Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How will Project Maths benefit us as students?
Comments
-
I think it will benefit only a rare few. I think this because:
(a)teachers hate the course and openly say so which is influencing our attitute to it.
(b)we're afraid of it because it's new.
(c)little to no chance of predicting how things will be phrased.
(d)it seems to alienate weaker students.
I'm in ordinary level maths and our teacher is making it look so easy and giving us out questions to do even before she's explained how to do them. She doesn't seem to be able to explain how to do them, she just does them on the board. This new course requires the ability to know why you're doing such and such. I used to like maths in Junior Cert, now I hate maths.0 -
I am in 5th year and we did some of the project maths trigonometry. I think it is much better than the old course because it challenges you to think logically for yourself and not just plug numbers into formulas.
It teaches you to think logically similar to the way physics and applied maths teach you to think logically. It encourages you to think on your feet. Of course many people will find this method of learning difficult but logical problems will surely help us when many people decide to do science and engineering in college where we will not be told every single little thing like we are now and we will have to think for ourselves.0 -
yup, now u understand 'project maths' , it's all about names and nothing about maths, it was designed by a minister of education with no brain and the electorate got rid of her, pity it's not as easy get rid of project maths!!!!!!!!!!rainbowtrout wrote: »There is no project, it's just the new name of the course.0 -
Unfortunately your teacher has no say in what she teaches, she has to implement this disasterous course which has no use.I think it will benefit only a rare few. I think this because:
(a)teachers hate the course and openly say so which is influencing our attitute to it.
(b)we're afraid of it because it's new.
(c)little to no chance of predicting how things will be phrased.
(d)it seems to alienate weaker students.
I'm in ordinary level maths and our teacher is making it look so easy and giving us out questions to do even before she's explained how to do them. She doesn't seem to be able to explain how to do them, she just does them on the board. This new course requires the ability to know why you're doing such and such. I used to like maths in Junior Cert, now I hate maths.
This course is the worst ever produced by the Education Dept and shows all the signs that those who produced it in the Dept have no mathematical background.0 -
Didn't read the whole thing, here's just my opinion.
The only people this thing will benefit are people doing something stats related in college, like economics or something. If you go on to do pure maths or theoretical physics, or even general physics and chemistry, you're pretty screwed. I did my LC last year, paper was simple, and frankly I thought the entire course was grand and perfect in size.
Also, Project Maths will seriously screw with applied maths. You probably wont have done enough pure maths to be able to do the applied anymore.
Frankly, and I'll get a lot of hate for this, I'd add more to the syllabus, not take it away..0 -
Advertisement
-
Unfortunately your teacher has no say in what she teaches, she has to implement this disasterous course which has no use.
This course is the worst ever produced by the Education Dept and shows all the signs that those who produced it in the Dept have no mathematical background.
Syllabi are not produced "in the Department". They are produced by course committees of the NCCA. The course committee for a Leaving Cert subject consists of:
- 5 teacher representatives (2 ASTI, 2 TUI, 1 subject association)
- 3 school management representatives (1 ACCS, 1 IVEA, 1 JMB)
- 3 representatives of third level (2 IUA, 1 HETAC)
- 1 DES representative
- 1 SEC representative.
The school management bodies typically nominate principals or vice principals whose teaching subject is the one concerned. IUA and HETAC nominate lecturers in the subject concerned. The DES rep is usually an inspector of the subject, and the SEC rep is usually the EAM/Chief Examiner for the subject.
So, by my reckoning, the 13 people you are claiming have "no mathematical background" are, if the nominations followed their typical patterns:
5 current maths teachers, (nominated by their colleagues)
3 former maths teachers, now in school management
3 professional mathematicians
1 DES inspector of mathematics (i.e., a person whose profession it is to evaluate quality of teaching and learning in mathematics)
1 SEC Chief Examiner (i.e., a person whose profession it is to assess mathematics achievement)
In fact, you can find out precisely who is on these committees on the NCCA website: http://www.ncca.ie/en/About_Us/Committee_Membership_and_Organisations/NCCA_Committee_Membership_March_2011.pdf
Perhaps the issue is not so much with the professional background of the people concerned as with the fact that their considered view as to what constitutes a suitable programme of learning in maths for second level students is not the same as your own.0 -
Even the teachers are giving out about the changes...0
-
Are you suggesting 'mathsmanic' that it was mathematicians who designed this course when the dogs in the street even know that it was a political decision to dumb down the secondary school maths programme.MathsManiac wrote: »Syllabi are not produced "in the Department". They are produced by course committees of the NCCA. The course committee for a Leaving Cert subject consists of:
- 5 teacher representatives (2 ASTI, 2 TUI, 1 subject association)
- 3 school management representatives (1 ACCS, 1 IVEA, 1 JMB)
- 3 representatives of third level (2 IUA, 1 HETAC)
- 1 DES representative
- 1 SEC representative.
The school management bodies typically nominate principals or vice principals whose teaching subject is the one concerned. IUA and HETAC nominate lecturers in the subject concerned. The DES rep is usually an inspector of the subject, and the SEC rep is usually the EAM/Chief Examiner for the subject.
So, by my reckoning, the 13 people you are claiming have "no mathematical background" are, if the nominations followed their typical patterns:
5 current maths teachers, (nominated by their colleagues)
3 former maths teachers, now in school management
3 professional mathematicians
1 DES inspector of mathematics (i.e., a person whose profession it is to evaluate quality of teaching and learning in mathematics)
1 SEC Chief Examiner (i.e., a person whose profession it is to assess mathematics achievement)
In fact, you can find out precisely who is on these committees on the NCCA website: http://www.ncca.ie/en/About_Us/Committee_Membership_and_Organisations/NCCA_Committee_Membership_March_2011.pdf
Perhaps the issue is not so much with the professional background of the people concerned as with the fact that their considered view as to what constitutes a suitable programme of learning in maths for second level students is not the same as your own.
I as an engineer, like a previous poster stated fear for the future of those who will study pure maths/engineering/physics/chemistry in the future as there is little in this course to develop algebraic skills.
I can't believe you are naieve enough to believe the word from these quangos in the pay of discredited politicians following their own agenda.0 -
Are you suggesting 'mathsmanic' that it was mathematicians who designed this course when the dogs in the street even know that it was a political decision to dumb down the secondary school maths programme.
I as an engineer, like a previous poster stated fear for the future of those who will study pure maths/engineering/physics/chemistry in the future as there is little in this course to develop algebraic skills.
I can't believe you are naieve enough to believe the word from these quangos in the pay of discredited politicians following their own agenda.
Agreed.
So the apparent purpose of this new syllabus is to make maths more accesable for more people and make them more likely to choose a maths/science related area in university.
Would someone please tell me what the point of making the secondary syllabus easier is when if math/science is chosen in college students will have to deal with Linear Algebra, Group Theory etc?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14669
Project maths will benefit no one and I teach it because I have to follow the curriculum, basically it was introduced by Ms Coughlin ex TD ex minister of education!!Maybe_Memories wrote: »Agreed.
So the apparent purpose of this new syllabus is to make maths more accesable for more people and make them more likely to choose a maths/science related area in university.
Would someone please tell me what the point of making the secondary syllabus easier is when if math/science is chosen in college students will have to deal with Linear Algebra, Group Theory etc?
The main reason that Project Maths was introduced was because Ireland fell in the OECD PISA maths rankings - a sample of students in each OECD country are given a standardised exam to do to see their level of numeracy and literacy. Ireland fell to 16th place in numeracy in 2006, which started PM, but have now fallen to 26th overall, which is below average.
I'll be teaching this next year, and tbh I think that it is a good idea in theory, but its been done in the wrong way. Its not going to help those students who want to go on and do maths and engineering based courses, as quoted above. I'd have liked if the HL course was kept for those people who want to do it, bring a PM syllabus in as an alternative to HL maths - but give extra points for HL maths.
It will help the weaker students to achieve better levels of numeracy, but it won't help students who are looking to do maths based courses in college - roughly there is a 20% drop out rate in colleges in Ireland, and if students go into these maths based courses having done PM, I would fear for them. In theory, the idea is right, but it has been rushed in as a direct response to the falling PISA levels, and has left out a number of key areas because of the rushing0 -
Advertisement
-
The problem with project maths is that we are all used to the way that questions are asked from JC. If we did it this way since 1st year it would be a lot easier.
I personally hate project maths because it's such a big change at once..they could have at least changed the course gradually:/0 -
The problem with project maths is that we are all used to the way that questions are asked from JC. If we did it this way since 1st year it would be a lot easier.
I personally hate project maths because it's such a big change at once..they could have at least changed the course gradually:/
From a second level students point of view, yes, this is the problem with it.
From everyone else's, the problem is that the subject maths is no longer about mathematics. I'm a a maths student in TCD, and if I had done PM for me LC, I would have had no chance in my course.
I was speaking to a few students doing PM currently in 5th year. They've studied calculus, but they've never even heard of a limit. I found this extremely alarming.0 -
Limits of Functions and Differentiation by 1st Principles are still on the course for at least the next two years! Am in fifth year and was just revising that topic today for summer tests!0
-
Are you suggesting 'mathsmanic' that it was mathematicians who designed this course when the dogs in the street even know that it was a political decision to dumb down the secondary school maths programme.
I as an engineer, like a previous poster stated fear for the future of those who will study pure maths/engineering/physics/chemistry in the future as there is little in this course to develop algebraic skills.
I can't believe you are naieve enough to believe the word from these quangos in the pay of discredited politicians following their own agenda.
I am suggesting that it is reasonable to assume that it was designed by the people who were given the job of designing it.
You, on the other hand, are suggesting that it was designed by Mary Coughlan and handed over to these people, who were then instructed to pretend over several years that they were designing it, reporting back to their constituencies at various points in its fictitious evolution, and so on.
I find the suggestion that the nominated representatives of the teacher unions and other identified organisations would engage in this kind of conpiracy on Mary Coughlan's behalf, and continue the grand charade long after she departed the scene, rather far-fetched.
As for your source for this information, it has been my experience that the dogs in the street know rather less about mathematics education than you seem to think. I prefer to look elsewhere when attempting to discern the rationale for any particular set of curricular changes.
I haven't stated that I believe this course is any better or worse than the previous one. I simply find your assertions regarding how and why it came into being rather implausible.
I see plenty of material in this course for developing algebraic skills, and for developing the capacity to apply those skills with understanding and insight, provided it is taught properly by people with a good understanding of both mathematics and pedagogy. Arguably, the old course was a reasonable vehicle for achieving these aims too, but the new one appears to be trying to renew the emphasis on understanding and the ability to apply one's knowledge. It demands far more of students in some respects, and somewhat less of them in others.
Having had experience of teaching at both second and third level, I would be happy to sacrifice a few minor areas of content in exchange for a deeper understanding of what remains, greater motivation, and an increased ability to be able to handle unfamiliar problems. Of course, I'd be less happy to sacrifice a bit of content for nothing!0 -
Maybe_Memories wrote: »From a second level students point of view, yes, this is the problem with it.
From everyone else's, the problem is that the subject maths is no longer about mathematics. I'm a a maths student in TCD, and if I had done PM for me LC, I would have had no chance in my course.
I was speaking to a few students doing PM currently in 5th year. They've studied calculus, but they've never even heard of a limit. I found this extremely alarming.
True..the questions are more, I guess, practical as my teacher said (even though it's not really:/) but it's not really maths anymore:/0 -
Ok...I am going into 5th year next year and I have to do the Project Maths course. I am also going to be taking Applied Maths as an extra subject in the Institute of Education. Does this mean that because of the Project Maths course I won't be able to understand/manage the Applied Maths course? I am seriously getting worried now...Also, I am thinking of studying maths in college...does that mean that the Project Maths course has me completely screwed for third level? Any advice appreciated!0
-
iLikePiano99 wrote: »Ok...I am going into 5th year next year and I have to do the Project Maths course. I am also going to be taking Applied Maths as an extra subject in the Institute of Education. Does this mean that because of the Project Maths course I won't be able to understand/manage the Applied Maths course? I am seriously getting worried now...Also, I am thinking of studying maths in college...does that mean that the Project Maths course has me completely screwed for third level? Any advice appreciated!
Well the PM course certainly wont stop you from understanding Applied Maths, yet. As fas as I know, Paper 1 is remaining unchanged for now, they're just changing how they actually teach it, which means you'll still have covered the full range of Differential and Integral Calculus, with the exception of integration by parts, but that's not on the AM syllabus.
Paper 2 things are the only issue. I'm not entirely sure what;s different, although vectors have taken a severe downsizing. Dot product is no longer on the course, but the only time I've ever seen that in AM was on a mock paper. So you should be okay. Not too sure about trig functions. They're useful in AM.
As for third level, I suppose different colleges start at a different level. If you do PM, you'll have a major head start in Statistics modules, and if you do AM you'll have a head start in Classical Mechanics. Linear Algebra might be difficult after PM, depending on how it's taught.
Only thing that might be a real issue is Groups, Fields, Rings, Modules etc, anything very abstract. Number Theory comes to mind.0
Advertisement