Here is question 3 from the January 2017 New York Regents Exam in Algebra I (Common Core),
This question shocked me when I first saw it.
To get a taste of what such a correlation coefficient is, I suggest you take a look at Wolfram. New York State's EngageNY has an "introduction" to correlation coefficients (find it here) that says "It is not necessary for students to compute the correlation coefficient by hand, but if they want to know how this is done, you can share the formula" and then shows
It should be noted that this formula the bounds of summation and variable subscripts are omitted, so it is a meaningful formula only for those "in the know", and I suspect that very few Algebra I students fit that description.
Is this a case of presenting a "magic button" on a calculator as a key to answering a complex question? Is that how math should be taught?
New York's modules include the following:
Take note of the phrase "use technology". That essentially means the student should plug in the numbers, hit the necessary buttons, and find a result. It is more like following a recipe, and most people recognize that a recipe becomes unnecessary after it has been followed a number of times: not because it is not being followed and not because it is understood, but because it is remembered.
Here is a question from the August 2016 Algebra I Regents;
I would suspect that after enough repetitions of the recipe some students might have caught on and realized that the choices offered make this question a bit easier than it would have been had the data been a bit different and the choices involved some seemingly random 4-digit decimals. Perhaps that might be why questions such as this have, over the years, been categorized as "cookbook" problems.
The next question here is from the Algebra I Regents exam from August 2015:
There is absolutely no way any student will successfully answer this question without following a recipe on their graphic calculator. I do not know why NYS left all the space on the page as all that is asked of the student is to write down one equation and then a two digit decimal together with one word.
Here is a similar question from the January 2015 Algebra I exam:
The big difference here is the 60% increase in time entering the data (16 values instead of 10) and the explanation of part (b). But again, it's enter two columns of data, hit a couple more keys on the calculator, and read off a result.
A similar process is involved in the next question, the big difference is that it asks the student to pick an item from a different line in the calculator's display:
Do all these questions belong in Algebra I?
Are these items here only because of the lobbying efforts of the companies that sell the graphic calculators?
I would much rather see students get the flavor of least squares analysis by using FREE software such as GeoGebra. For an example, check out the Least Squares Demonstration here.
While correlation coefficient seems to be an easy testable item (when proper calculator is present), it should be recognized that it is merely a measurement of how well a regression line actually "fits" the data. The true mathematical questions begin with the regression line itself: what it is, why it is, why it is useful, when is it useful, how we know it is the "best" fit, what do we do when this is not useful, and many others. For a sense of the current state of regression analysis, just visit Wikipedia.
Please take note: correlation coefficients and a slew of its tag-a-longs could fit in high school mathematics, but not in Algebra I. Dynamic geometric approaches to concepts such as least squares could be well developed in an Algebra I course, using software such as Desmos or Geogebra or other equivalent packages.
The biggest problems with high school mathematics occur when students are expected to know and do things mindlessly. Recipes need to be avoided. Magic buttons on calculators need to be avoided like poinson needs to be avoided.
The true value and meaning of the quadratic formula comes only to one who tires of completing the square. Completing the square obtains its true value and meaning when one tires of trying to find factors (especially when they do not exist!). The real meaning of factoring comes to one who is fed up with constantly having to guess and check. There is a hierarchy to the knowledge and skills of mathematics. Jumping too quickly to a higher level does a disservice to students.
Imagine what would happen if we limited single variable quadratics to finding intersections with the x-axis on a graphic calculator, and skipped over everything mentioned in the previous paragraph! It makes just as much sense as tossing regression analysis into Algebra I only because it can be done on a graphic calculator. Jumping too quickly to a higher level does a disservice to students, especially when that jump takes place largely do to the mere availability of a handheld calculator.