-Assignment 2-

NAPLAN YEAR 7 NUMERACY (NON-CALCULATOR)

Question Link to
Answer Comments/Working mathematically
number syllabus
1 D MA4-4NA
2 D MA3-6NA
3 B MA3-7NA
4 B MA4-9NA
5 C MA3-17MG
6 D MA3-8NA
7 E MA3-14MG
8 10 MA4-12MG
9 2 or -2 MA4-10NA
10 B MA4-7NA
11 C MA4-15MG MA4-2WM: students need to convert years to months before doing
the operation with the integers
12 B MA3-8NA
13 C MA4-15MG
14 C MA4-5NA MA4-2WM: mathematical technique to solve the problem (10/40 ×
100)
15 128 MA3-16MG
16 B MA3-7NA Students operate again with fractions (and equivalent fractions) in
stage 4
17 40 MA3-18SP (MA4-5NA)
18 30 MA3-14MG
19 402 × 5 MA3-6NA MA3-2WM: Students need to think about the inverse operation
20 D MA3-7NA
21 D MA3-15MG Students go again through the lines of symmetry in stage 4
(MA4-17MG)
22 A MA3-17MG
23 1250 MA3-11MG
24 A MA3-14MG Students visualise and sketch again three-dimensional objects from
different views in stage 4 (MA4-14MG)
25 C MA4-19SP
26 150 MA4-11NA
27 150 MA4-18MG MA4-3WM: students need to find the angle of 30 degrees, which is
done by dividing 180 degrees by 6
28 D MA4-5NA
29 A MA3-7NA Students operate/locate again fractions n a number line in stage 4
(MA4-5NA)
30 256 MA4-8NA
31 C MA4-14MG MA4-2WM: students need to recognise that each side is doubled
which means that the volume should be multiplied by 8 and not 2.
32 300 MA4-7NA
 Three year 7 students from the same class and school were chosen to do the NAPLAN

year 7 numeracy (non-calculator) test. Students A, B and C scored 4, 8 and 10 out of 32,

respectively. They are all low ability students which explains their poor performance in the

test. It should be noted that students A and C arrived to Australia four years ago and are both

English as second language learners however, they both performed at different levels in the

test. Both students had previous schooling in their country of origin and have literacy skills

in their first language. Student A got the lowest mark on the test but, unfortunately, was not

able to attend the meeting for the interview and as a result, student B was interviewed.

Student C’s performance was the highest among the three students yet, below the average in

Australia. Student C is also one of the top in his class.

Students A and B answered incorrectly all the questions related to Measurement and

Geometry whereas student C gave the right answers for the ones related to the MA3-14MG,

MA4-12MG and MA4-14MG outcomes. Their teacher stated that a fair amount of time was

spent on reviewing three-dimensional shapes and volume, however, this was during term 1

and 2, and may have since been forgotten. In her opinion, this is a common occurrence in

low ability students. The “Angle Relationships” topic has not been covered yet- it will be

covered in term 4- and this may explain why all three students got the wrong answers for the

questions related to this unit of work. On the other hand, all these questions were covered in

stage 3 but as mentioned earlier, these students may not be able to remember topics done in

previous stages if they cannot recall information from previous terms.

All students incorrectly answered questions related to MA4-5NA (percentages),

MA4-7NA, and MA4-10NA outcomes since they have not been covered yet this year. It

should be noted that they have not been also covered in stage 3. In stage 3, students find
percentages of quantities but not the quantities as percentages. Students B and C got the right

answers for the fraction and decimal questions (student B missed only question 20- this is

discussed in the second part of the essay). Student B also answered correctly the questions

related to the “Statistics and Probability” unit but incorrectly the questions related to patterns

and algebra which might be an issue when doing equations in term 4.

Student C was also interviewed out of curiosity to see why he made his mistakes.

Surprisingly, less than the half of the 22 questions that he got wrong the first time were

answered correctly the second time after the first or second step from Newman’s Error

Analysis. When asked to read aloud the questions, student C was “Ohhhh… Now I got it”.

These were referred as “careless” errors and which is discussed in the second part of the

essay.

Overall, students’ performed very low in the test because they were not able to recall

information from previous terms or year.

 Newman’s Error Analysis

The Newman interview was done with student B fifteen minutes after the test to

ensure that the three students did not talk about their solutions as recommended by Professor

Clements (White, 2005).

Student B’s errors were classified as being transformation and careless errors. Only the error

in question 20 was classified as a process error. Transcripts for the most occurring errors are

given and discussed.

The first step in Newman’s analysis is to ask the student to read the question for which she

got the wrong answer. Student B could read all the words correctly in all questions so no

reading error was identified. In the transcripts, “T” stands for the interviewer and “S” for the

student.

Question 7: (original answer D)

T: What is the question asking you to do?

S: It means to…. It is asking me to find the opposite face of C which means to find the face

facing C. So I fold the F.. and A.. and umm.. E.. so fold, fold, fold and roll B and

D….Ohhhh…. the C and E are facing each other!

It is clear that the student grasped the meaning of the words and comprehended the question.

She was also able to work out the answer before the interviewer got the chance to proceed to

step three. When doing the work out the second time, she realised her mistake. According to

Newman hierarchy of error causes, which was illustrated by Clements (1980) (as cited in

Clements & Ellerton, 1996), this is considered as a careless error during the transformation

process. White (2005) also stated that if a student attempted the question a second time and

gave the right answer after the Newman requests, the error would be classified as “Careless”.

Even though the careless error is an error that is unlikely to be repeated, the student got many
careless errors during the comprehension and transformation stages. It can be argued that she

is really good at explaining aloud what to do and how she is going to solve the problem but

when it comes to the test, as she is required to be quiet, she answers incorrectly because she

cannot hear her own voice and answers. Likewise, as mentioned earlier, student C answered

correctly many questions during the second attempt because he was able to read the questions

out loud. This was discussed with their teacher, who agreed that student B is very good at

explaining topics to others, and it was found that she uses group work all the time in the

class. Even the seating arrangement is made for collaborative learning (connected desks).

According to the teacher, who teaches all subjects to this class, this is very beneficial when

dealing with low-achieving students because they can help each other. Moreover, whenever

she questions them, they can have a discussion with their group members to come up with a

solution so that they do not feel embarrassed if they got the wrong answer. As a result,

students do not know how to work independently and quietly. Therefore, a good strategy to

overcome this issue is to spare little time during each lesson to independent work so that

students, like student B, learn how to think in their heads.

Question 16: (original answer A)

T: What is the question asking you to do?

S: It’s like lollipops. I have 12 apple flavoured and 24 strawberry flavoured ….So in this

problem I have 12 green apples and 24 red. I have…umm... I need to find the fraction, the

part of green apples.

T: Now tell me what method you used to find the answer.

S: Okay… It’s half… So 12 is half of the 24 which means 1 over 2.

The student understood what the question was asking her to do. However, when she had to

model it mathematically, she did not express a part of a whole. This is classified as a
transformation error (Clements & Ellerton, 1996; White, 2005). At this stage, she was not

taught yet about ratios (which is also not part of stage 3 syllabus) so it cannot be argued that

she got confused between fractions and ratios. On the other hand, it can be argued that she

did not grasp the concept of fractions which is expressing a part of a whole. Student B lost

the sense of the whole (Gould, 2005). This is what Skemp (1978) referred as instrumental

understanding. Another problem will arise when this student will be taught about ratios in

term 4: she will not be able to differentiate between fractions and ratios. Moreover, in the

first part, it was mentioned that the teacher thought it is normal for low ability students to

forget topics from previous terms. This is an evidence that these students are being taught in

an instrumental way. If they have been taught in a relational way, it would have been easier

for them to remember the topics (Skemp, 1978). Skemp (1978) mentioned that it is true that

instrumental teaching is easier and faster however, since students have so many rules to

remember separately without being connected, they tend to forget about them. This is what

is happening with these students.

Question 11: (original answer D)

T: What is the question asking you to do?

S: To find the how many months older is Jenny than Ken… So Jenny is older than Ken, I

need to find the difference.

T: How did you work it out?

S: Okay… So I thought the answer is going to be 21 which gives me 38….ummm…Ken is

17 months old and Jenny is 3… It should be 3 minus 17…umm… I’m not sure… I can’t find

the answer now.

Here again, the error was classified as a transformation error. The student could not

remember how she did the work out the first time. She remembered that her answer was 21
and tried to backtrack her steps. Then she tried again to solve it however, she did not

recognise that the units were mixed; she was more focused on trying to manipulate the

numbers in the question. Teaching students to underline the units in a problem might be

beneficial so that they do not forget about converting the units as student B did.

Regarding the process error in question 20, student B was able to get through the first

three stages, but during the transformation stage, she decided to perform a normal

multiplication because she did not realise that multiplying a number by 10 could be solved

by moving the decimal point one step to the right. During the process stage, she did not place

the decimal point and as result her answer was 3790 instead of 379.

The purpose of assessing students is to measure their understanding and not the

number of correct or incorrect answers. Newman’s Error Analysis is an effective procedure

to know the reasons behind students’ mistakes and by “knowing the reasons for errors, the

teacher can adjust the teaching to overcome the weaknesses” (Watson as quoted in Wiens,

2007).
References

Clements, M. A., & Ellerton, N. (1996). The Newman procedure for analysing errors on

written mathematical tasks. Retrieved from https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/

Gould, P. (2005). Really broken numbers. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom,

10(3), 4-10. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/

Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics

Teaching, 77, 20–26. Retrieved from https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/

White, A. L. (2005). Active mathematics in classrooms: Finding out why children make

mistakes – and then doing something to help them. Square One: Primary Journal of

the Mathematical Association of New South Wales, 15(4). Retrieved from

https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/

Wiens, A. (2007). An Investigation into Careless Errors Made by 7th Grade Mathematics

Students. Summative Projects for MA Degree, 32. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mathmidsummative/32