and testing in 2014

(particularly for Year 9) but persisting with approach in 2015
and participating in RMFII
© Dianne Siemon 27
AMSPP Priority Project: SNMY Data
Complete (i.e., matched) data sets were obtained from 1732 students,
with the majority of students in Year 8
Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
19% 59% 20% 2%
Approximate proportion of students by Year Level

Student raw scores were translated to LAF zones/levels using the SNMY
Raw Score Translator.
Matched pairs were used to calculate effect size using the means and
standard deviations of the pre and post test LAF zone/level data for each
school.
Effect sizes were extrapolated to one year and adjusted for regression to
benchmark the results.

Result: an overall adjusted effect size of 0.65, which is well above

Hattie’s (2012) benchmark effect size of 0.4, but considerable variation
across schools
© Dianne Siemon 28
Overall improvement in student LAF Levels

25.0 22% in Zone 4 (Aug)

47% in Zones 1-3 (Aug) 19% in Zone 4 (Nov)
42% in Zones 1-3 (Nov)
20.0
31% in Zones 5-8 (Aug)
40% in Zones 5-8 (Nov)
15.0

August
10.0 November

5.0

0.0
LAF1 LAF2 LAF3 LAF4 LAF5 LAF6 LAF7 LAF8

Percentage of students at each LAF level, all students, August and

November 2013 (N =1732)
© Dianne Siemon 29
Understanding why…
Reasons for the differential results across schools, were explored at
Project Workshop 2 in February 2014.
While there are a range of factors that impact student achievement, many
of which are beyond the control of teachers and students, the following
factors were offered as reasons for the significant improvement in student
SNMY results.
• Teacher engagement with the process, use of LAF to adopt a more targeted
teaching approach and share teaching ideas and resources
• Good use made of funds to support collaborative planning and resource
development
• Availability of dedicated teaching spaces where differentiated resources could
be stored and accessed easily
• Capacity to combine two or more classes to facilitate grouping by LAF Zones
• Team teaching and access to Specialist support staff
• Use of group work, concrete materials, student-directed activities, reflective
journals and peer tutoring.

© Dianne Siemon 30
One of the recognised factors impacting student achievement is the level
of student engagement in the testing process. As a result, in the
November testing, schools were asked to rate each student by level of
engagement using a scale of 1 (low) to 3 (high). While not all schools
provided this data – the results are interesting for those that did.

Comparison of achievement by high and low engagement (N=928)

© Dianne Siemon 31
Student Surveys
There was no discernable difference between the Likert items (statements
rated in the basis of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) in the August
and November 2013 data (effect sizes very small).
However, there was some evidence of a shift in student perceptions in
relation to the more direct questions concerning the five essential feelings
included in the November Student survey (n=931 matched pairs) rated on a
scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree) (effect sizes small).

Thinking about maths … Aug Nov

I feel competent 6.6 6.5
I feel I belong in maths classes 5.7 6.8
I feel useful 5.6 6.5
I feel I have choices in maths 5.8 6.7
I feel optimistic about maths 5.5 6.4

Comparison of mean ratings on CBUPO questions,

November 2013 (n=931)
© Dianne Siemon 32
Student’s perceptions of school mathematics
Analysis of student responses to the two open-ended questions on the
August & November Student Surveys, that is,
• What aspect of maths do you enjoy the most?
• What things about maths do you find most difficult or frustrating?
are consistent with the student interview data from the Middle Years
Numeracy Research Project (Siemon, Virgona, & Corneille, 2001).

That is, students desire and value:

• understanding and success,
• caring, respectful teachers,
• quality explanations, and varied teaching methods.
They find algebra, fractions and decimals difficult and they resent being
singled out, not receiving assistance when they need it, and off-task,
classroom behaviour.

© Dianne Siemon 33
Drawing Task (McDonough, 2002)
Think of a situation when you are learning maths well. Draw it. Then,
describe your drawing
Responses to this task were requested in both the August and November
Surveys. Some interesting trends emerged

Initial Category % Aug % Nov

Algorithms or text, no reference to self or others 12 7
No response, unclear/irrelevant, sad/frustrated 23 3
Sitting alone in classroom (neutral/happy expression) 15 17
Teacher and self 12 11
Working with other students 15 24
Teacher primary focus in classroom 13 14
Games, manipulatives, real-world 5 13

Major features of student drawings, August and November

2013 (indicative sample)
© Dianne Siemon 34
 No response, unclear/irrelevant, sad/frustrated

Algorithms or text, no reference to self or others

Just confused and angry with the noise and the maths

© Dianne Siemon 35
 Teacher and self

Algorithms or text, no reference to self or others

A young student is getting frustrated on a maths question,

but the teacher can see he/she needs help, so the teacher
comes over and helps the stuck child.

© Dianne Siemon 36
Reframing Mathematical Futures II (AMSPP
Competitive Grant Project, 2014-2017):
Aim: To build a sustainable, evidence-based, integrated
learning and teaching resource to support the development
of mathematical reasoning in Years 7 to 10
Focus: Identifying the ‘Big Ideas’ in algebraic, spatial and
statistical thinking, implementing and evaluating a targeted
teaching approach that “covers the curriculum” …
Partners:
• Brisbane Catholic Education Office
• Department of Education (TAS)
• Department of Education (WA)
• Department of Education and Child Development (SA)
• Department of Education and Communities (NSW)
• Department of Education and Training (VIC)
• Department of Education (NT)

© Dianne Siemon 37
RMFII Research Team:
RMIT:
• Di Siemon (Project Leader)
• Tasos Barkatsas
• Rebecca Seah
• Sandra van der Pal (Project Manager)
• Claudia Johnstone and Claudia Orrellana (Project Support)

Expert Advisory Panel:

• Rosemary Callingham and Jane Watson (University of Tasmania)
• Lorraine Day (University of Notre Dame, WA)
• Marj Horne (Australian Catholic University, Vic)
• Will Morony (AAMT)
• Max Stephens (Adjunct Professor, RMIT)
• Bruce White (University of South Australia)

• Mike Askew (Monash University)

© Dianne Siemon 38
Research Questions
• To what extent can we develop rich tasks to accurately identify
key points in the development of mathematical reasoning in the
junior secondary years?
• To what extent can we gather evidence about each student’s
achievements with respect to these key points to inform the
development of a coherent learning and assessment
framework?
• To what extent does working with the tasks and the knowledge
they provide about student understanding assist teachers to
improve student’s mathematical performance at this level?
• What strategies and/or teaching approaches are effective in
scaffolding mathematical reasoning in the middle years?
• What are the key features of classroom organisation, culture
and discourse needed to support/scaffold students’
mathematical reasoning at this level?
© Dianne Siemon 39
 Mathematical Reasoning?
… capacity for logical thought and actions, such as analysing, evaluating,
proving, explaining, inferring, justifying and generalising (Australian
Curriculum: Mathematics, ACARA, 2015, p. 5)

Mathematical reasoning is not something that students walk into your

classroom knowing how to do, and what you expect of them. Rather it is a
process that must be learned while you are teaching the content.
http://christenvannewkirk.weebly.com/uploads/7/6/4/9/7649111/
what_is_mathematical_reasoning.pdf

Mathematical reasoning involves much more than

asking ‘Why …?” but it is a good start, for example,
• Why is the surface area of a solid cylinder: height x
circumference + 2 x area of the base?
• When solving linear equations, why do you have to do
the same thing to both sides of the equation?
© Dianne Siemon 40
 For the purposes of the RMFII project:
Mathematical reasoning encompasses:
i. core knowledge needed to recognise, interpret, represent and
analyse algebraic, spatial, statistical and probabilistic situations
and the relationships/connections between them;
ii. ability to apply that knowledge in unfamiliar situations to solve
problems, generate and test conjectures, make and defend
generalisations; and
iii. a capacity to communicate reasoning and solution strategies in
multiple ways (i.e. diagramatically, symbolically and orally).
Students are reasoning mathematically when they:
• explain their thinking,
• deduce and justify strategies used and conclusions reached,
• adapt the known to the unknown,
• transfer learning from one context to another,
• prove that something is true or false; and
• compare and contrast related ideas and explain their choices
(http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/mathematics/rationale)
© Dianne Siemon 41
Algebraic Reasoning:
A Year 8 student’s response to Medicine Doses problem*
Age
Child dose = Adult dose x
Age + 12

(a) If the adult dose for a particular medication is 15 mL, what would be the
appropriate dose for a 6 year-old child?

(b) A nurse used the formula to work out the dose for an 8 year-old boy. She
correctly calculates it as 6 mL. What was the adult dose in this case?

* Task from Beesey et al (1998), data from MYNRP (Siemon et al, 2001)
Spatial Reasoning:
What is involved in solving the following? problems?

O is the centre of a circle of

diameter 17 cm.
A B ABC is a right triangle with
36o
5 cm the dimensions shown.
What is the length of the
O C line AC?

A B

O C

Find the area of the shaded part if the diameter

of the circle is 22 cm and ABCD is a square C D

© Dianne Siemon 43
What is involved in solving the following? problems?

A hiker walked 3 km North, 5 km

South West then 2 km East.
Where was he in relation to his
starting point ?

Statistical Reasoning:
A B Ariana had a goal-shooting average of 12
goals before the finals? In the semi-final
she scored 18 goals and in the final she
O C
scored 15 goals. What was her end-of-
season average?
…. connections between related concepts,
confidence to use the familiar to develop
new ideas (ACARA) …
© Dianne Siemon 44
 Proportional Reasoning:
Seeing the forest for the trees*
The following table shows information for four countries on
total land area, forest and woodland area and population.

Forest &
Total land area
woodland area Population
(sq. km)
(sq. km)
Japan 376 520 251 000 124 960 000
USA 9 573 110 2 862 000 260 631 000
Australia 7 644 440 1 450 000 18 238 000
France 550 100 149 310 57 747 000
This data from public sources at the time - it would need to be updated to reflect current situation

Use the information to rank the four countries (1, 2, 3, 4) in terms of

people’s access to forest and woodland in these countries.
Explain clearly how you arrived at your ranking, showing all relevant
calculations.

© Dianne Siemon
* Task from Beesey et al (1998) 45
 Our approach:
Our approach is premised on the view that learning cannot be achieved
without accurate information about what each student knows
already and what might be within their grasp with some support from
teacher and/or peers. This requires a clear understanding of:
• key mathematical ideas, representations and strategies
• how they are connected, and Evidence-based
• how they might be acquired over time. developmental
progressions/frameworks
(e.g. SNMY)
But it also requires:
• assessment techniques that expose student thinking,
• interpretations of what the thinking might mean in relation to the
key ideas and strategies, and
• access to professional learning and resources to address the
particular learning needs identified.
Professional learning modules, targeted
teaching resources – public access (AAMT)
© Dianne Siemon 46
 Plan: Research evidence-based learning trajectories
(developmental frameworks or HLTs)

Algebra Geometry & Statistics & Probability

Lorraine Day Measurement Rosemary Callingham
Marj Horne Tasos Barkatsas Jane Watson
Max Stephens Rebecca Seah

Develop and trial rich tasks to assess the key ideas, strategies and thinking
identified by the learning trajectories in 2015. Use to assess student thinking in
February/March 2016

Analyse student data using Rasch Modelling. Develop learning

and teaching framework(s) for Mathematical Reasoning

Work with teachers to support targeted teaching approaches to

Mathematical Reasoning.
Assess student thinking in November 2016

© Dianne Siemon 47
Anticipated Outcomes:
In addition to publications, an integrated learning and
teaching resource will be developed and disseminated
via a web-based portal in collaboration with the Australian
Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT).
This will include:
• validated assessment tools,
• an evidence-based framework for developing
mathematical reasoning across the three domains;
• targeted teaching advice for each level of the
framework, and
• task-based professional learning modules aimed at
deepening teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge for
teaching Year 7 to 10 mathematics.
© Dianne Siemon 48