The Geniuses' Thread

Chuchoter

Personally I think primary school teaching should have higher requirements-high Bs to As in Maths and Irish HL. Letting people in with substandard skills in a subject to teach the basics, which will follow kids round for the rest of their education and is very hard to undo, is reckless. Maths and Irish are ways of thinking, not just something you can learn without thinking about it.

My yay....I'm done my English essay :cool:

**Timbuk2**

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I did Honours Maths up to the Leaving Cert pre-exams. They didn't go very well, so I dropped down to pass for the June exams. Does that mean, even after three years of pedagogy and practice, you'd still feel I'm not qualified to teach maths to 11 and 12 year old children?

Well, I personally think anyone's teaching abilities isn't defined by what they get in the Leaving Cert, or what level they do it at! I was merely commenting on my confusion as why they expect people to get a certain grade in HL Irish, but no such thing exists for Maths? Why Irish? As I said above, it has less applications in real life than Maths, and the amount of times spent teaching Maths in primary school over Irish should reflect this. But it doesn't, they are thought equally (or at least they should be). So, if they are equal, why does Irish have the HL requirement whereas Maths does not?

EuropeanSon

crayolastereo wrote: »

Personally I think primary school teaching should have higher requirements-high Bs to As in Maths and Irish HL. Letting people in with substandard skills in a subject to teach the basics, which will follow kids round for the rest of their education and is very hard to undo, is reckless. Maths and Irish are ways of thinking, not just something you can learn without thinking about it.

My yay....I'm done my English essay :cool:

So do you think somebody's ability to do things like integration by parts and the more difficult aspects of LC Trigonometry has a bearing on their capacity to teach somebody to add, subtract, divide and multiply?

EuropeanSon

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Well, I personally think anyone's teaching abilities isn't defined by what they get in the Leaving Cert, or what level they do it at! I was merely commenting on my confusion as why they expect people to get a certain grade in HL Irish, but no such thing exists for Maths? Why Irish? As I said above, it has less applications in real life than Maths, and the amount of times spent teaching Maths in primary school over Irish should reflect this. But it doesn't, they are thought equally (or at least they should be). So, if they are equal, why does Irish have the HL requirement whereas Maths does not?

Because a person can do Ordinary Irish by learning stuff by heart and not speaking a word of Irish themselves, whereas Ordinary Maths requires you to at least be able to actually do the questions by yourself.

**Timbuk2**

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Because a person can do Ordinary Irish by learning stuff by heart and not speaking a word of Irish themselves, whereas Ordinary Maths requires you to at least be able to actually do the questions by yourself.

They can do that in HL too. I know I did, and got a B1. Did I understand half of the stuff I was writing or saying? No! What a terrific system (sarcasm)!

Either way, it does not come down to leaving cert results and levels. I know many people intending to do Primary School teaching. Some got enough points for the B.Ed (three years intense study dedicated to becoming a primary school teacher) and some who didn't do well enough for the B.Ed, who are instead doing the BA, and then a postgraduate (same qualification at the end, but it takes a year longer). Some people doing the BA that I know would make better teachers than those doing the B.Ed, as they are more patient and understanding and better at explaining things, even if they didn't get enough points in their leaving cert.

I'm not sure why there is an Irish requirement. Why just Irish? Why is there no requirement for History, Geography, Maths, Science, English etc. - they are all taught in primary schools as well.

I could understand if it was an Irish course they were doing, but it's not - it's a primary school teaching course. For the profession I want to go into, I needed to get an A1 or A2 in HL Maths, or otherwise I had to do an extra exam, but it makes sense in this instance, whereas an Irish requirement for an all-rounded course does not.

Sorry for arguing, I'm not trying to be rude, it's just my opinion debating somewhat stubbornly

Pygmalion

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Because a person can do Ordinary Irish by learning stuff by heart and not speaking a word of Irish themselves, whereas Ordinary Maths requires you to at least be able to actually do the questions by yourself.

To be fair I know some people who passed (and did well in) HL Maths purely by memorising formulae and not understanding it at all.
I'd say the vast majority of people I know who did OL did exactly this.

I don't really see the difference between memorising off essays then changing a couple of sentences to adapt it to the question and memorising off formulae then changing a couple of variables, except the former is far more obvious.
Neither will help you properly understand the subject/language at all.

I think OL maths is enough to teach primary school, but only if people actually put in the effort.
If I had a child I'd rather someone who properly understood the OL course teach them than someone who memorised a bunch of formulae for HL (Of course someone who properly understood the HL course would be good too, but really if you properly understand OL I'm not sure what benefit you'd get from doing HL if you just taught at primary school level).

Chuchoter

I don't know if anyone here has ever tried to teach maths to little kids but its very difficult, you need to be in a mathematical way of thinking before you can explain it properly. Does anyone remember being taught fractions, ratios and negative numbers by teachers who barely seemed to understand it properly themselves?

EuropeanSon

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't know if anyone here has ever tried to teach maths to little kids but its very difficult, you need to be in a mathematical way of thinking before you can explain it properly. Does anyone remember being taught fractions, ratios and negative numbers by teachers who barely seemed to understand it properly themselves?

I don't recall learning anything in primary school outside of history and geography. I don't think I did.

EuropeanSon

Pygmalion wrote: »

To be fair I know some people who passed (and did well in) HL Maths purely by memorising formulae and not understanding it at all.
I'd say the vast majority of people I know who did OL did exactly this.

I don't really see the difference between memorising off essays then changing a couple of sentences to adapt it to the question and memorising off formulae then changing a couple of variables, except the former is far more obvious.
Neither will help you properly understand the subject/language at all.

I think OL maths is enough to teach primary school, but only if people actually put in the effort.
If I had a child I'd rather someone who properly understood the OL course teach them than someone who memorised a bunch of formulae for HL (Of course someone who properly understood the HL course would be good too, but really if you properly understand OL I'm not sure what benefit you'd get from doing HL if you just taught at primary school level).

I've just realised my point is ridiculous and wholly inaccurate, so I'll retract it and agree with you.

Pygmalion

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I don't recall learning anything in primary school outside of history and geography. I don't think I did.

Ah, so you were just born with knowledge of fractions, ratios, basic mathematical operators and how they're written and performed.

EuropeanSon

Pygmalion wrote: »

Ah, so you were just born with knowledge of fractions, ratios, basic mathematical operators and how they're written and performed.

Nope. But I certainly don't think I learned them from primary school teachers. My parents had a greater role in that, I'm sure.

Insect Overlord

The teaching of Irish, and its status within the syllabus, is mostly due to political decisions over the past 88 years. Unfortunately, many of the early policies on reviving Irish as a language were short-sighted, poorly applied or just ignored. We've grown up witnessing the repercussions of this brutal approach to planning.

I think the difference in requirements for courses is more likely down to the availability (or lack thereof) of students with both HL Gaeilge and Maths who actually want to be teachers. I might be wrong, but that's my simple take on it.

Grindylow

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't know if anyone here has ever tried to teach maths to little kids but its very difficult, you need to be in a mathematical way of thinking before you can explain it properly. Does anyone remember being taught fractions, ratios and negative numbers by teachers who barely seemed to understand it properly themselves?

I've taught my neighbours children all their basic math skills and I'm in OL Maths. I pretty much teach a couple of people in my class how to do the Math too. The teacher gives them long winded explanations of it involving stuff that's completely unnecessary, whereas I just follow the questions myself and solve them (Some other people find it easier this way too, so ask me how to do them!). But yeah, it's fairly complicated to teach a child maths. I used marbles. :pac:

Insect Overlord

Insect Overlord wrote: »

That didn't answer my question

But the way you phrased your experience of maths made it seem like you could have done higher level, so your question was akin to asking if the Leaving Cert was a fair means of selection, which is why it's tricky to answer.

Also gg to whichever mod did the large amount of post moving and off-topic fixing.

Noel2k9 wrote:

I've taught my neighbours children all their basic math skills and I'm in OL Maths. I pretty much teach a couple of people in my class how to do the Math too. The teacher gives them long winded explanations of it involving stuff that's completely unnecessary, whereas I just follow the questions myself and solve them (Some other people find it easier this way too, so ask me how to do them!). But yeah, it's fairly complicated to teach a child maths. I used marbles.

Err, not all their maths skills, I hope?

Grindylow

Deleted User wrote: »

But the way you phrased your experience of maths made it seem like you could have done higher level, so your question was akin to asking if the Leaving Cert was a fair means of selection, which is why it's tricky to answer.

Also gg to whichever mod did the large amount of post moving and off-topic fixing.



Err, not all their maths skills, I hope?

...what? :P

Noel2k9

Noel2k9 wrote: »

...what? :P

You are of course not serious, right?

Richard Cranium

There is a flaw to the pro- Higher Level maths for primary teachers argument that needs to be pointed out again: being highly qualified in a subject does not imply that you are going to be good at teaching it.
If that were the case, there would be no bad lecturers at third level, as the majority will have doctorates as a basic qualification to teach undergrad material. However, as anyone who has been to college will attest, this is far from the case.


Teachers who can teach well are much more valuable than teachers who can (just) do their own Leaving Cert well. That goes for maths as well as every other subject.

That said, however, I would like to see some parity with regard to entry requirements. Maths and Irish should have the same entry requirement, be it a HC3 or not.

Richard Cranium

Richard Cranium wrote: »

There is a flaw to the pro- Higher Level maths for primary teachers argument that needs to be pointed out again: being highly qualified in a subject does not imply that you are going to be good at teaching it.
If that were the case, there would be no bad lecturers at third level, as the majority will have doctorates as a basic qualification to teach undergrad material. However, as anyone who has been to college will attest, this is far from the case.


Teachers who can teach well are much more valuable than teachers who can (just) do their own Leaving Cert well. That goes for maths as well as every other subject.

That said, however, I would like to see some parity with regard to entry requirements. Maths and Irish should have the same entry requirement, be it a HC3 or not.

Ah, we didn't say higher level maths on its own would be sufficient, just necessary.

A great teacher would have Higher Maths, but somebody in Higher Maths may not be a great teacher.
A => B but A is not <=> B.

KnifeWRENCH

Deleted User wrote: »

A great teacher would have Higher Maths, but somebody in Higher Maths may not be a great teacher.
A => B but A is not <=> B.

I don't think A => B, though. It's entirely possible to be a great teacher and not have higher maths.

Grindylow

Deleted User wrote: »

You are of course not serious, right?

I am "of course not serious" about what?

Pygmalion

Noel2k9 wrote: »

The teacher gives them long winded explanations of it involving stuff that's completely unnecessary, whereas I just follow the questions myself and solve them (Some other people find it easier this way too, so ask me how to do them!).

Are you actually teaching them Maths, or are you teaching them to blindly memorise an algorithm?
It sounds like the latter, which can be grand for just passing your LC, but IMO is something a good teacher would never do, and would make it very hard on students who intend to go on to study Maths/Science and don't properly learn the explanations.

Grindylow

Pygmalion wrote: »

Are you actually teaching them Maths, or are you teaching them to blindly memorise an algorithm?
It sounds like the latter, which can be grand for just passing your LC, but IMO is something a good teacher would never do, and would make it very hard on students who intend to go on to study Maths/Science and don't properly learn the explanations.

No. I don't just tell them what to do. I explain what the basics of the question is (the teacher just slaps something onto the board and expects them to do it) by telling them what each part of the question means, then by helping them do out said question and usually they pick it up after the first go.

KnifeWRENCH

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I don't think A => B, though. It's entirely possible to be a great teacher and not have higher maths.

Sorry, A is being a great teacher, B is having higher maths. I didn't specify. I was just giving the outright definition of necessity and didn't link it to the actual problem. My bad.

Noel2k9 wrote: »

I am "of course not serious" about what?

About being responsible for teaching somebody's children their numerical education.

Grindylow

Deleted User wrote: »

About being responsible for teaching somebody's children their numerical education.

Why wouldn't I be serious?

jumpguy

Throughout primary school my parents played an active role in teaching me stuff and helping me with my homework and the likes. My mother and my father always made a point about how maths was THE most important subject and put a load of emphasis on it. The only subject they couldn't help me with was Irish - cause they were shít at it too.

So it's no coincidence that Irish is now my worst subject (and has always been), and myself and maths are brothaz from another motha.

My point is, I think parents have a massive role to play also in the primary school education of their children, although supplemental, it is a huge and vital part. The blame for poor education cannot be solely laid on teachers, parents must also bear the brunt of some blame, especially ones who come home, don't ask their kids about school and plonk them in front of the TV for the day.

Noel2k9

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Why wouldn't I be serious?

They must have some other source of maths education. If they do, and you're just helping them along, teaching them other little things, then I applaud you. That's very noble.

If not, it's bad, as you have studied neither mathematics nor pedagogics.

Grindylow

Deleted User wrote: »

They must have some other source of maths education. If they do, and you're just helping them along, teaching them other little things, then I applaud you. That's very noble.

If not, it's bad, as you have studied neither mathematics nor pedagogics.

Yeah their teacher teaches them too, but they find most things difficult in class so I just make it funner for them! :P

Pygmalion

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

I also said I'd have my programming assignment finished by tonight - I haven't even started, so here goes

Moar details of this tbh, what assignment, and what language?

**Timbuk2**

Pygmalion wrote: »

Moar details of this tbh, what assignment, and what language?

C++, to convert between kgs, stone and pounds, depending on which conversion the user wants to do.
(I know it's fairly basic, but I'm only doing Intro to Programming)

Pygmalion

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

C++, to convert between kgs, stone and pounds, depending on which conversion the user wants to do.
(I know it's fairly basic, but I'm only doing Intro to Programming)

I'm going to read that as:

to convert from stone to kgs or pounds to kgs, depending on which conversion the user wants to do.

Because only a loser would ever want to convert away from metric/SI