Project Maths - what is your biggest problem with this?

magicianz

AdamD wrote: »

Pretty sure project maths has the exact same calculus in it as the old maths course..

Project maths gets rid of integration entirely iirc

jumpguy

AdamD wrote: »

Pretty sure project maths has the exact same calculus in it as the old maths course..

Integration won't be on the Project Maths course afaik, and I'm not sure what (if any) changes are coming in for differentiation. There also won't be the (by far most popular) calculus and series option that used to be on the old paper 2. A real pity imo, calculus (except for that option in P2, I didn't like the series!) was my favourite part of the course.

NSNO

No integration at all? No Maclaurin series? :eek:


That's an absolute disgrace. A Higher Level Leaving Cert subject should give students an strong and appreciable foundation to pursue it at university level. Good luck to anyone wanting to study Mathematics, Physics, Computer Science or Engineering because you're not being prepared properly. You're being let down big time by the NCAA/SEC/DoE.

MathsManiac

magicianz wrote: »

Project maths gets rid of integration entirely iirc

Well anyone who bothers to look at the latest complete version of strands 1-5, as currently being studied in the pilot schools, will see that integration has NOT been removed.

MatthewRud

Here is my problem with it.

As far as I am aware, the 24 pilot schools (Phase 2), which I am in, get a completely different Paper 2 to the schools taking up Project Maths Paper 2 for the first time (Phase 1).

Take a look at the Sample Paper 2 for Phase 1 schools, then the ones for pilot schools. Much more difficult, and way more wordy. If this is how its going to be for the Leaving Cert, that's completely unfair. Non-pilot schools are being gifted!

I wouldn't care if they weren't doing their testing with my Leaving Cert. They are playing around with peoples most important second level exams for their own experimentation. I don't think its fair that just because my school decided to jump on board and be two years ahead of the rest makes us more able to deal with harder questions. Judging by these sample papers, its like they've introduced a whole new level.. 'Extra Higher' or something.

If this is how the real thing is going to be, and these sample papers are anything to go by, I'd bite someones hand off to do a Phase 1 exam.

And if that isn't enough, the old paper 1 non-pilot schools are taking give you a choice of 6 out of 8 questions. We have to do all of them.

hattoncracker

Believe me right now.. Project maths will stand to you in uni.. I did the old syllabus in school, and my maths lecturer in uni on my first day said the way that they teach it in secondary school is complete bollox. Regardless of whether u do project maths or the older syllabus for LC, you will be expected to generate your own equations from a real life written word question, and then solve.

I wish I'd done project maths for LC! I know it would have made my life easier, I know it's hard guys but it really will make your lives easier come college!!

Canard

Yeah, but half of us dont care about doing maths in college. In fact I've heard most colleges hate it because its dumbed down.

whiteandlight

Just to clarify the colleges were consulted on writing the new syllabus

lestat21

professore wrote: »

Well finished secondary myself, but the normal distribution should be very easy to understand. Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqw9cLRMPL0

You kids have great resources at your fingertips, we had nothing like youtube or google back in the 80s, you were stuck with the teacher and the textbook and that was it.

Brilliant resource, and for anyone whos having trouble with any area of project maths I would suggest you have a look at the tutorials www.khanacademy.org. I'm a teacher myself but this site is always my first stop if I'm teaching a topic I'm a bit unfamiliar with.

Also my issue with project maths is that students are learning off terminology such as the definition of theorems, axioms etc. For a syllabus that is supposed to discourage rote learning, it just makes no sense to me...

MathsManiac

lestat21 wrote: »

...
Also my issue with project maths is that students are learning off terminology such as the definition of theorems, axioms etc. For a syllabus that is supposed to discourage rote learning, it just makes no sense to me...

This syllabus certainly does NOT indicate anywhere that people should be doing this. So, if this is happening, it's a problem either with teachers or textbooks (or both), but not with the syllabus.

None of the sample or real exams so far have asked students to write out a definition of anything, as far as I can see.

(There are lots of questions that ask people to explain things, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.)

Canard

MathsManiac wrote: »

This syllabus certainly does NOT indicate anywhere that people should be doing this. So, if this is happening, it's a problem either with teachers or textbooks (or both), but not with the syllabus.

None of the sample or real exams so far have asked students to write out a definition of anything, as far as I can see.

(There are lots of questions that ask people to explain things, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.)

Its sort of the same thing in my opinion. On my maths christmas test, which was entirely sample papers, we had to define an axiom. Thats not general knowledge, thats learned terminology.

rebel girl 15

MathsManiac wrote: »

This syllabus certainly does NOT indicate anywhere that people should be doing this. So, if this is happening, it's a problem either with teachers or textbooks (or both), but not with the syllabus.

None of the sample or real exams so far have asked students to write out a definition of anything, as far as I can see.

(There are lots of questions that ask people to explain things, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.)

" Explain what is meant by the converse of a theorem" - by my reading of it, the students have to learn off a definition

The biggest problem with this is that they are screwing around with the most important exam of people's lives - I'm doing a grinds LC OL class atm, and talking to their maths teacher, we have very little idea of what is coming up on the papers, and I have found it hard to give guidance to them on it.

TBH I find the whole course frustrating - and the textbooks that are at our disposal, was looking through one that has gone completely politically correct in examples.

tacofries

I dont like how the sample papers are ridiculously easy. Is the leaving going to be that easy, if not why did SEC make the sample's so decieving. Our teacher says she has no idea of the standard of maths we are expected to be able to do,. If she doesnt know how good we are meant to be, how do we know.

stinson

I'm doing strand 3 and we have no textbook no sample paper 1 and best of all the SEC and project maths board still have not told us what comes up in Paper 1. Nothing to do with how good or bad the change is, it is all about how badly it is being supported and to be honest i feel like punch the head of the sec for destroying any chance I have of getting into Medicine !

Soriel

My biggest problem is that they didn't publish books in Irish until January, so we've done a year and a half of the course in English and I agree with the posts about needing a dictionary... we also needed to translate the terms into irish so we could understand the damn things.... Bless the government for trying but they need to get their act together if they're going to roll out a scheme like this

MathsManiac

Patchy~ wrote: »

Its sort of the same thing in my opinion. On my maths christmas test, which was entirely sample papers, we had to define an axiom. Thats not general knowledge, thats learned terminology.

If your Christmas test was really taken from SEC papers, then you weren't asked to define an axiom. Are you sure you weren't asked to explain what the word axiom means?

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

" Explain what is meant by the converse of a theorem" - by my reading of it, the students have to learn off a definition

I disagree entirely. I've never in my life learned off a definition of the word "converse", but I can still explain what the converse of a theorem is.

If you understand what a term means, then you can explain it reasonably well. If you don't understand things, you try to take refuge in learning stuff off by heart. In my view, that's a mug's game.

The question is this: do you think that students should understand the words that they use and the ideas that the meet when talking about maths. If you think they do, then it's reasonable to expect them to be able to show as much, and one way of showing you understand something is by explaining it. If you don't think thay should understand these things, then we're never going to agree.

To my mind, a teacher does their students a big dis-service if they encourages them to just learn off definitions of the (hundreds of?) terms they'll have met in maths class during their school careers, rather than encouraging them to just make sure they understand what they are doing and saying.

lestat21

MathsManiac wrote: »

If your Christmas test was really taken from SEC papers, then you weren't asked to define an axiom. Are you sure you weren't asked to explain what the word axiom means?




I disagree entirely. I've never in my life learned off a definition of the word "converse", but I can still explain what the converse of a theorem is.

If you understand what a term means, then you can explain it reasonably well. If you don't understand things, you try to take refuge in learning stuff off by heart. In my view, that's a mug's game.

The question is this: do you think that students should understand the words that they use and the ideas that the meet when talking about maths. If you think they do, then it's reasonable to expect them to be able to show as much, and one way of showing you understand something is by explaining it. If you don't think thay should understand these things, then we're never going to agree.

To my mind, a teacher does their students a big dis-service if they encourages them to just learn off definitions of the (hundreds of?) terms they'll have met in maths class during their school careers, rather than encouraging them to just make sure they understand what they are doing and saying.

No they were asked to define an axiom. If I'm correct, that question comes from one of the project school exam papers.

I've found that if you ask students to define the word converse they immediately think of the shoes. They lack the language skills to know that the converse is the opposite of something. So a good teacher will define the converse of a theorem and reinforce that definition when looking at actual theorems... but students will still feel they have to learn off these definitions.

One student also asked me about a question where they were asked to write down a theorem related to tangents. Again from the project school exam paper (Sorry I dont have the exact paper or question to hand). I advised students that if they get a question like this they should write down everything they know about tangents and even draw a tangent to a circle but a lot of students will think they have to learn off all theorems.*

Now I know some things on the syllabus have been changed since the project schools sat these exams. But students are still required to know these definitions and theorems. Its not as bad in statistics where definitions can be continuously related to exercises in class. But in trigonometry I'm almost afraid that some students will spend time learning off this terminology when they should be applying their understanding to real life questions.... I thought that was the sole purpose of project maths... Improving understanding..

Canard

MathsManiac wrote: »

If your Christmas test was really taken from SEC papers, then you weren't asked to define an axiom. Are you sure you weren't asked to explain what the word axiom means?

It was SEC papers. I dont know what one(s) though because it was spread out to focus in on the right material. I dont really get what the difference is though? I'd define and explain an axiom in the exact same way - something we accept without proof.

It'd be nice to think people are just going to pick up these terms but at the end of the day, theyre not. The first few pages in the statistics 1 chapter in Active Maths are all definitions and explanations. Would anyone be able to explain the different methods of gathering data if they werent told? I certainly didnt know until this year.

And if you disagree that thats rote-learning, what about the constructions, especially for anyone who's never done technical graphics? What about the ones where you have to learn two methods of doing the same thing? Surely, if we were just picking them up as we went along, one should be enough - and the rectangle constructions are ridiculously overcomplicated.

MathsManiac

lestat21 wrote: »

No they were asked to define an axiom. If I'm correct, that question comes from one of the project school exam papers.

If that's what the question said, then the teacher changed it. The only SEC paper that has anything like that is the 2011 Ordinary Level Paper 2 for the pilot schools. It says (page 8): "State what is meant by the word axiom, and explain why axioms are needed in order to prove theorems."

If students think that they need to learn stuff off by heart, (which I accept they often do,) then a big part of a teacher's job is to help them realise that they don't, and that it's far more efficient to develop an understanding instead.

There is a role for rote learning; the problem arises when people try to replace understanding with inappropriate rote learning.

Patchy~ wrote: »

... I dont really get what the difference is though? I'd define and explain an axiom in the exact same way - something we accept without proof.

I think the difference is huge - particularly if someone claims that there's a whole load of rote memorisation of definitions to be done, when what is actually required is the ability to explain what commonly used mathematical terms mean. Knowing a definition off by heart MIGHT be regarded as sufficient if you were asked to explain the word, but is NOT a necessary prerequisite for being able to explain it. I don't believe I've ever learned a definition of a rectangle off by heart, but I have certainly read definitions of rectangles, and thought about them. And I think I could give a reasonable explanation of what a rectangle is.

Patchy~ wrote: »

It'd be nice to think people are just going to pick up these terms but at the end of the day, theyre not. The first few pages in the statistics 1 chapter in Active Maths are all definitions and explanations. Would anyone be able to explain the different methods of gathering data if they werent told? I certainly didnt know until this year.

I didn't say anything about whether I thought Active Maths was a good book or not. I don't know, as I haven't read it. And you're moving the goalposts again: I'm not suggesting you could explain these things if nobody had ever talked to you about them. I'm saying that you could explain them without having learned definitions of them off by heart. You could do so if you had read about them, discussed them, looked at different sets of data that had been collected in different ways, and discussed, (using the correct terminology,) how the manner of their collection might affect the kinds of conclusion you can draw from them.

Patchy~ wrote: »

And if you disagree that thats rote-learning, what about the constructions, especially for anyone who's never done technical graphics? What about the ones where you have to learn two methods of doing the same thing? Surely, if we were just picking them up as we went along, one should be enough - and the rectangle constructions are ridiculously overcomplicated.

The constructions seem fairly modest - not much different from what was there before and already covered at JC level. And what's so ridiculously complicated about using a ruler and protractor or setsquare to draw a rectangle, (which is all the syllabus requires on that score)?

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about having to learn two methods for doing the same thing. Sometimes, if you understand the ideas well, you can see several ways of doing something - is that what you mean?

Moody_mona

MathsManiac wrote:

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about having to learn two methods for doing the same thing. Sometimes, if you understand the ideas well, you can see several ways of doing something - is that what you mean?

The Active Maths book gives two methods of completing some constructions and states either method may be asked. I have not looked in the syllabus to verify this. Constructing a rectangle from a ruler is fine, obvious and understandable. The other method is to use a compass, which I dont really see the need for!

lestat21

MathsManiac wrote: »

I didn't say anything about whether I thought Active Maths was a good book or not. I don't know, as I haven't read it. And you're moving the goalposts again: I'm not suggesting you could explain these things if nobody had ever talked to you about them. I'm saying that you could explain them without having learned definitions of them off by heart. You could do so if you had read about them, discussed them, looked at different sets of data that had been collected in different ways, and discussed, (using the correct terminology,) how the manner of their collection might affect the kinds of conclusion you can draw from them.



The constructions seem fairly modest - not much different from what was there before and already covered at JC level. And what's so ridiculously complicated about using a ruler and protractor or setsquare to draw a rectangle, (which is all the syllabus requires on that score)?

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about having to learn two methods for doing the same thing. Sometimes, if you understand the ideas well, you can see several ways of doing something - is that what you mean?

Discussing definitions and theorems at length, and investigating what they mean is a great teaching strategy but it cant be used in this situation. You showed a complete lack of understanding of the implementation of project maths in the comment I've outlined in bold. The students sitting this years leaving cert examination didnt study project maths at junior cert. There were no constructions on the old junior cert paper. There was absolutely no probability or statistics on the old junior cert paper. It wasnt necessary to learn off definitions on the old junior cert paper. You dont seem to understand that teachers are covering junior cert and leaving cert course material for project maths topics on top of the regular old leaving cert questions. There is very little time to implement active and investigative teaching strategies. Teachers are struggling to get the course covered and students are worried.

I'm having a bit of a rant here and I dont want to scare students who might be reading this thread. Its the implementation of project maths that is a joke. But teachers and examiners are taking all this into account and you're gona be ok. The wordy questions arent as scary as they look. With the statistics especially there isn't one right answer and anything that you write down and explain with reference to the data could be given marks.

Never leave a question without attempting every part. Even if you're not sure if you're right. Attempt marks (or partial credit) could make a huge difference to your overall result. And never ever cross out an answer you think is wrong, it could be right. Just draw a line under it and start again. They will give you marks for whichever answer is right!!!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jeez MathsManiac, I went on a rant a bit too soon. This is my first year teaching second level so very focused on PM. After my rant I checked the Junior Cert (old) syllabus and found that you were right. Constructions were on the course.... So now I'm wondering how is it I never study constructions at junior cert level... im a bit in shock

lestat21

Moody_mona wrote: »

The Active Maths book gives two methods of completing some constructions and states either method may be asked. I have not looked in the syllabus to verify this. Constructing a rectangle from a ruler is fine, obvious and understandable. The other method is to use a compass, which I dont really see the need for!

You're right, a question could specify that they want you to construct a rectangle with straight edge and set square OR with straight edge and compass.

MegGustaa

lestat21 wrote: »

Discussing definitions and theorems at length, and investigating what they mean is a great teaching strategy but it cant be used in this situation. You showed a complete lack of understanding of the implementation of project maths in the comment I've outlined in bold. The students sitting this years leaving cert examination didnt study project maths at junior cert. There were no constructions on the old junior cert paper. There was absolutely no probability or statistics on the old junior cert paper. It wasnt necessary to learn off definitions on the old junior cert paper. You dont seem to understand that teachers are covering junior cert and leaving cert course material for project maths topics on top of the regular old leaving cert questions. There is very little time to implement active and investigative teaching strategies. Teachers are struggling to get the course covered and students are worried.

I'm having a bit of a rant here and I dont want to scare students who might be reading this thread. Its the implementation of project maths that is a joke. But teachers and examiners are taking all this into account and you're gona be ok. The wordy questions arent as scary as they look. With the statistics especially there isn't one right answer and anything that you write down and explain with reference to the data could be given marks.

Never leave a question without attempting every part. Even if you're not sure if you're right. Attempt marks (or partial credit) could make a huge difference to your overall result. And never ever cross out an answer you think is wrong, it could be right. Just draw a line under it and start again. They will give you marks for whichever answer is right!!!

I distinctly remember constructions in the Junior Cert, Higher and (I think) Ordinary Levels. Constructing a triangle given lengths and or angle sizes, bisecting angles and lines, incircle and circumcircle of a Triangle...All that was JC stuff. As for learning off definitions - that's not a totally bad thing. There IS wordy theory behind practical applications of Statistics in particular, and in order for students to have the vocabulary that goes with their use of Maths, a certain amount of learning off needs to be done.

I won't lie, I hate how PM was implemented, it should have been brought in in stages for JC and then brought in altogether for the 2016 Leaving Cert, imo. However there's little that can be done about it now. I don't really think PM is a big deal. The worst thing about it was giving it that terrible name.

finality

lestat21 wrote: »

Discussing definitions and theorems at length, and investigating what they mean is a great teaching strategy but it cant be used in this situation. You showed a complete lack of understanding of the implementation of project maths in the comment I've outlined in bold. The students sitting this years leaving cert examination didnt study project maths at junior cert. There were no constructions on the old junior cert paper. There was absolutely no probability or statistics on the old junior cert paper. It wasnt necessary to learn off definitions on the old junior cert paper. You dont seem to understand that teachers are covering junior cert and leaving cert course material for project maths topics on top of the regular old leaving cert questions. There is very little time to implement active and investigative teaching strategies. Teachers are struggling to get the course covered and students are worried.

I'm having a bit of a rant here and I dont want to scare students who might be reading this thread. Its the implementation of project maths that is a joke. But teachers and examiners are taking all this into account and you're gona be ok. The wordy questions arent as scary as they look. With the statistics especially there isn't one right answer and anything that you write down and explain with reference to the data could be given marks.

Never leave a question without attempting every part. Even if you're not sure if you're right. Attempt marks (or partial credit) could make a huge difference to your overall result. And never ever cross out an answer you think is wrong, it could be right. Just draw a line under it and start again. They will give you marks for whichever answer is right!!!

Actually, there were constructions on the junior cert course. Most of the constructions on the LC syllabus, we already covered at junior cert. And a tiny bit of statistics, i.e. histograms, mean mode and median, pie charts... as well as sets, which is an important part of probability.

lestat21

Finality and Megustaa, you are completely right. I cant believe I was never learned constructions at JClevel but I didnt.... I remember measuring angles and drawing angles with a protractor. I remember constructing triangles with a protractor and ruler. But that was it!!! And I have to say I had one of the best maths teachers in my school so I just cant believe I didnt learn this. I remember it clearly cos we bought math sets but never used the half of it. I always wondered what sets squares were for and only found out this year!!!

MathsManiac

lestat21 wrote: »

You're right, a question could specify that they want you to construct a rectangle with straight edge and set square OR with straight edge and compass.

Constructing a rectangle using only a compass and straightedge is not on the syllabus.

The list of instruments allowed for constructions is on page 69, just before the list of constructions.

The only constructions with any restriction on the instruments allowed are 1, 2, 16, 17 and 18. (Also, in 6, and 7, you're not allowed to just do it by measurement.)

If they were trying to get you to do something not on the syllabus, they'd have to step you through it pretty clearly, or there'd be hell to pay.

[Edit: should point out that there are two more compass-and-straight-edge constructions in Strand 3, which kicks in for the 2013 exam.]

stinson

MathsManiac wrote: »

Constructing a rectangle using only a compass and straightedge is not on the syllabus.

The list of instruments allowed for constructions is on page 69, just before the list of constructions.

The only constructions with any restriction on the instruments allowed are 1, 2, 16, 17 and 18. (Also, in 6, and 7, you're not allowed to just do it by measurement.)

If they were trying to get you to do something not on the syllabus, they'd have to step you through it pretty clearly, or there'd be hell to pay.

[Edit: should point out that there are two more compass-and-straight-edge constructions in Strand 3, which kicks in for the 2013 exam.]

I'm doing strand 3 and we were told that we will only be examined on 3 constructions.

finality

oh! That reminds me. Can we only be asked the 3 new theorems, or can we be asked the junior cert ones too?

rebel girl 15

finality wrote: »

oh! That reminds me. Can we only be asked the 3 new theorems, or can we be asked the junior cert ones too?

Judging by the cyclic quadrilaterals question on this years sample paper, you can be asked them, as it will be assumed that you will know them from the junior cert

finality

Thanks. I suppose they can be avoided completely by doing the proof question instead. I didn't learn them at junior cert, I just never bothered with them. Seeing as this is the first year of project maths, I think it's probably likely that they'll put one of the new ones on the paper... I'm hoping anyway. I have always hated theorems.