Project Maths, a discussion

Zaffy · 13-06-2012 4:22pm #1

Right, I've seen a few posts around the place, example:

Why couldn't they have just changed the pass course to project maths. It seems counter intuitive to change the course for people who like maths, to a more English/wordy one. GAH!

The reason they decided to revamp the course - because the old course didn't teach an understanding of graphs, it didn't teach you what things could be applied to, it didn't teach you what you were learning.

Yes, you could do the maths, but what good is that without the ability to understand it?

Maths is problem solving, it's the ability to work things out, though this has a few steps.

You're given a problem in real life, you don't instantly plug in a few numbers and BAM, solution, no, it's more complex than that.
You do the following:
1. Identify the problem
2. Translate this into numbers/a workable form
3. Solve this form
4. Comprehend the results.

Old course maths did number 3, project maths is aiming to do all 4.

Because, what good is it to be able to do the maths if you don't know why?

That's why the 'english essays' are needed, to show you have an understanding. The only reason you're writing an essay is because you're trying to waffle the answer. I'm pretty sure if you know the solution, you can write a single sentence, and it'll be correct.

So back to the quote I quoted, 'it seems counter intuitive to change the course for those who like maths', actually, universities were used to find that when they had entrants coming in trying to study maths, they didn't understand what the maths they had learnt was used for, and ended up having to learn the entire thing again.

Universities were consulted whilst developing project maths, it's been made to make maths less of an abstract subject, and apply it more to real life. I'm fairly sure you've all looked maths and thought 'Why would I ever use this?' Project maths answers 'This is why.'

FaoiSin · 13-06-2012 4:24pm

Well the fact it we had to take it up in 5th year with no prior experience and no decent textbook would be the main problem I have with it.

Togepi · 13-06-2012 4:24pm

Zaffy wrote: »

Maths is problem solving, it's the ability to work things out, though this has a few steps.

You're given a problem in real life, you don't instantly plug in a few numbers and BAM, solution, no, it's more complex than that.
You do the following:
1. Identify the problem
2. Translate this into numbers/a workable form
3. Solve this form
4. Comprehend the results.

Old course maths did number 3, project maths is aiming to do all 4.

Because, what good is it to be able to do the maths if you don't know why?

It's seriously dumbing down the third step though in my opinion. It sounds like a nice idea but really the old course was a bit better purely because it was more challenging.

Zaffy · 13-06-2012 4:30pm

YeaaahFaoiSin wrote: »

Well the fact it we had to take it up in 5th year with no prior experience and no decent textbook would be the main problem I have with it.

That's understandable, it's early days, and unfortunately some people have to be the first people to go through it. Our text book was riddled with mistakes.

Togepi wrote: »

It's seriously dumbing down the third step though in my opinion. It sounds like a nice idea but really the old course was a bit better purely because it was more challenging.

So I assume you got 100% in paper 2? Or was question 8 too challenging? OR even, you could take the paper 1 right now and get full marks?

If every person who wasn't a project school got 100% in paper 2, then I'll be quiet. But if you found the paper in any way difficult, surely it was challenging?

Did you look at the paper 1 for the project schools? People came out of that exam crying, yet the edit non project schools all said 'was a fine exam'. Try it out, then we can check if it was less-challenging

Eathrin · 13-06-2012 4:32pm

Sorry, I still don't buy it. There's just too much waffle for me. It doesn't teach why we study maths, it just poses the same questions from the previous course in a more awkward way. It's not proper problem solving for me, it's all under a very definite structure and the same questions are still asked year in year out. If it was true problem solving, and if was really to the benefit of maths, weaker students' grades would go DOWN and stronger students' grades would go up.
Tell me what is the point of throwing marks at weaker students who can't do maths but can tell you whether a rise in deaths is a good or bad trend for the RSA??

Zaffy · 13-06-2012 4:35pm

Eathrin wrote: »

Tell me what is the point of throwing marks at weaker students who can't do maths but can tell you whether a rise in deaths is a good or bad trend for the RSA??

Because in a company, when you're working, this is the sort of stuff you will encounter. You won't look at a graph and be expected to get the line of best slope then finish, instead, your boss will ask you what does this mean, what can we draw from this, etc etc etc.

reznov · 13-06-2012 4:44pm

If you're working for a company, you will be experienced in your profession and as a result have the adequate knowledge to provide a coherent response. Not trying to adapt the scarce theory within the rushed project Maths to make it sound correct and have a sort of meaning.
Also not all will be entering the field of economics or where analysis of graphs is a necessity. Secondary school is about general knowledge, not specialisation. Or so was the benefit of secondary education in Ireland I heard for 8 years of my life.

leaveiton · 13-06-2012 4:44pm

I've said this before, but it's all well and good having a course that is designed to teach understanding of maths, but the teachers need to be able to do it in the first place. I'm mostly complaining about my own teacher when I say that, as quite frankly she's useless, but I think it can hold true for other teachers as well.

Togepi · 13-06-2012 4:44pm

Zaffy wrote: »

So I assume you got 100% in paper 2?

No. I did ordinary level last year, so I had to cover the whole higher level course in eight or nine months - the fact that I actually passed both papers is quite an achievement. I wasn't aiming for higher than 80% on either so there was no way I could have gotten 100%.

Zaffy wrote: »

Or was question 8 too challenging?

No, wrong again. I'd say I did better on question 8 than most people, at least half of them anyway.

Zaffy wrote: »

OR even, you could take the paper 1 right now and get full marks?

No. I did ordinary last year, that would be pretty much impossible for me seeing as I hadn't long to cover the course. And I assume you mean Paper 2, in which case my answer is the same.

Zaffy wrote: »

If every person who wasn't a project school got 100% in paper 2, then I'll be quiet. But if you found the paper in any way difficult, surely it was challenging?

That's impossible. And I found some parts difficult because I only studied for it the night before the paper.

Zaffy wrote: »

Did you look at the paper 1 for the project schools? People came out of that exam crying, yet the paper 1ers said 'was a fine exam'. Try it out, then we can check if it was less-challenging

No. Paper 1 was a fine, it was easier than most years. I would say the percentage of people crying over Paper 1 last year was higher than it was for the pilot schools this year. That was a hard paper. I might be wrong about that because I haven't seen the Project Maths Paper 1, but Paper 1 is usually harder than the one we got.

I won't try out the new Paper 1. I haven't covered any of that course, and I have study to do for my last two exams. Maybe I will if I get really bored over the summer.

Also, an interesting statistic for you: I got the exact same percent on both papers in the mocks. I spent two whole days practising questions for Paper 1, but I had never even done an exam question for Paper 2. Surely that's proof that it's being dumbed down?

Chavways · 13-06-2012 4:45pm

I think a lot of us sixth years this year will have a very biased opinion about it.After doing old style maths(if we can call it that) for 4 years and then having questions disguised with long paragraphs of text and real world applications we were thrown off because we were so used to the older method.

The lack of assistance and cooperation from the SEC didn't help either. few sample papers and 2 pre papers were the only preparation we could do for the exam.Loads of handouts from our teachers instead of a textbook also added to the problem.My teacher wasn't even sure how much he had to teach so he just did everything he possibly could.

In my opinion Project Maths introduction was slightly rushed.I think if they waited another year to get things straight such as a reserve of sample papers and an official text book with everything you had to know it would improve peoples opinion of it.

If they stick with it hopefully these problems will iron themselves out and in a few years time people should embrace the changes.

Eathrin · 13-06-2012 4:50pm

Zaffy wrote: »

Because in a company, when you're working, this is the sort of stuff you will encounter. You won't look at a graph and be expected to get the line of best slope then finish, instead, your boss will ask you what does this mean, what can we draw from this, etc etc etc.

Not being a moron does not merit you a good grade in maths.

ChemHickey · 13-06-2012 4:54pm

Project maths really makes me question if I'll do maths in college. If they had a choice on the paper it would be fairer and give a wider scope as well. such as a long question on probability would have been amazing. It was unfair pinning the course on us off the bat. If it was taught from first year it would have been a lot more productive. And the lack of integration and vectors? I pity anyone who wants to go in engineering or physics.

Zaffy · 13-06-2012 5:02pm

reznov wrote: »

Also not all will be entering the field of economics or where analysis of graphs is a necessity. Secondary school is about general knowledge, not specialisation. Or so was the benefit of secondary education in Ireland I heard for 8 years of my life.

So people shouldn't have the knowledge of being able to read a graph and understand it, yet they SHOULD have the knowledge to perform parametric differentiation, substitution and matricies which aren't at all specialised?

leaveiton wrote: »

I've said this before, but it's all well and good having a course that is designed to teach understanding of maths, but the teachers need to be able to do it in the first place. I'm mostly complaining about my own teacher when I say that, as quite frankly she's useless, but I think it can hold true for other teachers as well.

That's a fair point, if your teacher doesn't understand maths, how can it be expected for you to either? Unfortunately that's more of a problem of teaching quality than project math's fault.

Togepi wrote: »

Also, an interesting statistic for you: I got the exact same percent on both papers in the mocks. I spent two whole days practising questions for Paper 1, but I had never even done an exam question for Paper 2. Surely that's proof that it's being dumbed down?

Or you're better at the paper 2 syllabus? And I still stand by my point, you said it wasn't challenging, yet if you're not getting full marks, obviously it is.

Chavways wrote: »

I think a lot of us sixth years this year will have a very biased opinion about it.After doing old style maths(if we can call it that) for 4 years and then having questions disguised with long paragraphs of text and real world applications we were thrown off because we were so used to the older method.

That's one thing which a lot of teachers are saying, that it should have been introduced to the first years, not the 5th and 6th years, and that's fair enough.

The lack of assistance and cooperation from the SEC didn't help either. few sample papers and 2 pre papers were the only preparation we could do for the exam.Loads of handouts from our teachers instead of a textbook also added to the problem.My teacher wasn't even sure how much he had to teach so he just did everything he possibly could.

That's something which will be fixed as time passes, unfortunately that's the problem with a new course, but that would be the same for any subject.

Zaffy · 13-06-2012 5:04pm

ChemHickey wrote: »

Project maths really makes me question if I'll do maths in college. And the lack of integration and vectors? I pity anyone who wants to go in engineering or physics.

In what way does it make you question? Out of curiousity.

Integration is taught, not as detailed, but it is there.
In addition, what about all those people who won't go on to do Engineering or Physics? What use will they have for vectors? Old scale maths was only catering to the needs of few.

leaveiton · 13-06-2012 5:08pm

Zaffy wrote: »

That's a fair point, if your teacher doesn't understand maths, how can it be expected for you to either? Unfortunately that's more of a problem of teaching quality than project math's fault.

Oh definitely, as I said I was just complaining about my own teacher. It's not the fault of project maths but it just sort of shows that a syllabus change alone isn't going to be enough to get students to really understand maths. I think the actual way it is taught, and not WHAT is taught should be examined more. Like I said, my own teacher is useless but I'm sure there are some brilliant maths teachers out there who'd be able to teach students the old course perfectly, but may not be able to communicate the actual fundamental ideas very well.

Chris68 · 13-06-2012 5:08pm

Togepi wrote: »

No, wrong again. I'd say I did better on question 8 than most people, at least half of them anyway.

Have to smile at this one :P

reznov · 13-06-2012 5:17pm

Zaffy wrote: »

So people shouldn't have the knowledge of being able to read a graph and understand it, yet they SHOULD have the knowledge to perform parametric differentiation, substitution and matricies which aren't at all specialised?

That's a fair point, if your teacher doesn't understand maths, how can it be expected for you to either? Unfortunately that's more of a problem of teaching quality than project math's fault.

Or you're better at the paper 2 syllabus? And I still stand by my point, you said it wasn't challenging, yet if you're not getting full marks, obviously it is.

That's one thing which a lot of teachers are saying, that it should have been introduced to the first years, not the 5th and 6th years, and that's fair enough.

That's something which will be fixed as time passes, unfortunately that's the problem with a new course, but that would be the same for any subject.

Again "more of a teaching fault than project Maths fault":
TEACHERS ARE RESPONSILE FOR PREPARING STUDENTS. I go to school to learn. I don't want to come home and have to teach myself Maths or any other subject. My 7 hours are spent in school for that. Maybe it isn't the students "rote learning" (how that even works in Maths, not sure) Maths which is the root of evil in examinations and for poor Maths level, but the teachers?
Lucky you for having an experienced teacher. Not everyone has the luxury.
This luxury widens the gap between self educating students and those benefiting from a high teaching standard. Whereas before you had a plethora of papers, notes and material to sitting the exam, now you have a couple of poor books regarding project Maths and samples which barely reflect the structure of the paper. It's difficult for someone who is ambitious and WANTS to do Maths in college, but currently has an incompetent teacher, to master the course to an extent where they can confidently enter the exam and score highly.

I'm sorry, but no need to change old methods to improve falling scores. Interest in mathematics from students didn't change because of "old Maths methods", but because the teaching standard has experienced a degradation. Students haven't become "dumber". I know so many individuals who would have loved to sit HL, but did not because a teacher had a poor reputation and standard.

reznov · 13-06-2012 5:20pm

Zaffy wrote: »

In what way does it make you question? Out of curiousity.

Integration is taught, not as detailed, but it is there.
In addition, what about all those people who won't go on to do Engineering or Physics? What use will they have for vectors? Old scale maths was only catering to the needs of few.

Project Maths is catering for the needs of the few also. Moot point.

GaryIrv93 · 13-06-2012 5:27pm

Zaffy wrote: »

That's a fair point, if your teacher doesn't understand maths, how can it be expected for you to either? Unfortunately that's more of a problem of teaching quality than project math's fault.

Not entirely. If a Maths teachers is already used to teaching Maths to students the old way, then they're not going to be able to suddenly (without enough notice or resources) teach something new they don't even have a clear understanding of properly, let alone the students, who are also already used to the old way of doing it. Students should have been given a say in the introduction of Project Maths as well. This has little to do with skill of Maths. If you're already used to doing something the original way, for years as well, then you can't all of a sudden do it another way, without notice or proper resources.

Whoever thought of Project Maths could have at least taken into account that students already well used to 5 years of the old syllabus couldn't all of a sudden adapt to a whole new way of doing maths, especially without proper warning and textbooks. It should have started with First years and First Years only. Complete inconsideration for LC students the way I see it. Project Maths I did find a bit easier, but I have to sypathetic and angry for fellow students who found that it instead dropped their grades and who worked all those years only to have to start all over again at the last minute.

WestIRL · 13-06-2012 5:54pm

So are people telling me that "FIND THE CENTRE OF THE CIRCLE" on Q2 and some basic subbing in for points and subtracting circles all for 25 marks is more challenging than a paper 1 C part? Or the bernuli trials of simply entering in a calculator? Or standard deviation and Z scores, again simple. Theory of the mortgages question "WHAT'S THE CHANGE OF INTEREST RATES" and just say that more people in arrears equals higher interest rates.

THIS^^^ This is hard?

Yeah Q8 on paper2 was hard, but that was just old style trig- you know, what you all "love" so much.

And why do people keep going "Oh the way we were taught for all those years up to 5th year" Who the hell remembers what they learned in 1st, 2nd, 3rd year? The basics, the same basics that were used in a new way in project maths.

Adolescenteen · 13-06-2012 6:03pm

Chavways wrote: »

Loads of handouts from our teachers instead of a textbook also added to the problem.My teacher wasn't even sure how much he had to teach so he just did everything he possibly could.

This. The amount of handouts for Paper 2 I got this year was incredible. Absolute bucket loads and with a few nights to go to the exam pretty useless just down to the vast number of them.

I would have no problem going into first year and being told that the maths course has changed for you and being exposed to it for six years. Rather then having to change my way of doing Maths for four years for one paper. But I guess that is life. **** happens.

randylonghorn · 13-06-2012 6:04pm

reznov wrote: »

Again "more of a teaching fault than project Maths fault":
TEACHERS ARE RESPONSILE FOR PREPARING STUDENTS. I go to school to learn. I don't want to come home and have to teach myself Maths or any other subject. My 7 hours are spent in school for that. Maybe it isn't the students "rote learning" (how that even works in Maths, not sure) Maths which is the root of evil in examinations and for poor Maths level, but the teachers?

As I said in the other thread, and as Gary has pretty much said above:

randylonghorn wrote: »

In fairness to teachers, I don't think there was a lot invested in in-service / re-training for them either, especially for those not involved in the original pilot project.

If students are finding it hard to adapt, it's obviously not going to be that easy either for people who have been teaching to a certain approach for 10 / 20 / 30 years (and who were taught that way themselves) to change their mindset. Some will find it easy to adapt; others won't.

reznov · 13-06-2012 6:07pm

randylonghorn wrote: »

As I said in the other thread, and as Gary has pretty much said above:

I will concede that point! It is true. But again, the problems of project Maths are once again highlighted. It was implemented much too quickly.

ChemHickey · 13-06-2012 6:15pm

Integration is taught, not as detailed, but it is there.
In addition, what about all those people who won't go on to do Engineering or Physics? What use will they have for vectors? Old scale maths was only catering to the needs of few.

I know it catered for the needs of a few, but vectors are a very important part of the engineering courses,afaik. The old maths course provided the chance for students to be introduced to them without having to take Applied maths outside of school. However, with Project maths, the only way you would have seen vectors is either in applied maths, or the little part it plays in the physics curriculum.

I know that the vectors didn't suit everybody, but the reason it would have been on the course is due to the fact of needing a HC3 in Maths for an engineering course. You still need a HC3 and the engineering courses aren't changed, but most students entering, bar those of the appmaths/physics minority, will be at a severe loss due to the lack of vectors on the course. It's unfair for those students... and it was a handy 50m question too.. :L

ChemHickey · 13-06-2012 6:21pm

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Not entirely. If a Maths teachers is already used to teaching Maths to students the old way, then they're not going to be able to suddenly (without enough notice or resources) teach something new they don't even have a clear understanding of properly, let alone the students, who are also already used to the old way of doing it. Students should have been given a say in the introduction of Project Maths as well. This has little to do with skill of Maths. If you're already used to doing something the original way, for years as well, then you can't all of a sudden do it another way, without notice or proper resources.

Whoever thought of Project Maths could have at least taken into account that students already well used to 5 years of the old syllabus couldn't all of a sudden adapt to a whole new way of doing maths, especially without proper warning and textbooks. It should have started with First years and First Years only. Complete inconsideration for LC students the way I see it. Project Maths I did find a bit easier, but I have to sypathetic and angry for fellow students who found that it instead dropped their grades and who worked all those years only to have to start all over again at the last minute.

I think I'll fall into that category...

It's embarrassing for me if I do go into Maths in college and not having gotten the A1 which I worked for since first year!

And someone said above something about not remembering what you did in first year, you're completely mistaken. I remember clearly what I did in first year and those first few weeks were the ones which focused me into understanding the course. It was from those that I was able to learn maths at my own pace and my own way. I didn't really rely on the teachers' help, even though all my teachers were extremely good at their job. The way I see it is that it completely ruined those who had a keen interest in maths since first year and before and it allowed those who didn't care/dossed through maths a second chance at the maths system. Those who didn't care much for it in the Junior cycle were not phased by the changes as much as someone like I was...

Togepi · 13-06-2012 6:26pm

Zaffy wrote: »

Or you're better at the paper 2 syllabus? And I still stand by my point, you said it wasn't challenging, yet if you're not getting full marks, obviously it is.

Yes, because it's easier.

I don't find French challenging at all, yet I'm not going to get 100% for the exam. As I said before, doing the course in eight or nine months after doing the old ordinary level course, it would be pretty much impossible to get 100% on either paper. Especially seeing as I got a B in ordinary. Surely I'm still allowed to say Maths has been dumbed down without being an A1 student? I'm not that good at Maths, I'm just saying it's less challenging than it used to be.

Chris68 wrote: »

Have to smile at this one

Fair enough! I still think I did better on it than most people. Found the last part very easy but I don't think I got it 100% right, I was under pressure for time by the time I got to that bit.

Zaffy · 13-06-2012 6:36pm

ChemHickey wrote: »

I know it catered for the needs of a few, but vectors are a very important part of the engineering courses,afaik. The old maths course provided the chance for students to be introduced to them without having to take Applied maths outside of school.It's unfair for those students... and it was a handy 50m question too.. :L

But hang on, reznov just said that Secondary school is for general education? And that he didn't plan on entering the field of economics, so he felt that he shouldn't have to interpret graphs? So why should non-engineering focused people focus on vectors?

I know that you didn't say that, but I just find it funny that someone can say something, assuming it's true for the whole population, then someone comes out and disagrees with it.

leaveiton · 13-06-2012 6:37pm

I still maintain that Q8 on that paper was rather unfair to students without a background in something like physics or applied maths. Nothing I'd encountered in sample papers or books had required quite that amount of understanding of thing would rotate or move around a point. Not saying they shouldn't have asked it but a little bit more warning would have been nice. Most of the problems we'd been dealing with in class were to do with angles of elevation and the likes, mostly using just trigonometry and nothing else.

reznov · 13-06-2012 6:40pm

Zaffy wrote: »

But hang on, reznov just said that Secondary school is for general education? And that he didn't plan on entering the field of economics, so he felt that he shouldn't have to interpret graphs? So why should non-engineering focused people focus on vectors?

I know that you didn't say that, but I just find it funny that someone can say something, assuming it's true for the whole population, then someone comes out and disagrees with it.

It is general education. Is reforming all of paper two to cater for statistics not catering for specific needs? Are you unable to interpret graphs? I meant interpreting graphs in a simulated fictional environment, attempting to apply general theory to draw a coherent conclusion.

Statistics used to be one question in the old paper two.
I'm stating my opinion, just as you are. It's a discussion board. Of course people will disagree.

ChemHickey · 13-06-2012 6:50pm

Zaffy wrote: »

But hang on, reznov just said that Secondary school is for general education? And that he didn't plan on entering the field of economics, so he felt that he shouldn't have to interpret graphs? So why should non-engineering focused people focus on vectors?

I know that you didn't say that, but I just find it funny that someone can say something, assuming it's true for the whole population, then someone comes out and disagrees with it.

Well, I'm not going to become a professor in co-ordinate geometry so why would I bother studying that? Why would I bother studying plant reproduction in biology if I don't want to be a botanist? Or history in chemistry if I want to be a pharmacist? You can say that for every subject. The thing is with engineering is that it is a requirement for engineering to have HC3 in maths. It is one of the few subjects that there is a requirement for Honours maths, and understanding that, the project-maths-people should have recognised that they are an immense part of the course. Why is there such a big emphasis on trig though is more my question. I understand Statistics, but trigonometry.

GaryIrv93 · 13-06-2012 6:51pm

ChemHickey wrote: »

I think I'll fall into that category... It's embarrassing for me if I do go into Maths in college and not having gotten the A1 which I worked for since first year!

And someone said above something about not remembering what you did in first year, you're completely mistaken. I remember clearly what I did in first year and those first few weeks were the ones which focused me into understanding the course. It was from those that I was able to learn maths at my own pace and my own way. I didn't really rely on the teachers' help, even though all my teachers were extremely good at their job. The way I see it is that it completely ruined those who had a keen interest in maths since first year and before and it allowed those who didn't care/dossed through maths a second chance at the maths system. Those who didn't care much for it in the Junior cycle were not phased by the changes as much as someone like I was...

And it's bad enough having to worry about the points you might or might not receive at the end of the LC without having to also adapt to a new syllabus without warning. I know I mentioned that I seemed to find Project Maths a little easier in the long run, but I was happier studying it the old way, so found it as a distraction as well as an annoyance having to learn it in a new way. Had it not been introduced so late, I wouldn't be sitting here worried sick whether I passed or just failed.

Project Maths, a discussion

Comments