Primary teachers reject higher maths requirement

Christy42

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Honours Maths is more time consuming than any other honours subject.
I had several friends who dropped to Ordinary level in 5th year because Maths homework was taking too long in comparison to the other subjects, and an A1 in hnours Maths is worth the same points as an A1 in honours Geography (for example). In an exam where maximising points is the aim, surely it seems more sensible to opt for the 'lesser' workload???

I stuck with higher level but I admit that it took far more time doing homework, exam questions etc than the other subjects I did.

Also, I believe more males do honours maths because it's often requirement (or at the very least a huge help) if they intend on doing engineering etc

This is why students aren't taking up honours Maths. The numbers still imply that more people should be encouraged to take honours level maths. Unless a level above honours is established, honours can't be made easier to redress the difference in workload between maths and geography which was why additional points were brought in for it. Not sure of the success of the scheme but the vague idea is correct. Yes it will always be the correct option for students to take the easiest path to their desired goal, I dropped Irish for this reason, but the system should be designed so it isn't always maths taking that hit.

I am not sure why more guys do honours maths but that to me (possibly not RQ though) is a different question. I feel primary teachers should have been examined to an honours level or at least a high pass, obviously they shouldn't need to remember it all ten years down the road but it is a test of aptitude and I don't see why honours Irish should be required but not Maths.

purplecow1977

I think to gain entry into the post grad for teaching in the UK, you have to do a Maths (and Science if I'm not mistaken) test as a type of 'aptitude' test. No idea on the level of the test or what it would equate to here, but maybe that's an option rather than a blanket 'must do honours level Maths'. Not sure what the requirements as an undergrad are.

Christy42

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I think to gain entry into the post grad for teaching in the UK, you have to do a Maths (and Science if I'm not mistaken) test as a type of 'aptitude' test. No idea on the level of the test or what it would equate to here, but maybe that's an option rather than a blanket 'must do honours level Maths'. Not sure what the requirements as an undergrad are.

This I would also be in favour of. I do think that there should be the same requirements across the board. So that teachers should have a C grad knowledge of each subject taught in primary school up to an honours LC level.

As this is over the top for someone to do in the LC I would allow special make up courses in college (or wherever is appropriate) that would serve as stand ins.

byhookorbycrook

Christy42 wrote: »

This I would also be in favour of. I do think that there should be the same requirements across the board. So that teachers should have a C grad knowledge of each subject taught in primary school up to an honours LC level.

As this is over the top for someone to do in the LC I would allow special make up courses in college (or wherever is appropriate) that would serve as stand ins.

So you want a h/l C in art, music , pe , drama, religion , sphe , history , geography , English, Irish and Maths then? Not to mention science - should that be Biology, physics or chemistry or all three ?
"Modules" as you refer to them are done in college for each subject area as is. People need to know what they are actually talking about before they make sweeping statements, a là RQ

RealJohn

Quinn seems to be throwing everything at the wall right now and hoping some of it will stick. To be honest, this is one I agree with him on. As a maths teacher, I know that leaving cert ordinary level is not a high standard. I wouldn't be happy to know a primary teacher has less than a B in ordinary level and to be honest, I think it should be a minimum of an A. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect higher level maths too. I see far too many students at second level who think a calculator is the best friend of anyone who has maths to do. This is exactly the sort of attitude that gets passed on by people who aren't comfortable with the basics. If students see teachers taking shortcuts, they'll think those shortcuts are the way things are done.

A teacher with higher level maths ought not have the same sort of trouble. In my experience, it's weak fundamentals that prevent some good students from achieving higher level maths. An ordinary level student who subsequently becomes a teacher might not appreciate the importance of being strong at the basics in a way a higher level student would. If you don't understand something, it's harder to see the benefit of understanding it.

Comparing it to Irish is disingenuous on two levels. First of all, as many of you have already pointed out, higher level maths is 'harder' (for want of a better way of putting it) than any other higher level subject, including Irish. A C in higher level Irish does not indicate the same level of competence in Irish as a C in higher level maths does with regards mathematical ability. I think the minimum requirement in Irish for primary teachers should be raised, possibly to an A but definitely to a B given that a large proportion of the marks for Irish go on actually fluency in the language rather than on your ability to critically analyse a poem or whatever as in the case in english (where fluency is more or less assumed). I have rarely encountered a primary school teacher who didn't teach in a Gaelscoil and was comfortable speaking to me in Irish and I wouldn't consider my level of Irish high enough to teach it. That situation shouldn't be possible. That's a different argument though. My point was that comparing higher level Irish and higher level maths isn't comparing like with like and the fact that the higher level Irish requirement for primary teachers is still failing our students doesn't indicate that the same would be true of higher level maths.

You don't find people with only an undergraduate degree lecturing in universities. You don't (for the most part) find secondary school teachers teaching a subject they've only studied to leaving cert level. A good sixth class student could probably scrape a D in ordinary level leaving cert maths with a few months preparation. How can that be an acceptable standard for a primary school teacher?

Christy42

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

So you want a h/l C in art, music , pe , drama, religion , sphe , history , geography , English, Irish and Maths then? Not to mention science - should that be Biology, physics or chemistry or all three ?
"Modules" as you refer to them are done in college for each subject area as is. People need to know what they are actually talking about before they make sweeping statements, a là RQ

Are the modules done to a honours level LC standard? If so then why is anyone talking about primary teachers needing maths and why is Irish required if they already have an equivalent?
Honest question.

You obviously went to a better primary school than me as most sciences were never touched upon when I was there. We had some nature books so I guess Biology would be handy for questions that could arise. None of art, music or drama were offered either. Pe was a specific teacher that covered all the classes. Don't recall any sphe either. The religion instruction in my school was also lacking (traditional RCC dogma) but that should be changed in primary schools to make it a subject. Honestly a lc level in religion, history, geography, English, Irish, Maths and Biology is doable over the course of college in addition to the LC itself which should tick at least 3 of those boxes before college.

byhookorbycrook

To be fair the calculator from 4th up is DES policy. They can even be used for the standardized tests. I personally loathe their use , but h/l maths is not really a test of bare bones computation, so even if a would be B.ed has an A in h/l maths, they still would have to allow calculator use in primary .

byhookorbycrook

Christy42 wrote: »

Are the modules done to a honours level LC standard? If so then why is anyone talking about primary teachers needing maths and why is Irish required if they already have an equivalent?
Honest question.

You obviously went to a better primary school than me as most sciences were never touched upon when I was there. We had some nature books so I guess Biology would be handy for questions that could arise. None of art, music or drama were offered either. Pe was a specific teacher that covered all the classes. Don't recall any sphe either. The religion instruction in my school was also lacking (trzaditional RCC dogma) but that should be changed in primary schools to make it a subject. Honestly a lc level in religion, history, geography, English, Irish, Maths and Biology is doable over the course of college in addition to the LC itself which should tick at least 3 of those boxes before college.

I can't say to the standard in college now, it's a while since I was there! Science was not an official part of the curriculum when you were at school, I would imagine. Originally , it had been and under the 99 curriculum was re-introduced, along with the widening of different aspects if subjects such as pe whereby strands like aquatics, dance and gymnastics were given more importance than they might once have had. ( Much to the disgust of some children I know who would choose ball games every single lesson if left )

Mr Pseudonym

Christy42 wrote: »

Are the modules done to a honours level LC standard?

No - the LC is the last point at which a student teacher has the extent of their mathematical ability tested.

RealJohn

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

To be fair the calculator from 4th up is DES policy. They can even be used for the standardized tests. I personally loathe their use , but h/l maths is not really a test of bare bones computation, so even if a would be B.ed has an A in h/l maths, they still would have to allow calculator use in primary .

Yeah, I realise this but a teacher with ordinary level maths is more likely to take the attitude "sure they'll all be allowed to use calculators anyway so they don't need to know their tables" since they probably can't see the benefits of knowing the basics themselves. I know that sounds insulting and I don't mean it to be but it's the way I feel about it. I'd love to see figures that either bear this out or refute it obviously but I'd be very surprised if it was the latter.

On a general issue, I think the principle job of the primary schools is to ensure that the students have a good grasp of Irish, english and maths. If push comes to shove, the rest can come in secondary (though I'm not advocating that all of it does) but without those three (and probably some basic computer literacy these days) the students will not fulfill their potential in other subjects in secondary school.
As a science teacher, I'd rather they came in to me with no science rather than having to unlearn things they got from a primary teacher who didn't have a high enough level of science to teach it.

purplecow1977

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

No - the LC is the last point at which a student teacher has the extent of their mathematical ability tested.

Unless they choose Maths as an Arts subject.

purplecow1977

RealJohn wrote: »

Yeah, I realise this but a teacher with ordinary level maths is more likely to take the attitude "sure they'll all be allowed to use calculators anyway so they don't need to know their tables" since they probably can't see the benefits of knowing the basics themselves.

That's a ridiculous statement to make and completely uninformed. I don't know anyone who would think like that! In 4th class, they'd be dying for a shortcut and to just use calculators but until I know they can work the sum out themselves, I insist on them showing the rough work and the calculator is really a means for checking their answers, not working them out.

RealJohn wrote: »

I know that sounds insulting and I don't mean it to be but it's the way I feel about it. I'd love to see figures that either bear this out or refute it obviously but I'd be very surprised if it was the latter.

It IS very insulting and just a throwaway comment with absolutely zero background.

RealJohn wrote: »

On a general issue, I think the principle job of the primary schools is to ensure that the students have a good grasp of Irish, english and maths.

Unfortunately, the DES disagree and we have 11 subjects to teach. I myself would spend majority of my time on those 3 core subjects, but according to the DES, up until recently enough, SESE (History, Geography, Science) was allocated as much time as Maths
http://www.into.ie/ROI/InformationforMedia/InformationforJournalists/TimeSpentonEachSubject.pdf

RealJohn wrote: »

If push comes to shove, the rest can come in secondary (though I'm not advocating that all of it does) but without those three (and probably some basic computer literacy these days) the students will not fulfill their potential in other subjects in secondary school.

You might think so, but in actual fact, you are wrong.
I taught someone with very poor Maths and English skills before (exemption from Irish) yet he adored some historical topics like World War 2 and the Titanic. He was so interested in these topics and would devour books (well, the interest was there, his mother mostly read them to him) but he had very little interest in bog standard English. Orally, he could tell you any fact you wanted to know about those two topics, so SESE is valuable that way.

A lot of it can be integrated with English and other topics anyway.

RealJohn wrote: »

As a science teacher, I'd rather they came in to me with no science rather than having to unlearn things they got from a primary teacher who didn't have a high enough level of science to teach it.

So now we are teaching them incorrect information? Do you mind telling me what things they have learned from primary teachers that weren't true? I also find that quite an insulting comment to make so am interested to hear your answer.

Mr Pseudonym

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Unless they choose Maths as an Arts subject.

I presume you mean maths as part of the Bachelor of Education degree. In St Patrick's College there is a requirement (albeit, a loose one) that students have an HC3 or OA2 at LC to take the Maths specialisation.

JJayoo

The level of maths in Primary school is soooooo basic, why in God's name would you need higher level maths to teach the basics?

purplecow1977

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I presume you mean maths as part of the Bachelor of Education degree. In St Patrick's College there is a requirement (albeit, a loose one) that students have an HC3 or OA2 at LC to take the Maths specialisation.

Oh I wasn't aware of that. Don't think that existed in Mary Immaculate. I don't remember.

Owen_S

People keep saying that LC maths is awful and not taught properly, and doesn't prepare you for college. But after 2 years of maths in college, I know less now than the day I saw the LC.

Red_Dwarf

I think all Primary level teachers should have HL English, Irish and Maths....

We need to set a high standard within our education system.....

I dont see how if you have not made the effort in School yourself you be a high achiever in these subjects how can you teach these subjects to others?

this should be the standard of education and the pay should relate to this.

Teachers should not only be teaching whats in the books but be going the extra mile of expanding students education above and beyond whats needed

Mr Pseudonym

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Oh I wasn't aware of that. Don't think that existed in Mary Immaculate. I don't remember.

In truth, "requirement" probably overstates it: according to page fifty of this booklet, "Grade C3 Higher level Leaving Certificate or A2 Ordinary level is recommended". I reckon an especially committed student with less could insist on doing it!

purplecow1977

Red_Dwarf wrote: »

I think all Primary level teachers should have HL English, Irish and Maths....

We need to set a high standard within our education system.....

I dont see how if you have not made the effort in School yourself you be a high achiever in these subjects how can you teach these subjects to others?

Did you read ANY of the other comments in this thread?

Red_Dwarf

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Did you read ANY of the other comments in this thread?

Yes, Why?

evolving_doors

I'm tired of the put downs by the Minister... The implication from RQ has always been that teachers aren't good enough.

Pwpane

RealJohn wrote: »

As a science teacher, I'd rather they came in to me with no science rather than having to unlearn things they got from a primary teacher who didn't have a high enough level of science to teach it.

Oh Lord, yes!

If primary teachers are to teach science, they should have at least hons chem or hons phys in their leaving cert so they have some understanding.

As in maths, it's easy enough to follow the book but the students get all sorts of strange notions when the explanation is deficient and these notions are remarkably difficult to change.

That's why primary teachers should have hons maths - to prove they have some understanding. It's all well and good to have the ability to do it and then drop down to pass, but you need to do it to gain the understanding. Not all primary students are little kids and many of them are very bright and need stretching.

It's all very well to have high points in the leaving cert, but it matters what the points were obtained in.

Moody_mona

With Science, I correct children on a weekly basis for things they have been incorrectly taught in primary school. Seemingly little things, when salt dissolves in disappears, water is the only "element" able to be a solid, liquid and gas, but it's stuff they remember. These are children who have poor spelling and comprehension etc, and really shouldn't be doing any Science, but that's not the fault of primary schools obviously. I feel like Science is such a fundamental topic that children deserve to be taught by someone qualified, and would prefer it left till second level.

Kathnora

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Is it? I don't agree. I love teaching Maths. Due to it being my favourite subject in school. We all have our fortés. As another poster commented, HL Irish is currently required and yet children in 6th class can't hold a simple conversation after learning it for 8 years! Now there's a problem! That should be enough to prove that HL requirements don't equal success.

Very true regarding Irish...poor attitude has a lot to do with that..from parents and not all teachers who get their Honour love the subject!

evolving_doors

Pwpane wrote: »

Oh Lord, yes!

If primary teachers are to teach science, they should have at least hons chem or hons phys in their leaving cert so they have some understanding.

As in maths, it's easy enough to follow the book but the students get all sorts of strange notions when the explanation is deficient and these notions are remarkably difficult to change.

That's why primary teachers should have hons maths - to prove they have some understanding. It's all well and good to have the ability to do it and then drop down to pass, but you need to do it to gain the understanding. Not all primary students are little kids and many of them are very bright and need stretching.

It's all very well to have high points in the leaving cert, but it matters what the points were obtained in.

For Primary understanding of place value,multiplication, division a little geometry is enough to be getting on with with the students!!!. LC HL maths is a little bit beyond those topics to say the least. I think RQ is totally clueless about the intricacies of Primary school pedagogy. The skill is in the teaching of the topic... the methods used ( lets be honest it's not brain surgery we're teaching kids at primary school).

If we follow his logic of requiring honours maths then why not honours Geography, Honours PE, Honours languages, Honours Music, Honours English, honours Art etc... I think Ruairi is confusing Primary and Secondary teaching as being the same thing.

fiachr_a

It's not really about the maths though is it? It's more about hiring teachers with strong maths ability who can engage with the smarter students on technical ideas and encourage them in these areas from an early age. Not every kid can reach their ability by attending Ms Murphy's religion classes.

Reillyman

Musicman2000 wrote: »

Way to much focus on Maths in the education system in this country even at third level. Everyone is not technically minded and even at third level some of the maths that are being taught are no benefit to students and never will be used in the real world.

What is the maths that won't be used in the real world? I'm currently in final year of a maths degree and literally >95% of maths we study are used in the real world, so which parts of LC/third level maths are you referring to?

purplecow1977

Reillyman wrote: »

What is the maths that won't be used in the real world? I'm currently in final year of a maths degree and literally >95% of maths we study are used in the real world, so which parts of LC/third level maths are you referring to?

I don't agree with this at all!
Differentiation and integration?
Echelon form?
Visual C++
Maple

I did all those for my Maths degree and I have NEVER used them and don't see that changing.

robp

The most glaring fault in Minister Quinn's argument is that there is little evidence that aspiring female teachers don't take higher level maths. Many female students take higher maths. 46.6% of higher level students are female. Considering females make up 49.3% of the total there is no major difference in enrolment.


There is another and a very valid debate about the importance in higher maths background for someone doing primary teaching. Even though maths is so important in life it is extremely questionable whether it would impact teaching in any meaningful way.

Reillyman

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I don't agree with this at all!
Differentiation and integration?
Echelon form?
Visual C++
Maple

I did all those for my Maths degree and I have NEVER used them and don't see that changing.

Are you for real?

Differentiation and integration is quite possibly THE most widely used area of mathematics, it's used in economics, engineering, medicine, IT, finance, physics, electricity, to name countless more. Almost any real world problem can be used or explained using calculus...

Echelon form: the study of matrices is again used in nearly every industry and is applied everywhere.

Visual C++: The study of computing and programming is self explanatory, every computer,phone,tablet etc we use has to be programmed, the website you're on now and the device your using has to be programmed, of course things like C++ are relevant. Also, is it inconceivable that in the next 10 years primary children should be thought a programming language? It's vital to our education and development that we all learn how to code, things like Coderdojo show how this is going to be a huge area of children's education, but the huge barrier will be the lack of knowledge by teachers.

In fact your post really shows the problem with this whole thing, when people don't understand the concept and meaning of the mathematics they're learning in school, how can they go on to inspire the next generation?

robp

Reillyman wrote: »

Are you for real?

Differentiation and integration is quite possibly THE most widely used area of mathematics, it's used in economics, engineering, medicine, IT, finance, physics, electricity, to name countless more. Almost any real world problem can be used or explained using calculus...

Echelon form: the study of matrices is again used in nearly every industry and is applied everywhere.

Visual C++: The study of computing and programming is self explanatory, every computer,phone,tablet etc we use has to be programmed, the website you're on now and the device your using has to be programmed, of course things like C++ are relevant. Also, is it inconceivable that in the next 10 years primary children should be thought a programming language? It's vital to our education and development that we all learn how to code, things like Coderdojo show how this is going to be a huge area of children's education, but the huge barrier will be the lack of knowledge by teachers.

In fact your post really shows the problem with this whole thing, when people don't understand the concept and meaning of the mathematics they're learning in school, how can they go on to inspire the next generation?

You are misunderstanding the issue. These applications of maths are all around us and crucial for modern society but the proportion of the workforce that requires these skills is a clear minority. It may be a growing percent but its still a skillset which is not required for most jobs. Now that is not a reason to avoid learning it. Education is more then preparation for the workplace. Indeed most adults would benefit from a better understanding of maths as well as humanities subjects.

Moody_mona

Purplecow/Reillyman, there is a huge difference between Maths be in used everyday, and us individually using Maths everyday. It is everywhere, and that really needs to be acknowledged and appreciated.

Take Complex Numbers for example. My students will complain that they'll never use them. Fine, they probably won't, but they wouldn't be able to play computer games if someone else didn't use them to develop the games. It's all about teaching them that appreciation.

Reillyman

robp wrote: »

There is another and a very valid debate about the importance in higher maths background for someone doing primary teaching. Even though maths is so important in life it is extremely questionable whether it would impact teaching in any meaningful way.

The whole "they only need to learn about multiplication and fractions, nothing harder than that," argument lacks substance in fairness.

To give an example, in the film Angela's Ashes, there is the part about the 4th class teacher teaching geometry.

"Brendan Quigley raises his hand. Sir, what's a theorem and what's a
Euclid?

Without Euclid, boys, mathematics would be a poor doddering thing.
Without Euclid we wouldn't be able to go from here to there. Without
Euclid the bicycle would have no wheel. Without Euclid St. Joseph could
not have been a carpenter for carpentry is geometry and geometry is
carpentry. Without Euclid this very school could never have been built."

Now, how many primary school teachers could fully explain the concept of a Euclidean line if you asked them? How many could try and explain to children, the concept of what a Euclidean line is and why it is fundamentally important. The students grasp of mathematics through secondary and third level would be vastly increased if they understood and can visualise these concepts from a younger age. By the time you are actually introduced to euclidean lines and planes in the junior-cert cycle, you are too preoccupied with solving the given problem rather than spending time to understand the concept of lines and planes.

Having HL mathematics as a requirement may not solve this, but it does show how a teacher should understand concepts other than arithmetic.

Reillyman

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Actually IT skills would be more beneficial.

You do realise that the study of computer science is mainly the study of mathematics? Take a look at the modules in the B.Sc Computer Science and IT degree if you don't believe it. http://www.nuigalway.ie/courses/undergraduate-courses/computer-science-and-information-technology.html

byhookorbycrook

Reillyman wrote: »

You do realise that the study of computer science is mainly the study of mathematics? Take a look at the modules in the B.Sc Computer Science and IT degree if you don't believe it. http://www.nuigalway.ie/courses/undergraduate-courses/computer-science-and-information-technology.html

*sigh* primary pupils are unlikely to be doing the science and IT degree whilst in primary . If each child could be taught to be comfortable with the laptop/ tabket, use it for research and presenting work , learn how to collate info from various sources , learn responsibility online, contribute to the school website/ blog, learn to code through programmes like Scratch, it would be a start. The hons maths thing is a smokesscreen to hide lack of IT resources in schools, cut backs to Sen provision, the lack of EAL teachers and Snas and all the rest of it.

byhookorbycrook

The Euclid q/a example is the older model of teacher knows it all rather than teacher encouraging discovery learning and helping child to find out. By your argument if a child asked the meaning of a Latin phrase , the teacher should know that too. We've moved on from Angela's time, I'd hope

Reillyman

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

The Euclid q/a example is the older model of teacher knows it all rather than teacher encouraging discovery learning and helping child to find out. By your argument if a child asked the meaning of a Latin phrase , the teacher should know that too. We've moved on from Angela's time, I'd hope

You're completely missing the point.

My point is that things such as the concept of the Euclidean line and the concept of planes should be completely understood by teachers and thus taught to pupils at primary level. Instead of viewing maths as only arithmetic in primary level, the fundamental concepts such as the real line etc should be introduced, as this will inherently improve their understanding of everything in 2nd level onward.

byhookorbycrook

Then your issue is with the DES who are responsible for the primary curriculum content, so back to RQ. Teaching autonomy is a thing of the past , there's little room to go " off script" and less and less as RQ introduces more and more pointless initiatives, seeks more and more paperwork , ticking "targets" etc. this has failed dismally in England, yet due to his total lack of understanding of education, wants to ape that system endlessly.

purplecow1977

Knowledge of Euclid?
I've heard it all now!
By your theory,I should be able to answer any possible question I am asked? I disagree! If I am asked anything relating to Euclid or another topic which I have little knowledge of,I will do two things.
1-Ask them if they can find the answer out at home
2-Research and find out answer myself to confirm tomorrow with pupil.

Im not perfect. I don't know everything. I don't pretend to. I don't agree that I or anyone else needs such an advanced knowledge on a topic either.

And yes I am very much for real. Unless you work in one of those careers mentioned,us Average Joe Bloggs don't encounter it.

I enjoyed Maths in college but it ended there for me.

Reillyman

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Then your issue is with the DES who are responsible for the primary curriculum content, so back to RQ.

Absolutely, but in order for these improvements to be realised, we will need teachers who are confident in mathematics to a certain level.

The teachers who will begin training in 2-3 years time will be the people responsible for teaching our children for the next 40-odd years. In that time-frame it is almost certain that mathematics will become a more focused on area, due to the increased innovation of computing, electronics, artificial intelligence etc etc.

For example if you had told a teacher in the 1980's that there would be a mandatory computer literacy test in order to be a teacher you would have been laughed at.* No-one would have thought even 2-3 decades ago how technology would change the way we do everything in the world. We will see even more advancements, at a faster rate over the next few decades, so is it unreasonable to have an education system that would be ready and able to adopt to it.

*This is only a hypothetical example to illustrate the logic, it is not historical reflection of any sort.

purplecow1977

Primary teachers 30 yrs ago weren't as well qualified as our current teachers and people turned out ok!

Reillyman

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Knowledge of Euclid?
I've heard it all now!
By your theory,I should be able to answer any possible question I am asked? I disagree! If I am asked anything relating to Euclid or another topic which I have little knowledge of,I will do two things.

This more or less proves the whole point. You teach children about Euclidean lines and planes all the time, yet you don't even realise it yourself, and furthermore, you seem to think it's some abstract concept. This is why when people go into the LC cycle or even third level, they feel they are in way over there head when teachers/lecturers start talking about basic concepts.

Also, a euclidean line is simply a line between two points.

purplecow1977

Reillyman wrote: »

This more or less proves the whole point. You teach children about Euclidean lines and planes all the time, yet you don't even realise it yourself, and furthermore, you seem to think it's some abstract concept. This is why when people go into the LC cycle or even third level, they feel they are in way over there head when teachers/lecturers start talking about basic concepts.

Also, a euclidean line is simply a line between two points.

I was using that as it was the example given. I could easily have used something
related to Binomial Theorems as an example!

My point is that knowledge on such topics is of no benefit to me in daily life,let alone teaching.

robp

Reillyman wrote: »

This more or less proves the whole point. You teach children about Euclidean lines and planes all the time, yet you don't even realise it yourself, and furthermore, you seem to think it's some abstract concept. This is why when people go into the LC cycle or even third level, they feel they are in way over there head when teachers/lecturers start talking about basic concepts.

Also, a euclidean line is simply a line between two points.

The supposed benefit of passing higher level maths is far removed from the actual practise of teaching in a primary school. If such a benefit exists it relates to the ability to inspire interest by a deeper understanding and actual not mathematical competence as the primary school curriculum will come no where near leaving cert maths. Its worth noting that competence does not correlate with in the ability to inspire. There are plenty of deeply gifted mathematicians that would bore kids to death in their bone dry approach, while mathematically mediocre guys might have a knack for motivating others.

I think increasing the education of teachers is not likely to have a significant benefit. What would be more useful is to attract a different kind of personality who has a natural ability for teaching.

byhookorbycrook

Why don't we just copy this kindergarten altogether and be done with it, after all it seems we only teach children to feed multinational industry needs so let's not bother with educating, just cram instead.
http://twitter.com/1BATMom/status/459903117425770497/photo/1

Reillyman

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I was using that as it was the example given. I could easily have used something
related to Binomial Theorems as an example!

My point is that knowledge on such topics is of no benefit to me in daily life,let alone teaching.

I understand what you are saying, that advanced maths is not needed, this is very true.

What I am trying to explain is that there are really important, really simple concepts that need to be understood at an earlier age, nothing to do with numbers or algebra, simply the idea of what a line is for example, what a plane is, what the real number line is. If children are taught this earlier, they will see everything massively clearer when they progress to 2nd/3rd level.

byhookorbycrook

Reillyman wrote: »

I understand what you are saying, that advanced maths is not needed, this is very true.

What I am trying to explain is that there are really important, really simple concepts that need to be understood at an earlier age, nothing to do with numbers or algebra, simply the idea of what a line is for example, what a plane is, what the real number line is. If children are taught this earlier, they will see everything massively clearer when they progress to 2nd/3rd level.

But how can children understand the real number line without the concept of number ? I think you need to consider how children acquire concepts first of all , before we introduce more advanced topics . For instance 1st class will have children who struggle with writing numerals and ordering numbers 1-20. In classes of 30+ where there may be many children with unsupported extra needs, unfortunately the teacher has to teach to the middle and then do their best to get to those above and below that. It's sad, but true. Primary classrooms have become very different places since Angela!

Reillyman

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

But how can children understand the real number line without the concept of number ?

Of course, which is why it should be done in the latter years of primary school.

I may be wrong on this, and please don't take this as insulting, it is simply a point of discussion, but perhaps the reason many people don't see the need for better mathematical teaching and learning is because they don't fully comprehend or visualise these concepts themselves because they were never taught to think about it themselves, rather use "the methods."

It's kind of like the saying "you don't know what you don't know," meaning that because people never actually visualised maths for themselves, they don't know how important it is for a student to be able to do it, and how much it will help them in their education.

As I said I mean no insult by this, I'm just discussing the possibility.

byhookorbycrook

At what age would you suggest for these concepts? I'm not remotely insulted , enjoying the debate. I do think you are unaware of pressures in primary though , the 5th and 6th maths courses are extremely long and difficult to cover. I know we are talking from the maths side of things, but suppose the next minister ( sooner rather than later ) is appointed and says s/he wants honours in the science subjects or something else?

evolving_doors

Reillyman wrote: »

I understand what you are saying, that advanced maths is not needed, this is very true.

What I am trying to explain is that there are really important, really simple concepts that need to be understood at an earlier age, nothing to do with numbers or algebra, simply the idea of what a line is for example, what a plane is, what the real number line is. If children are taught this earlier, they will see everything massively clearer when they progress to 2nd/3rd level.

Points, lines and angles are done in 1st/2nd year of secondary now as part of the projectmathsamajazz.

From what I learned in Ed. Psych. as part of the Hdip, the primary school kids (age 7-11 ish) operate at the concrete operational stage. So abstract concepts (like the plane you mentioned) don;t really kick in till 12ish (in sec. school). Have a look at Piaget's take here. So basically it's learning by doing rather than being bamboozled by teaching them "concepts" as you mentioned earlier. So in terms of teaching general principles like Euclid, they are best left to Secondary school e.g.

Piaget determined that children in the concrete operational stage were fairly good at the use of inductive logic. Inductive logic involves going from a specific experience to a general principle. On the other hand, children at this age have difficulty using deductive logic, which involves using a general principle to determine the outcome of a specific event.

This is my understanding but Ill stand corrected from any of the Primary teachers on here! Anyway who's to say these Psychologists were right.

I think the biggest elephant in the room is the transition between the two schools (primary to secondary) neither is really aware what the other is doing. I've seen classes where a maths teacher who has her kids going through primary was able to connect the threads to the Junior cert curriculum from what they did in Primary.

I agree that Primary teachers should be comfortable with any of the maths but I find the students who are most comfortable 'doing the maths' in Secondary are the ones who have a good grasp of basic mental arithmetic. This is where its at, being comfortable with mental arithmetic and guestimations. A few times on Dragons den the folk usually get ripped to shreds if they can;t do basic estimations. Forget about the complicated stuff, in the next few years former Irish students are going to get laughed out of business meetings and negotiations if they are asked for a 12.5 % discount of 48,000... 'reaches for phone calculator'.. non Irish business folk around the table realise they can take advantage of this fella. Carol Vorderman agrees with this too BTW. mental arithmetic is where it's at for primary.