Interview at Math Frolic!

I greatly enjoyed being a part of Shecky Rieman’s  interview series at Math-Frolic!

http://math-frolic.blogspot.com/2012/10/patrick-honner-of-mrhonner.html

Shecky asked a number of thoughtful questions which were fun for me to ponder and respond to, including questions about my take on the “Is Algebra Necessary?” debate and my series of posts on the quality of New York State Regents exams.

There series also includes interviews with other interesting figures in math and math education, like James Grime, John Golden, and Sol Lederman.

Thanks to Shecky for putting together such a nice series!

TIME 2000 Conference

I will be running workshops for students at the upcoming TIME 2000 conference at Queens College.

This conference showcases the TIME 2000 program at Queen’s College, which supports undergraduate students in studying mathematics and math education.  Renowned math educator Dan Meyer will be giving the keynote address.

The conference is Friday, November 16th, and is open to high school students who are considering mathematics education as a possible career.

Mathblogging.org Profile

Mathblogging.org is running a series of profiles of math bloggers called Mathematical Instruments, and I am happy to be their latest subject.  You can learn a little bit more about me and my blogging history here:

http://mathblogging.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/mr-honner/

Mathblogging.org has played a significant role in my development as a math blogger, so I am quite proud to be a part of this series.

Around the time I started putting together my website, Mathblogging.org came into existence.  Mathblogging instantly connected me to dozens (and ultimately, hundreds) of other math bloggers from the worlds of academia, industry, and education.  It was a place for me to see what different people were writing about and where the conversations were happening.  I felt an immediate sense of community, which made my own blogging seem more relevant.

And I was always excited and proud to make Mathblogging’s Weekly Picks.  It gave me a sense that people were actually reading, and enjoying, what I was publishing.  That positive feedback encouraged me to continue writing about math, taking mathematical photographs, and reflecting about what I could share with the greater math and education community.

So happy birthday to Mathblogging.org!  Thank you for connecting me to so many fascinating and inspiring people, and for helping me find my place in the math blogging community.

Another Embarrassingly Bad Math Exam Question

As part of my review of the 2012 August New York State Math Regents exams, I came upon this question, which rivals some of the worst I have seen on these tests.  This is #11 from the Geometry exam.

This question purports to be about knowing when we can conclude that two intersecting planes are perpendicular.  Sadly, the writers, editors, and publishers responsible for this question clearly do not understand the mathematics of this situation.

Each of the answer choices is a statement about two lines in the given planes being perpendicular.  The problem suggests that three of these statements provide sufficient information to conclude that the given planes are perpendicular.  The student’s task is thus to identify which one of the four statements does not provide sufficient information to draw that conclusion.

There is a serious and substantial flaw in the reasoning that underlies this question:

Knowing that two lines are perpendicular could never be sufficient information to conclude that two containing planes are perpendicular.

In fact, given any two intersecting planes, you can always find two perpendicular lines contained therein, regardless of the nature of their intersection.  A simple demonstration of this fact can be seen here.  Thus, knowing that the planes contain a pair of perpendicular lines tells you nothing at all about how the planes intersect.

It’s not that this particular question has no correct answer; it’s that the suggestion that this question could have an answer demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the relevant mathematics.

How much does this matter?  It’s a two-point question, it’s flawed, so we throw it out.  No harm done, right?

Well, imagine a student taking this exam, whose grade for the entire year, or perhaps even their graduation, depends on the outcome of this test.  Imagine the student encountering this problem, a problem that not only has no correct answer, but whose very statement is at odds with what is mathematically true.  It’s not out of the realm of possibility that in struggling to understanding this erroneously-conceived question, a student might get rattled and lose confidence.  Test anxiety is a well-known phenomenon.  The effect of this problem may well extend past the two points.

Teachers are also affected.  A teacher’s job may depend upon how students perform on these exams, but there isn’t any discussion about their validity.  A completely erroneous question makes it through the writing, editing, and publishing process, and has an unknown affect on overall performance.  After thousands of students have taken the exam, a quiet “correction” is issued, and the problem is erased from all public versions of the test.

What’s most troubling about this, to me, is that this is not an isolated incident.  Year after year, problems like this appear on these exams.  And when confronted with criticism, politicians, executives, and administrators dismiss these errors as “typos”, or “disagreements in notation.”

These aren’t typos.  These aren’t disagreements about notation.  These are mathematically flawed questions that appear on exams whose express purpose is to assess the mathematical knowledge of students and, indirectly, the ability of teachers to teach that knowledge.  If the writers of these exams regularly demonstrate a lack of mathematical understanding, how can we use these exams to decide who deserves to pass, who deserves to graduate, and who deserves to keep their jobs?

Related Posts

 

Relatively Prime: 1 + 1 = 2

Samuel Hansen has put together a wonderful podcast series, “Relatively Prime: Stories from the Mathematical Domain”, which offers engaging conversations about mathematics in action.

I am happy to have participated in the episode “1 + 1 = 2”, about the challenges facing mathematics education.  The episode can be downloaded here:

http://relprime.com/oneplusoneequalstwo/

Samuel Hansen speaks with John Ewing, president of Math for America, as well as noted math educators Dan Meyer and Keith Devlin.  In the segment on Math for America, I speak briefly about the positive impact this organization has had on my career.

I was proud to be able to represent MfA, and I am grateful to Samuel for letting me be a small part of this great project!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: