Horay! Project Maths a roaring success

evolving_doors

Ok so now that the numbers who are doing Honours level are up and the numbers failing are down then is that that then?

just wondering what maths teachers think of PM

gaeilgebeo

I'm not a maths teacher but I haven't been hearing anything positive about PM from students or colleagues.

dambarude

According to tomorrow's papers the fail rate is down substantially, and the honours rate is up. A massive turnaround in student performance since this time last year, eh? Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0815/1224322199417.html

TheDriver

exam results can be moved so easily by the SEC, its not funny. They can have a 100% pass rate if they really wanted to mark it that way.

dambarude

When you're explaining you're losing: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0815/1224322197315.html.

Inspector Coptoor

Project Maths is a steaming pile of $hit€

Miss Lockhart

Cynical maybe, but I would not have much faith in the PM grades.

I hate the course - way too much stats at the expense of Linear Algebra and much Calculus.

I was all for a change in how we approach maths teaching and learning but how the removal of the core elements needed for most science courses is supposed to help our knowledge economy, I'll never know.

bdoo

Dung. No other word for project maths.

doc_17

I didn't think there was too much wrong with the previous syllabus. The problem was the exam. Take paper 2 for example on the old HL syllabus, specifically Trig and Stats. The questions rarely had much to do with trig. It was about trying to use one of the 20 formulae to prove some abstract identity. The stats question was much the same, too much algebra and then trying to derive the sigma squared formula. Those are just a couple of examples. Paper 1 Caluclus as well at time ended up trying to prove something instead of having to answer and understand the principles behind it

cmssjone

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Cynical maybe, but I would not have much faith in the PM grades.

I hate the course - way too much stats at the expense of Linear Algebra and much Calculus.

I was all for a change in how we approach maths teaching and learning but how the removal of the core elements needed for most science courses is supposed to help our knowledge economy, I'll never know.

Definitely not cynical. I, and many others, are in total agreement.

bdoo

doc_17 wrote: »

I didn't think there was too much wrong with the previous syllabus. The problem was the exam. Take paper 2 for example on the old HL syllabus, specifically Trig and Stats. The questions rarely had much to do with trig. It was about trying to use one of the 20 formulae to prove some abstract identity. The stats question was much the same, too much algebra and then trying to derive the sigma squared formula. Those are just a couple of examples. Paper 1 Caluclus as well at time ended up trying to prove something instead of having to answer and understand the principles behind it

They tried to sex up the technical drawing syllabus with dcg. No fifth year class this year in my school as the word has gone around about the workload involved.

Same with maths- why tinker with something to improve it when you can destroy it completely.

There are plenty of people who managed to live successful lives having taken the old maths syllabus. The number doing hl maths is only up due to bonus points. If the aim is to attract people into specific courses then bonus points should only apply to them.

I did ol maths because I felt I had enough points elsewhere and I did, made it harder in college when I did maths modules mind, but made my leaving cert considerably less stressful.

I just wonder would people pick up 5 points in 5 subjects without the worry of maths if they're not good at it? Maths is going to be difficult for some people regardless of what you do with it.

In JC woodwork the projects for ol are always rubbish compared to hl. So weak kids pick the more interesting project and then do poorly, I wonder will this happen over time with maths

RealJohn

The numbers and pass rates are up, eh? That's definitely projects maths then, not the 25 extra points you now get for a D3 or higher?

Not to mention that, as someone who has marked state exams (junior cert admittedly), I know for a fact that marking schemes are changed and papers marked more easily if the results aren't coming out they way they want them to so personally, I'd have been very surprised if the pass rate didn't rise.
Add to that that the new course is significantly dumbed down (I did a good bit of the higher level material with my ordinary level class and they got on fine) and yes, projects maths is a roaring success.

It's a bit like an aging footballer going to play in a nothing league when he can't hack it at the top level anymore, banging in a few goals and claiming to be better than he was before. On the surface, it seems to be true but when you actually look at it, all is not rosey in the garden.

Here's a prediction next summer: record numbers failing university engineering courses because students got a C3 in higher level maths but couldn't actually hack it in a maths heavy engineering course.

aunt aggie

RealJohn I cant make any sense of those marking schemes. Is that the point? I know theyre using partial credit system instead of slips and blunders but its very vague on the kind of answers that earn you partial credit.

I worked in PM pilot school. It was an absolute joke, teachers didnt have time to cover all the syllabus and were rushing towards the end. Some of the best teachers I ever worked with but they were at their wits end and the kids knew it. It wasnt fair and I definately wouldnt call that situation a success.

Also with budget cuts, one leaving cert honours maths class had more than 30 students.

dambarude

Is it likely the case that theyve wanted to artificially lower rates for some time, using marking schemes, and that project maths has given the opportunity and cover to do so?

spurious

I'm not a Maths teacher, so I can't comment on how Maths-y PM is or isn't, but they are doing something right when we have entire classes of kids going in relatively confident to their exams.

The one reservation I would have is that the language of the paper puts children with reading or language issues at a disadvantage as they were not clear on what they were being asked.

Our gang were very pleased with their results today.

Pegasusbridge

It is interesting to note that the A rate at higher level has dropped a good bit this year. 9.5% down from 13.4% last year

doc_17

You could write a book on this topic!

Of course if Ruari Quinn does what he says he was gonna do and make it compulsory for entrance to the colleges to have HL Maths then that might further increase the uptake at Higher Level

doc_17

The failure rate at OL Maths is only down form 9.8% to 9.5% according to somebody I was listening to earlier.

Inspector Coptoor

Pegasusbridge wrote: »

It is interesting to note that the A rate at higher level has dropped a good bit this year. 9.5% down from 13.4% last year

That's because project Maths is unfair to sen students on both ends of the spectrum.

We all know & have taught kids who just get Maths & can use numbers & symbols better than words.

Project Maths asks these kids to give reasons for their answers and this causes them problems bringing them down to a B.

But this is what they SEC & DES want. A perfect bell curve with low failure rates & higher participation rates.

The failure rate for honors maths was 2.5% & was 13.5% for OL Bio....
Something rotten there IMHO.

Who ever came up with this idea that Maths should be useful in everyday life?

It's an academic subject for gods sake.

It'd be like telling English teachers to come up with a novel based on txt spk.

As a Maths teacher I work with who is completely against this blatant dumbing down of Maths so wonderfully put it:
"Maths is like sex, it has a practical element to it, but that's not why we do it.

dambarude

Am I correct in saying that only Paper 2 was Project Maths based this year? If so, it makes the results all the more implausible. Only half of the marks were going for PM content and methods, yet they account for the entire percentage of improvements? The fact that these students only started PM two years ago, rather than in first year, makes it even more implausible that new methods can explain the grade improvements.

evolving_doors

While I agree that the hamfisted way PM was introduced esp at senior level has been a pure smokescreen, I wonder does anyone here think that the way that the teaching of maths has been required to change is a good thing? i.e. more peer to peer interaction, discovery based approach, less teacher talking time, testing of comprehension rather than monkey tricks procedure, use of concrete examples. All of that stuff George Humphries will never be able to put into a text book.

I think though it also throws up the question of a general education in maths that encourages some degree of critical thinking. Or should we just be teaching Honours level maths to students who are going to jump straight into college level stuff.

Maybe it puts the question back onto Universities? Do they just go along with the usual 'talk and chalk' approach of lecturing or should Universities also start to take some responsibility, after all, I seem to remember somewhere in the not so distant past that a good deal of Universities were complaining that students were entering college without any level of comprehension and that students were only focused on procedure. Now it seems they're all in a huff when attempts have been made to address the issue.

I suspect this is going to be knocked back and forth for years to come, students will come and go but it'll be the teachers who'll have to plod on amongst the typical media spin.

Miss Lockhart

I agree the new approach to teaching and learning is a step forward and should be encouraged.

No reason we couldn't have done the same curriculum with a new approach and new exam format.

I would also agree with Inspector Cooptor that the wordiness of the paper has further disadvantaged those with literacy problems. We have seen more students taking HL but also more students taking FL.