** LC Applied Maths 2014 - Before and after discussion **

Solid_Shepard

qweerty wrote: »

Nope - I isn't James G. And, as far as I know, he isn't me!

I do agree with most of what he says, though.

I wrote a response earlier and decided to delay sending it. I'm glad I did, cause it's given me the chance to make it a lot more civil

I enjoyed reading it, but ultimately I agreed with very little in your post.

Where to start..? I think you greatly exaggerate when you say that Oliver Murphy’s textbook is now "useless" and "worthless", that the extent of the change in layout of this year's AM paper is similar to that in core Maths, that AM no longer rewards the "logical approach", and countless (!) others.

"I appreciate the department's desire to make "Applied Mathematics" align with "Project Mathematics" in presenting students with problems that must be tackled in a creative manner using the existing framework, but…" - is what's in bold not exactly what AM was before? We can argue that the problems on this year's paper expected unreasonable amounts of creativity, but not that this is some departure from what was before. If we are to have that argument, though, I would strongly reject that "tricks" were employed or even that any question was especially difficult. You seem to advocate a paper that has few surprises and rewards a methodical approach - that would be prone to cynical rote-learning.

You and NC say that having an adequately-presented syllabus would justify this year’s paper, but why? Any syllabus wouldn't give indications of what the paper would resemble.

Your fears that A-students will get C's, B-students D's, and that C-students will Fail are, as stats I mentioned in a previous post show, not going to be realised.

As one who repeated, I genuinely empathise with those who did worse than they expected, but I think the paper is being scape-goated.

I can agree that some of it was certainly hyperbole for emphasis rather than a genuine approximation. The book is, of course, not 'worthless' in so far as it details the general way to work through the questions, but as far as adequately preparing students for a much wider range of questions featured in an examination context it doesn't favourably compare, given the repetitive nature of the questions and the minimal examples of more unusual types of questions.

It is indeed what Applied Mathematics before but as you've noted the distinction in just how many of the questions appearing in recent times are unusual when compared to the trend, indicating that their approach to the questions has changed. You state that I "seem to advocate a paper that has few surprises and rewards a methodical approach - that would be prone to cynical rote-learning" but, similar to your response, this is indeed what Applied Maths has been in the past, with four or five different types of questions on each topic repeated consistently. There has always been some parts that are distinct as questions aren't literally repeated introducing an element of creativity, certainly, but the paper itself in the past has rarely been anything but rigidly structured, and highly predictable.

Syllabi typically do give an idea of the examination paper, by indicating the aims, overall layout, and the breadth of knowledge that must be learnt.

I've chosen some samples
English - cnt.ie/wp-content/uploads/LCEnglishSyllabus.pdf
Physics - curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/a789272e-823f-4d40-b095-4ff8f6f195e4/SCSEC27_Physics_syllabus_eng.pdf
Project Mathematics - ncca.ie/en/curriculum_and_assessment/post-primary_education/project_maths/syllabuses_and_assessment/lc_maths_for_examination_in_2014.pdf

In each of these documents, by noting the aim of the department in relation to the subject, and the structure of the examination, we can see the variability with regards to the examination, and that teachers should teach the subjects appropriately. Looking at the Applied Mathematics syllabus (curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/7359deba-c3b4-4b9f-9371-df86d535b049/SCSEC04_Applied_Maths_syllabus_English.pdf), not only are some of these sections absent, the level of detail possessed in the document is, quite frankly, pathetic. Let us consider for a moment the examination format listed:

"Format of examination papers:
Ordinary Level: six questions to be answered out of nine
Higher Level: six questions to be answered out of ten."

This makes absolutely no reference to a necessity of question one being linear motion, question two being relative velocity, and so on. Assuming this, if one wishes to be specific, is incorrect, as this does not need to be the case. Going by the syllabus itself, if they wanted, they would be perfectly fine making every single question a hydrostatics question. Obviously, this would never happen, that would be absurd, but the syllabus does not have the necessary detail to guide students in their studies, or teachers in their teaching. Everybody makes the assumptions of what will appear based upon the consistency of past papers because this is all we can really go off of. If the department's aim is to now prevent rote learning, remove predictability, and to "develop a flexible,
disciplined way of thinking and the enthusiasm to
search for creative solutions" (to quote the "Project Mathematics" syllabus), what is the objection to actually stating this, rather than letting students chip away at (or teachers give) a repetitive wall of questions that certainly neither creates, nor encourages, a flexibility nor dynamism. It also seems naive to think that, if there has been a change in the aim, that a layout/format which has been used for decades can be effortlessly translated to a new aim, without any alteration, and without any statement. Regarding the examination being a scapegoat for poor performance, this could indeed be an aspect, but I'm less inclined to agree given the seemingly large discontent with the examination, and the analysis of impartial observes also seemingly indicating that it was a relatively challenging examination in comparison to previous years, who have little motive in being deceitful regarding the challenge that the examination posed.

The expected grades are a completely different matter. The marking scheme will be altered to retain similar percentages, of course, but this does little to combat the anxiety that students may develop with exceptionally (not that this necessarily was) difficult examinations (which only serve to better differentiate the higher A1s from the lower A1s), and, most importantly, how it can affect the uptake of the examination, certainly not a frivolous topic for "Applied Mathematics" where numbers are already low. Repeatedly difficult examinations are going to warp prospective students' perception of the level of competency required, if a large majority of prior students found the examination particularly difficult, did badly, and were then bumped up by the alteration of the marking scheme. It could be argued that perhaps they shouldn't fear as these prospective students should keep in mind that they, too, will be adjusted to the curve, but it doesn't alleviate the worry that 'perhaps this year will be different and they won't be lenient'.

qweerty

Solid_Shepard wrote: »

I can agree that some of it was certainly hyperbole for emphasis rather than a genuine approximation. The book is, of course, not 'worthless' in so far as it details the general way to work through the questions, but as far as adequately preparing students for a much wider range of questions featured in an examination context it doesn't favourably compare, given the repetitive nature of the questions and the minimal examples of more unusual types of questions.

It is indeed what Applied Mathematics before but as you've noted the distinction in just how many of the questions appearing in recent times are unusual when compared to the trend, indicating that their approach to the questions has changed. You state that I "seem to advocate a paper that has few surprises and rewards a methodical approach - that would be prone to cynical rote-learning" but, similar to your response, this is indeed what Applied Maths has been in the past, with four or five different types of questions on each topic repeated consistently. There has always been some parts that are distinct as questions aren't literally repeated introducing an element of creativity, certainly, but the paper itself in the past has rarely been anything but rigidly structured, and highly predictable.

Syllabi typically do give an idea of the examination paper, by indicating the aims, overall layout, and the breadth of knowledge that must be learnt.

I've chosen some samples
English - cnt.ie/wp-content/uploads/LCEnglishSyllabus.pdf
Physics - curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/a789272e-823f-4d40-b095-4ff8f6f195e4/SCSEC27_Physics_syllabus_eng.pdf
Project Mathematics - ncca.ie/en/curriculum_and_assessment/post-primary_education/project_maths/syllabuses_and_assessment/lc_maths_for_examination_in_2014.pdf

In each of these documents, by noting the aim of the department in relation to the subject, and the structure of the examination, we can see the variability with regards to the examination, and that teachers should teach the subjects appropriately. Looking at the Applied Mathematics syllabus (curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/7359deba-c3b4-4b9f-9371-df86d535b049/SCSEC04_Applied_Maths_syllabus_English.pdf), not only are some of these sections absent, the level of detail possessed in the document is, quite frankly, pathetic. Let us consider for a moment the examination format listed:

"Format of examination papers:
Ordinary Level: six questions to be answered out of nine
Higher Level: six questions to be answered out of ten."

This makes absolutely no reference to a necessity of question one being linear motion, question two being relative velocity, and so on. Assuming this, if one wishes to be specific, is incorrect, as this does not need to be the case. Going by the syllabus itself, if they wanted, they would be perfectly fine making every single question a hydrostatics question. Obviously, this would never happen, that would be absurd, but the syllabus does not have the necessary detail to guide students in their studies, or teachers in their teaching. Everybody makes the assumptions of what will appear based upon the consistency of past papers because this is all we can really go off of. If the department's aim is to now prevent rote learning, remove predictability, and to "develop a flexible,
disciplined way of thinking and the enthusiasm to
search for creative solutions" (to quote the "Project Mathematics" syllabus), what is the objection to actually stating this, rather than letting students chip away at (or teachers give) a repetitive wall of questions that certainly neither creates, nor encourages, a flexibility nor dynamism. It also seems naive to think that, if there has been a change in the aim, that a layout/format which has been used for decades can be effortlessly translated to a new aim, without any alteration, and without any statement. Regarding the examination being a scapegoat for poor performance, this could indeed be an aspect, but I'm less inclined to agree given the seemingly large discontent with the examination, and the analysis of impartial observes also seemingly indicating that it was a relatively challenging examination in comparison to previous years, who have little motive in being deceitful regarding the challenge that the examination posed.

The expected grades are a completely different matter. The marking scheme will be altered to retain similar percentages, of course, but this does little to combat the anxiety that students may develop with exceptionally (not that this necessarily was) difficult examinations (which only serve to better differentiate the higher A1s from the lower A1s), and, most importantly, how it can affect the uptake of the examination, certainly not a frivolous topic for "Applied Mathematics" where numbers are already low. Repeatedly difficult examinations are going to warp prospective students' perception of the level of competency required, if a large majority of prior students found the examination particularly difficult, did badly, and were then bumped up by the alteration of the marking scheme. It could be argued that perhaps they shouldn't fear as these prospective students should keep in mind that they, too, will be adjusted to the curve, but it doesn't alleviate the worry that 'perhaps this year will be different and they won't be lenient'.

If you'll excuse me, I think your posts have been unnecessarily convoluted, resulting in quite simple arguments appearing complex (at least to me). In essence, you believe that it was unfair to change the style of question without notification and that doing so has caused them to be more than a little harder.

I disagree with how you characterise the extent of the change and think that the overall difficulty has arguably decreased on previous years.

AM is far more susceptible to rote-learning than people seem to think. Presenting questions in slightly different ways should minimise the rewarding of that. Instead, you think teachers and students should be given sample papers so that those slight complexities can be neutered.

Either you write a lot quicker than I do, or are able to dedicate more time to your posts than I am to mine. Therefore, I'm not able to offer a more detailed response. I hope you don't feel cheated.

Enjoy your summer, and...you MUST tell us how you do!

lostatsea

The question that is being asked: Is this paper, and perhaps last year's paper, a departure from the norm? Here is my opinion.

I think that this year's paper was badly written, unimaginative and boring. For example, question 5 on Collisions asked you to find the loss in kinetic energy for part (a) [Direct collisions] and part (b) [Oblique collisions].
Most of the answers were awful numbers. There was no indication to tell a student to write the answer to one or 2 decimal places to give them some indication of the type of answer to the question. By the way, one can easily produce questions with nice answers requiring exactly the same skills and giving the student the satisfaction of knowing they have the right answer - it is a much more satisfying exam achieving exactly the same aims and at the same level of difficulty.

The most imaginative question on the paper was 2 (a). This was a nice question with nice answers exploring a basic knowledge of how vectors operate.

Most questions, while tedious and written unimaginatively, were straight forward and had been seen over the last 10 years.

japester

I'm more of a lurker on this thread but I've been very interested in the discussion about this years exam. I took Applied Maths about 25 years ago at LC Higher Level and I didn't do very well at the time (I guess I treated it as the 7th subject back then so it got very little attention from me!). However, I've always been interested in Maths, Applied Maths and Physics so I've taken the exams myself (bar Physics) each year for the past few years to see how I'd cope and to make sure I'm familiar with the current syllabus. My honest assessment (and from a completely neutral viewpoint) of the AM paper is as follows:

Q1. No major problems here - I guess some students would have been a little thrown by part (b) as it involved power and tractive effort but a fair question IMO.

Q2. I must say that when I saw that table, I was thinking there is trouble ahead here! But as soon as I analysed the question, things began to fall into place alright. Part (b) was pretty normal. My only problem with this question - and this is probably just me as I'm getting older and the brain is moving slower! - was the amount of time it took me to complete it .... just under an hour .... ah the joys of having the luxury of doing the exam on your sofa :-) I think a fair question overall.

Q3. I thought part (a) was fine and in part (b) I made a blunder so I never got the correct answer directly. Having looked for the correct method later i.e. tan(landing angle) = -Vy/Vx and working from there, it was pretty routine to prove the equation. (b) (ii) was a little oddball looking I guess for some students, but it was so short, it would be worth very few marks. I simply stated that as 2tansq(B) is always > 0 for any angle B not equal to zero, then 1+2tansq(B) must always be > 1 and so tan(A) must always be < tan(B)

Q4. I made the same blunder as many students in part(a) where I took the acceleration of both particles to be the same, but I can see clearly now why the acceleration of the hanging particle must be twice that of the one on the table. Apart from this one thing, I thought part (a) was very routine in that you were just getting your equations and solving for a and T. I also made a blunder in part(b) because there is relative acceleration at play, which I never took into account. But again, apart from my mishap(s), I would have considered this a fair question.

Q5. My only issue with this question was how long it took me to complete. No joke - just short of an hour! I read many students also found this one long. One thing that might have caught people also was that when the quadratic was solved there were two possible values for the i-component of the velocity of sphere P after the collision and both would give an acceptable value for e. The one to take was the negative one though because, intuitively, when the collision occurs, the spheres will move in the opposite i-direction to the before collision situation.

Q6. Part (a) was very short indeed and I thought a very fair question. My answers to part(b) didn't seem to tally with those of anyone who posted their answers but it seemed like an okayish question, using the law of conservation of energy with circular motion. (b) (ii) was a little tricky to get the head around but I came up with some answer - whether right or wrong is another issue :-)

Q7. Part (a) seemed very fair - getting the CoM of the 'L' was routine and getting the angle also when the 'L' hung from point D. I drew the force diagrams and wrote some equations for the system in part (b) and did get a value for mu but I'm certain I made at least one blunder in my equations, omitting something. Still, this was an incredibly short question I thought. Like most students, its my least favourite question of them all :-)

Q8. Part (a) has appeared so many times before - anyone who studied for part (a) would have it done it under 5 minutes - not bad for 40% of the marks as its usually worth that. Part (b) (i) was one of the most straightforward ones I'd seen for a long time for moments of inertia. Many would have been caught out by part (ii) as it requires you to know that the moment of inertia of a body is equal to the sum of the individual moments of inertia of all its constituent parts (all about the same axis). Therefore the moment of inertia of the disc with the small disc cut out of it = moment of inertia of full disc - moment of inertia of the small disc that was removed. Once you know this, it is pretty straightforward to find k.
All in all, this was a very short question (especially compared to the likes of Q5).

Q9. I thought part (a) was a little unusual when I first saw it. It took me a while to come up with the equation for the "equal masses" situation. But once I had the 2 equations, it was relatively easy to solve to get the 2 densities. I thought part (b) was very straightforward, with part (ii) the easiest of hydrostatics diagrams to get the equation for.

Q10. Part (a) was pretty routine to be fair. No surprises there. In part (b) I was a little confused about finding the times at which the particle changes direction when I first saw it, but the fact that I had just solved for v "pushed" me to think that the times must be when v becomes zero, which I then solved the quadratic for. The displacement formula was fine also. (b) (iii) would have caught a few people out because the displacement formula would not give you the distance traveled directly. I actually think the answer to this part is 3m but I could easily be wrong. Again, no need to worry about this part as it would be worth very few marks overall.

So I guess overall I felt it was a fair paper and those who understood the core concepts well would be able to adapt to the questions presented. I guess I'd be in the camp where I feel that Applied Maths is probably the only leaving cert subject that really requires the student to think on their feet (project maths is doing this a little bit also) and try to use what they have learned in the past to try to come up with solutions for similar (but slightly different) scenarios. It is problem-solving to be sure, with a sprinkling of maths thrown into the mix. I wouldn't like the paper to become very predictable either. I honestly feel that most of this years exam fell into a "pattern" of previous types of questions overall. As a past student who had no access to past exam paper solutions or marking schemes, it's a revelation to see how todays students have this competitive edge compared to what we had back then! Its also amazing to hear about marking conferences and that marks for questions get altered depending on how well (or badly) students are doing - I never knew this happened when I was a 6th year :-) How naieve we were back then!

My only gripe with the Applied Maths exam is that I feel it should be longer than 2.5 hours, especially given that students are expected to think on their feet and try to come up with solutions to sometimes previously unseen scenarios. Being honest, I would be very lucky to get through 5 complete questions in that time - sometimes the maths takes a long time to work out, for possibly very little reward in terms of marks. I think there should be a push to make it a 3 hour exam instead, or else manufacture the questions so that they are a little shorter to complete - but then again, as I said earlier, maybe my brain just isn't working as fast as it used to :-)

Now its all over, I wish all the students a great summertime and all the best with the results in August.

qweerty

japester wrote: »

I'm more of a lurker on this thread but I've been very interested in the discussion about this years exam. I took Applied Maths about 25 years ago at LC Higher Level and I didn't do very well at the time (I guess I treated it as the 7th subject back then so it got very little attention from me!). However, I've always been interested in Maths, Applied Maths and Physics so I've taken the exams myself (bar Physics) each year for the past few years to see how I'd cope and to make sure I'm familiar with the current syllabus. My honest assessment (and from a completely neutral viewpoint) of the AM paper is as follows:

Q1. No major problems here - I guess some students would have been a little thrown by part (b) as it involved power and tractive effort but a fair question IMO.

Q2. I must say that when I saw that table, I was thinking there is trouble ahead here! But as soon as I analysed the question, things began to fall into place alright. Part (b) was pretty normal. My only problem with this question - and this is probably just me as I'm getting older and the brain is moving slower! - was the amount of time it took me to complete it .... just under an hour .... ah the joys of having the luxury of doing the exam on your sofa :-) I think a fair question overall.

Q3. I thought part (a) was fine and in part (b) I made a blunder so I never got the correct answer directly. Having looked for the correct method later i.e. tan(landing angle) = -Vy/Vx and working from there, it was pretty routine to prove the equation. (b) (ii) was a little oddball looking I guess for some students, but it was so short, it would be worth very few marks. I simply stated that as 2tansq(B) is always > 0 for any angle B not equal to zero, then 1+2tansq(B) must always be > 1 and so tan(A) must always be < tan(B)

Q4. I made the same blunder as many students in part(a) where I took the acceleration of both particles to be the same, but I can see clearly now why the acceleration of the hanging particle must be twice that of the one on the table. Apart from this one thing, I thought part (a) was very routine in that you were just getting your equations and solving for a and T. I also made a blunder in part(b) because there is relative acceleration at play, which I never took into account. But again, apart from my mishap(s), I would have considered this a fair question.

Q5. My only issue with this question was how long it took me to complete. No joke - just short of an hour! I read many students also found this one long. One thing that might have caught people also was that when the quadratic was solved there were two possible values for the i-component of the velocity of sphere P after the collision and both would give an acceptable value for e. The one to take was the negative one though because, intuitively, when the collision occurs, the spheres will move in the opposite i-direction to the before collision situation.

Q6. Part (a) was very short indeed and I thought a very fair question. My answers to part(b) didn't seem to tally with those of anyone who posted their answers but it seemed like an okayish question, using the law of conservation of energy with circular motion. (b) (ii) was a little tricky to get the head around but I came up with some answer - whether right or wrong is another issue :-)

Q7. Part (a) seemed very fair - getting the CoM of the 'L' was routine and getting the angle also when the 'L' hung from point D. I drew the force diagrams and wrote some equations for the system in part (b) and did get a value for mu but I'm certain I made at least one blunder in my equations, omitting something. Still, this was an incredibly short question I thought. Like most students, its my least favourite question of them all :-)

Q8. Part (a) has appeared so many times before - anyone who studied for part (a) would have it done it under 5 minutes - not bad for 40% of the marks as its usually worth that. Part (b) (i) was one of the most straightforward ones I'd seen for a long time for moments of inertia. Many would have been caught out by part (ii) as it requires you to know that the moment of inertia of a body is equal to the sum of the individual moments of inertia of all its constituent parts (all about the same axis). Therefore the moment of inertia of the disc with the small disc cut out of it = moment of inertia of full disc - moment of inertia of the small disc that was removed. Once you know this, it is pretty straightforward to find k.
All in all, this was a very short question (especially compared to the likes of Q5).

Q9. I thought part (a) was a little unusual when I first saw it. It took me a while to come up with the equation for the "equal masses" situation. But once I had the 2 equations, it was relatively easy to solve to get the 2 densities. I thought part (b) was very straightforward, with part (ii) the easiest of hydrostatics diagrams to get the equation for.

Q10. Part (a) was pretty routine to be fair. No surprises there. In part (b) I was a little confused about finding the times at which the particle changes direction when I first saw it, but the fact that I had just solved for v "pushed" me to think that the times must be when v becomes zero, which I then solved the quadratic for. The displacement formula was fine also. (b) (iii) would have caught a few people out because the displacement formula would not give you the distance traveled directly. I actually think the answer to this part is 3m but I could easily be wrong. Again, no need to worry about this part as it would be worth very few marks overall.

So I guess overall I felt it was a fair paper and those who understood the core concepts well would be able to adapt to the questions presented. I guess I'd be in the camp where I feel that Applied Maths is probably the only leaving cert subject that really requires the student to think on their feet (project maths is doing this a little bit also) and try to use what they have learned in the past to try to come up with solutions for similar (but slightly different) scenarios. It is problem-solving to be sure, with a sprinkling of maths thrown into the mix. I wouldn't like the paper to become very predictable either. I honestly feel that most of this years exam fell into a "pattern" of previous types of questions overall. As a past student who had no access to past exam paper solutions or marking schemes, it's a revelation to see how todays students have this competitive edge compared to what we had back then! Its also amazing to hear about marking conferences and that marks for questions get altered depending on how well (or badly) students are doing - I never knew this happened when I was a 6th year :-) How naieve we were back then!

My only gripe with the Applied Maths exam is that I feel it should be longer than 2.5 hours, especially given that students are expected to think on their feet and try to come up with solutions to sometimes previously unseen scenarios. Being honest, I would be very lucky to get through 5 complete questions in that time - sometimes the maths takes a long time to work out, for possibly very little reward in terms of marks. I think there should be a push to make it a 3 hour exam instead, or else manufacture the questions so that they are a little shorter to complete - but then again, as I said earlier, maybe my brain just isn't working as fast as it used to :-)

Now its all over, I wish all the students a great summertime and all the best with the results in August.

I'm a few years out of school, and I wonder will I still be doing papers for fun when I'm your age!

Fair play for going to the effort of giving such a comprehensive response to the paper.

japester

No problem at all, it was a very interesting discussion to be fair. Those AM exam papers are definitely worthwhile having a go at if you have the spare time and the interest - they really do get you to think about real-life physics and they keep the basics of maths fresh in the mind also, a lot of algebra, the trigonometry for resolving forces and then bits of differentiation and integration also. Much better than the crosswords for me in so many ways :-)

I can see also why many students have a fear of the subject though, but in my mind its the very best of the leaving cert subjects in terms of problem-solving. It is especially a good subject to take if you are doing honours maths and physics as it overlaps with both. It is a pity that so few students take the subject and I guess that there is a danger that future students could be put off taking it given that many students found this years paper (and last years by all accounts as well) difficult/tricky/unusually presented etc. As has been said already, I'm pretty sure that the marking scheme will be adjusted to reflect any anomolies in the grades achieved, but I know that is very scant consolation to those who studied hard for the paper and felt they were not able to demonstrate their ability properly.

I totally understand where Noel (superb website by the way) is coming from about teaching AM into the future and the risk students might be taking in pursuing it, but I honestly think that there isn't someone in the DES actively trying to scupper the subject and trying to annoy AM students :-) It would be a terrible shame indeed if the subject were to end up on the scrapheap due to unfeasibly low numbers taking it up - to be honest I can't see that happening at all though.

IMO it would be great if the minister for education promoted subjects like applied maths, physics and chemistry more - maybe through some extra bonus points. The government talk a lot about STEM and its importance to the "knowledge economy" but they don't seem to pay much heed to these subjects (maths itself being the exception) at second level to get more students on board, which is a real pity.

Well, onwards and upwards for next years Applied Maths paper - although I did find the paper fair overall (bar my timing issues!), I understand the concerns of some of the posters and hope next years paper is more "normal" (but hopefully not entirely predictable), for the future of the subject at least :-)

lostatsea

Just to continue my theme of how badly written the paper was: The movable pulley in 4 (a) was obviously a crucial part of the analysis. I assumed the pulley was a light pulley (no mass). No mention was made of this in the question which I consider to be a a very serious omission.

qweerty

lostatsea wrote: »

Just to continue my theme of how badly written the paper was: The movable pulley in 4 (a) was obviously a crucial part of the analysis. I assumed the pulley was a light pulley (no mass). No mention was made of this in the question which I consider to be a a very serious omission.

I suppose you could find fault in it not specifying that is is a light pulley (no mass), but there's no reason to assume it has mass, and several to assume it doesn't.

Out of interest, do you think this year's paper was uniquely "unimaginative and boring", or do you think that of previous years? Either way, I don't hold your view (though I would rather questions were less repetitive).

My own opinion is that 4 (b) was the best question on the paper, requiring students to perform several tasks, including dealing with relative acceleration, employing equations of motion, resolving a vector into components, and converting units. It wasn't especially dificult, but it tested competency.

hohum

Hi Japester,
not for one second do I think that there is someone in the DES trying to scupper the subject. I think they're trying to make it more imaginative and challenging, possibly because they believe (like many of us here I guess) that this is what Applied Maths should be about. The problem is when you go too far down this road you alienate all those students who like the subject, study hard to do well in it, but just aren't brilliant at it. A paper like this can really set them back and the long term consequence is that word will get out that Applied Maths is only for the elite students. At the end of the day it's a numbers game. As teachers we want to encourage as many students as possible to do it; we realise it's not for everybody but the paper needs to be a fair compromise between seeking excellence and rewarding hard work. For me this paper was too much of the former.

I'm delighted so many are keeping this thread alive. It is really, really important and the issues need to be highlighted on a bigger stage.

japester

Hi Hohum,
I know exactly what you're saying and I think you've hit the nail on the head. I guess one of the issues with Applied Maths is that so many students are doing Q1-Q5 and Q10 on the paper that the exam setter(s) is in a situation where these are the questions that are undergoing most alterations in order to keep the exam "fresh" and "challenging". I mean Q8(a) each year appears to be highly predictable and the questions on hydrostatics, statics and circular motion/SHM don't seem to change all that much from year to year plus they often tend to be the shortest questions on the paper timewise, which seems an unfair punishment on students to make the other questions longer. I'd imagine a lot of those getting A's in applied maths would be those students taking on at least 2 questions from Q6-Q9 each year - as I mentioned in an earlier post there is no way I'd complete fully more than 5 questions in a given paper, but more especially if it included one of the longer questions to complete (I found Q2 and Q5 very long this year). The thing with Applied Maths is that you need to read the question very carefully before you even put pen to paper and think hard about the mechanics of the situation before you start off - I honestly don't feel enough "thinking time" is incorporated into the exam duration at all.

There is no doubt that Higher Level Applied Maths is not a subject to be taken on lightly and I guess there must be a strong bias for students of higher level Maths and Physics to take it on, given the overlap that exists. And I guess that is a problem in itself because its many of the stronger students who are taking higher maths and physics so the AM examiner might be inclined to feel that these students are more capable than most of adapting to newer types of questions etc. I'm not saying that's right or wrong but it might be a perception out there.

I often thought about students who take on applied maths who are "low B" or "C" type students and how they would cope with newer types of questions or questions presented in a different manner, such as Q2(a) this year. And I honestly think they could totally struggle with such scenarios, making a question completely null and void for them. That is the danger with Applied Maths as a subject, although the marking scheme dissects the solution and awards marks for various parts, if a student can't even get started then it can mean zero out of 20 marks or whatever the section is worth. And if the student is depending on Q1-Q5 and Q10, this can completely thrown them off right away.

To accomodate such students I wonder if the exam format could be altered so that questions could be split into (a), (b) and (c) parts, where (a) would be a shortish question that basically just involved a student plugging some values into "well-known" formulas and getting a result (a bit like the way Physics problems are presented) - this would ensure that those who are familiar with their formulas and the "basic" scenarios get rewarded for at least being able to manipulate them to that extent. There would be little "problem-solving" involved here. For me, full marks in part (a) would mean the student gets 30% of the marks for the question.

Part (b) would be a step up from part(a) and involve more thought, thought not necessarily more time spent writing the solution. This question would again require knowledge of the various formulas etc but the question would be tailored so that it is accessible to all students who have covered the topic well. It would be based on very familiar scenarios with only very slight changes to those covered in the classroom. For me, this part would be worth 40% of the marks for the question also. So my idea would be that, as long as students have an excellent knowledge of the basics of a topic and are able to "problem-solve" with the more basic scenarios, then they should be able to get a decent chunk of this 70% of the marks.

Finally part (c) would be another step-up and involve most thought and the expectation would be that the problems presented in this section would be somewhat similar to scenarios covered in class but newer scenarios or twists on existing scenarios would be expected. The basics required for parts (a) and (b) could still be used in solving part (c) but the (c) part would be more intricate mathematically, maybe requiring some basic trigonometry to solve the problem for example. This part would be worth 30% of the marks.

Its certainly not an easy thing to do for sure but I think if students took on the subject and realised that the first 2 parts of each question were going to be very familiar and allow then to attain up to 70% of the total marks, while the last part of each question was expected to be an "unseen" to a certain extent, then I can't imagine too many complaints in the future. The elite students would still get their A's anyhow (maybe the percentage of A's would increase in this format) but those in the "C" or "low B" categories would have a realistic chance of attaining their goal also.

Again, I sincerely hope that the subject lives on but I understand totally the concerns of teachers/students alike.

Raspberry Fileds

So...how did everyone do?

Here are the changes in grades relative to the mean of the previous two years:

A: +1.1pp
A-B: +1.0pp
A-C: 0.0
A-D: -0.5pp

FHB

Can't believe I got an A1. I thought I might have done enough for an A2, but with the number of mistakes I made I thought an A1 was out of reach. So happy I took up applied maths at the start of the year now.

Ompala

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

So...how did everyone do?

Here are the changes in grades relative to the mean of the previous two years:

A: +1.1pp
A-B: +1.0pp
A-C: 0.0
A-D: -0.5pp

So basically the marking scheme accounted for all the difficulties people had then?
Seems good to me :cool:

Raspberry Fileds

Or - whisper it - the exam wasn't that difficult!

Ompala

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

Or - whisper it - the exam wasn't that difficult!

I'd start running for the hills now if I were you :P

mcratsix

A1, absolutely delighted.

hohum

The results 'have' to fall within certain boundaries.
So for example the number of A's must be within (something like) 3% (maybe it's less) of the average from the past three years.
So there was never going to be any change to the overall distribution of grades on that level.

So I've no doubt that a lot of students will have been pleasantly surprised.

I don't know if this thread is still alive, but if so I would be interested in former students opinion of the proposed new syllabus.
A discussion document has been published and the NCCA are inviting feedback, but I think the one voice we are least likely to hear is that of former students, whether they have just done the leaving cert or did it long ago.

I posted some of my views on a recent blogpost, but this was more in response to the tone of the discussion document (which I found to be dismissive of the current syllabus) rather than a comment on the proposed changes.
see thinkforyourselfdotie

But I would be interested in your views as former students and with your permission would forward them on to the ncca.

thanks.

Noel