Project Maths

Blackpanther95

Does anyone else think project maths is way easier than the old course. They keep praising the new course, and telling us how so many more people are getting better results and more people are taking honours, but isn't that just a direct result of dumming the course down ??

token56

Previously I would of had the opinion that it was easier but having went through the old style LC myself, and now giving grinds to students doing project maths I dont think its necessarily easier. The biggest changes for me have been the syllabus, with some topics being removed, and the actual structure of the paper.

In terms of the topics removed, for example matrices, and optionals like vectors, etc, while I would have preferred such topics not be removed I can see why they did it. For someone who is never going to use mathematics heavily in their career/life again such topics aren't necessary and if you ended up doing a course where they are need you will be thought such topics individually anyway. While I do think there is now less on the syllabus to learn I don't think it makes it necessarily easier and this has more to do with the change in structure.

Previously with regards structure there was significantly more choice with regards what question you could do on Paper 1 and 2, now there is only a choice on Paper 2 and a very limited one at that. The structures of previous papers was fairly rigid, you know which topic would come up in each question. This allowed for students to not study entire subjects if they so wished and not have to worry about not being able to do a full paper, for example previously you could have left out the majority of complex numbers, the binomial theorem, etc without really worrying about it. This is no longer an option and you need to know every topic on the syllabus. Its because of this I dont think the dropping of some topics has negatively impacted on the difficulty.

In addition the section 2 in both papers in project maths can be rather difficult if students dont attempt to actually understand the material. As opposed to rote learning which I feel was common place in maths previously.

My problem with maths in our education system has never been with the final examination, its more to do with the way in which maths is taught to students but I think that is a different discussion for a different thread.

Mwalimu

I agree with token56. It isn't really easier because, apart from having to do everything now, the kind of unknown applications you have to be able to manage can really be difficult to work out. Even teachers who taught all of the old course are saying it's way too hard. It's about getting you to think about the problem and then use the maths to solve it. Thinking through the maths ain't easy!

evolving_doors

Mwalimu wrote: »

I agree with token56. It isn't really easier because, apart from having to do everything now, the kind of unknown applications you have to be able to manage can really be difficult to work out. Even teachers who taught all of the old course are saying it's way too hard. It's about getting you to think about the problem and then use the maths to solve it. Thinking through the maths ain't easy!

I'd agree there, before a lot of rote learning could have gotten you through, however now concepts have to be understood. In a way though they are testing intuition, it's like those mensa tests where you kind of have to know the answer before you can do it. Also , developmentally speaking, a good deal of teenagers have not reached this stage of lateral thinking.

Another beef I would have (Maybe not so much for the honours students) is the level of english and comprehension required. The actualexam paper has doubled in weight. I teach some students whowould have done very well at the foundation level but know the level of english really holds them back. I can appreciate that these students will need to be able to discern things from large amounts of text, but it has become like an english exam for a lot of them.

Also, and this is a real bugbear of mine...there are ambiguities in some of the questions. One of my students spotted this the other day.. at first I told them that it was obvious what was required (i.e. the difference between the two extensions) however it was pointed out that the 'Extra' area that she would have by chosing the first plan is the extra area in the first extension (compared to what she had without any extension)...
Capture1.JPG
Capture2.JPG

Also, in terms of honours LCert I've heard from a few teachers that there are students who are barely clinging on in order to get the Bonus Points. It does create a difficulty for the teacher in terms of pacing as they have to differentiate for this level of students who just "don't get it miss". Also after school inspections the inspector wanted to see all those getting A's in ordinary level put into honours level. In terms of massaging the figures during the correcting process I think this is well known..."Lies, damned lies, and statistics"...

Other than that though...ya sure things had to change but sometimes I wonder does the primary schools have a case to answer with the introduction of calculators and elimination of rote learning of tables. Ask a secondary student 6x7 and they will reach for their calculator first. I think Carol Vorderman alluded to this diminution in mental arithmetic standards. I can just see some of these students in later life sitting around a business negotiation where every other person is doing percentages and estimations at the drop of a hat where the Irish guy is still fumbling for their phone to work out 10%.

But that's always the way ..
Industry blames Universities
Universities blame Secondary Schools
Secondary blames Primary
Primary Blames the Parents

I blame Industries... just cough up and train yer own bloody staff.

That's my rant anyhow. I think we need to take a holistic approach.

TheBody

Armelodie wrote: »

I'd agree there, before a lot of rote learning could have gotten you through, however now concepts have to be understood. In a way though they are testing intuition, it's like those mensa tests where you kind of have to know the answer before you can do it. Also , developmentally speaking, a good deal of teenagers have not reached this stage of lateral thinking.

Another beef I would have (Maybe not so much for the honours students) is the level of english and comprehension required. The actualexam paper has doubled in weight. I teach some students whowould have done very well at the foundation level but know the level of english really holds them back. I can appreciate that these students will need to be able to discern things from large amounts of text, but it has become like an english exam for a lot of them.

Also, and this is a real bugbear of mine...there are ambiguities in some of the questions. One of my students spotted this the other day.. at first I told them that it was obvious what was required (i.e. the difference between the two extensions) however it was pointed out that the 'Extra' area that she would have by chosing the first plan is the extra area in the first extension (compared to what she had without any extension)...
Capture1.JPG
Capture2.JPG

Also, in terms of honours LCert I've heard from a few teachers that there are students who are barely clinging on in order to get the Bonus Points. It does create a difficulty for the teacher in terms of pacing as they have to differentiate for this level of students who just "don't get it miss". Also after school inspections the inspector wanted to see all those getting A's in ordinary level put into honours level. In terms of massaging the figures during the correcting process I think this is well known..."Lies, damned lies, and statistics"...

Other than that though...ya sure things had to change but sometimes I wonder does the primary schools have a case to answer with the introduction of calculators and elimination of rote learning of tables. Ask a secondary student 6x7 and they will reach for their calculator first. I think Carol Vorderman alluded to this diminution in mental arithmetic standards. I can just see some of these students in later life sitting around a business negotiation where every other person is doing percentages and estimations at the drop of a hat where the Irish guy is still fumbling for their phone to work out 10%.

But that's always the way ..
Industry blames Universities
Universities blame Secondary Schools
Secondary blames Primary
Primary Blames the Parents

I blame Industries... just cough up and train yer own bloody staff.

That's my rant anyhow. I think we need to take a holistic approach.

I couldn't agree with you more there!!

Blackpanther95

With regards to the standard of english needed, in later maths, i was surprised by the quality of English actually needed to solve theorems and stuff. The ambiguous questions are good and bad, the problem is having ambiguous questions, and concrete answers, I mean if the examiner was just allowed to look at your answer like an english examiner would look at an essay and mark you according to the quality and relevance of your answer, but if he has to simply match your work to the answersheet and give marks accordingly, ambiguity is a disaster, I personally feel there's WAY TOO MUCH statistics on the course, I mean I do mathematics in college, and have never done a statistics or probabality module, its is emphazised way too much, along with circle geometry, the only areas of maths that are crucial and core at that level are: Analysis and Algebra and basic geomety. I mean if your going to do circles thats fine, but why bother with circles that are not centred at the origin, if you go that far whats stopping you from doing rotated hyperboles etc. Rote learning is very important for maths, after that you can start to solve problems, I mean if you don't know how to add 5 + 7 or integrate 1/x can you really be good at maths?