Alexis Flanders

Over the past two weeks, my understanding of teaching data and probability has deepened in an important way. I used to think of this content area as fairly straightforward: collect data, make a graph, answer questions. Now I’m realizing that while students can often complete those steps, they don’t always understand what the data actually means or, perhaps more importantly, why it matters.

I keep returning to something that feels obvious now but wasn’t before: data is not neutral. The examples we choose, the questions we ask, and even the way data is presented all shape how students interpret the world. Gutstein and Peterson (2013) emphasize that mathematics should help students understand their lives and surroundings, not just practice isolated skills. That made me reconsider how often I’ve relied on pre-made data sets or word problems that don’t connect to anything real for my students.

At the same time, I’ve been thinking a lot about access. In my classroom, I have students who can interpret patterns when data is visual or hands-on, but struggle when that same idea is embedded in a word problem. I wonder how often I’ve mistaken reading difficulty for a lack of mathematical understanding. What if some of my assessments are measuring literacy more than math? That question has pushed me to think more critically about how I design tasks and what I’m actually asking students to do.

Because of this, I’ve started to rethink what it means to teach data well. Instead of starting with a graph, I want to start with experiences. Taking students outside to collect their own data or having them build class graphs with tools like bingo dotters shifts both accessibility and engagement. One moment that stuck with me was when a student chose to collect trash instead of natural items and noticed that hot chip bags were the most common litter on our playground. That wasn’t just a graph, it became a conversation about patterns, habits, and their environment.

This is where data and probability move beyond a skill and become a way of interpreting the world.

This also connects to Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice (TMFSJ). I used to think this meant designing lessons around large, complex issues, but now I see it beginning with students’ own experiences. When students use data to understand their playground, classroom, or community, they begin to develop what Ladson-Billings (1995) describes as critical consciousness. They are not just doing math, they are using it to investigate, inquire, and improve their environment.

Moving forward, I’m still wondering how far to push these ideas. 

• What is the balance between skill development and deeper meaning? 
• What if I focused less on perfect graphs and more on student thinking and interpretation? 

I don’t have a complete answer yet, but I do know my approach to teaching data and probability will shift. It will be less about fulfilling a checklist and more about helping students make sense of the world around them.

References

Gutstein, E., & Peterson, B. (2013). Rethinking mathematics: Teaching social justice by the numbers. Rethinking Schools.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 22(3), 465–491.