Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Applied Maths aftermath
Comments
-
We need to get out more KevStar
But I love the challenge of it and it's great for keeping what's left of my brain cells limber :pac: Do let me know if you're answers match mine as it's a fair wait til the marking schemes get released!
Most of my answers were similar if I remember correctly...
I was confused with the taut string question too. I calculated the new acceleration etc but i didnt know how it would effect its speed :l.0 -
You need to employ conservation of momentum here.
thanks a million for that lostatsea, at least that makes sense of the question for me now - so it's basically total momentum of the masses P and Q before string becomes taut = total momentum after string becomes taut and both move off with same speed afterwards? MpUp + MqUq = MpVp +MqVq =>4(0) + 7(17.64) = 11V => V = 11.225 m/s - it's amazing the way you become accustomed to seeing certain formulae used in certain questions and when there is a bit of a mixture, as in this question, it can throw a real curveballMost of my answers were similar if I remember correctly...
I was confused with the taut string question too. I calculated the new acceleration etc but i didnt know how it would effect its speed :l.
Thanks for that info Kremin, good to know our answers are closely matched - that's gas, I did exactly the same as you for that question in that I went off and calculated a new acceleration value, but of course I hit a brick wall at that stage and could go no further except to suggest that the initial velocity of P would be the same as that for Q when it had traveled the 3m
You live and learn as they say, it's all good! 0 -
-
-
Fair play for putting your answers up. I've just been doing them in my head with a calculator, but the few I've done match yours. You made a small error in 4 (a) (ii), though, I think.
Ah sound out qweerty, thanks for that. I never got the square root in the end of the question, what I have is v^2. So I think the right answer for this question is root(18g/10) or 4.2 m/s
I wonder does that go down as a slip or a blunder in the end? It's not easy getting full marks in an AM question! 0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah sound out qweerty, thanks for that. I never got the square root in the end of the question, what I have is v^2. So I think the right answer for this question is root(18g/10) or 4.2 m/s I wonder does that go down as a slip or a blunder in the end? It's not easy getting full marks in an AM question!
I don't actually know. Must confess to never having been au fait with the method of marking Applied Maths. To my mind, it should be only a Slip.
Do you attempt the paper cold, or do you have a look over old notes beforehand?!0 -
I don't actually know. Must confess to never having been au fait with the method of marking Applied Maths. To my mind, it should be only a Slip.
Do you attempt the paper cold, or do you have a look over old notes beforehand?!
I attempt the paper cold, every 12 months, just to see if I can still recall the stuff I time myself also to see whether I'd be able to do 6 questions within the allocated time - but note that I don't attempt the questions all in one sitting - so there is a massive difference right there! There's cups of tea, dinners, chatter and plenty long walks in between questions too - the luxury of time and space!! Honestly, I'd be very unlikely to be able to fully attempt even my fastest 6 questions in the 2.5 hours - I read in the independent that some teachers were looking for it to be a 3 hour exam instead and I'd wholeheartedly agree with that - the brain is even slower now but back then (over 20 years ago) I'd never manage to fully complete 6 questions, which is a killer when you have something to put down on paper but just plain run out of time. And AM questions require a deal of visualisation and thought before ever putting pen to paper. For the record, my times for the questions were as follows:
Q1: 30 minutes
Q2: 32 minutes
Q3: 43 minutes (made no mistakes I think but it just seemed to take me ages for some reason!)
Q4: 32 minutes
Q5: 29 minutes
Q6: 43 minutes (again I don't think I made many mistakes but just seemed to take me forever to complete it)
Q7: 16 minutes for part (a) which I made a mistake on with the first attempt, then spent 10 minutes on (b) (i) before messing up (b) (ii) completely on the first attempt, abandoning it and got it right second time round but I never took note of how long it took second time round, 15 minutes or so I think. Total time 41 minutes
Q8: 21 minutes
Q9: 25 minutes
Q10: 24 minutes
So you can see, even with my fastest 6 questions I'd still be 11 minutes over the 2.5 hours. Still though, it's a great brainteaser to tackle a question and a buzz when you get things to work out 0 -
I attempt the paper cold, every 12 months, just to see if I can still recall the stuff I time myself also to see whether I'd be able to do 6 questions within the allocated time - but note that I don't attempt the questions all in one sitting - so there is a massive difference right there! There's cups of tea, dinners, chatter and plenty long walks in between questions too - the luxury of time and space!! Honestly, I'd be very unlikely to be able to fully attempt even my fastest 6 questions in the 2.5 hours - I read in the independent that some teachers were looking for it to be a 3 hour exam instead and I'd wholeheartedly agree with that - the brain is even slower now but back then (over 20 years ago) I'd never manage to fully complete 6 questions, which is a killer when you have something to put down on paper but just plain run out of time. And AM questions require a deal of visualisation and thought before ever putting pen to paper. For the record, my times for the questions were as follows:
Q1: 30 minutes
Q2: 32 minutes
Q3: 43 minutes (made no mistakes I think but it just seemed to take me ages for some reason!)
Q4: 32 minutes
Q5: 29 minutes
Q6: 43 minutes (again I don't think I made many mistakes but just seemed to take me forever to complete it)
Q7: 16 minutes for part (a) which I made a mistake on with the first attempt, then spent 10 minutes on (b) (i) before messing up (b) (ii) completely on the first attempt, abandoning it and got it right second time round but I never took note of how long it took second time round, 15 minutes or so I think. Total time 41 minutes
Q8: 21 minutes
Q9: 25 minutes
Q10: 24 minutes
So you can see, even with my fastest 6 questions I'd still be 11 minutes over the 2.5 hours. Still though, it's a great brainteaser to tackle a question and a buzz when you get things to work out
Some people were calling to extend the exam to 3 hours especially this year as the questions seemed quite long. Pretty impressive you do it once a year and still stay near enough the limit!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
I attempt the paper cold, every 12 months, just to see if I can still recall the stuff I time myself also to see whether I'd be able to do 6 questions within the allocated time - but note that I don't attempt the questions all in one sitting - so there is a massive difference right there! There's cups of tea, dinners, chatter and plenty long walks in between questions too - the luxury of time and space!! Honestly, I'd be very unlikely to be able to fully attempt even my fastest 6 questions in the 2.5 hours - I read in the independent that some teachers were looking for it to be a 3 hour exam instead and I'd wholeheartedly agree with that - the brain is even slower now but back then (over 20 years ago) I'd never manage to fully complete 6 questions, which is a killer when you have something to put down on paper but just plain run out of time. And AM questions require a deal of visualisation and thought before ever putting pen to paper. For the record, my times for the questions were as follows:
Q1: 30 minutes
Q2: 32 minutes
Q3: 43 minutes (made no mistakes I think but it just seemed to take me ages for some reason!)
Q4: 32 minutes
Q5: 29 minutes
Q6: 43 minutes (again I don't think I made many mistakes but just seemed to take me forever to complete it)
Q7: 16 minutes for part (a) which I made a mistake on with the first attempt, then spent 10 minutes on (b) (i) before messing up (b) (ii) completely on the first attempt, abandoning it and got it right second time round but I never took note of how long it took second time round, 15 minutes or so I think. Total time 41 minutes
Q8: 21 minutes
Q9: 25 minutes
Q10: 24 minutes
So you can see, even with my fastest 6 questions I'd still be 11 minutes over the 2.5 hours. Still though, it's a great brainteaser to tackle a question and a buzz when you get things to work out
And do you have the log tables/formula booklet?!
I'm a few years out of school, but still check-in annually also. I'd say a surprising amount of people do. Questions are so repetitive that I generally wouldn't do them out, but there's usually the odd tricky or interesting one.
I'm not sure about the timing. The choice on the paper and lack of surprises probably counts against extending it. Because the theory is so basic, you might have a situation where people are able to grind out answers.
See you next year! 0 -
And do you have the log tables/formula booklet?!
I'm a few years out of school, but still check-in annually also. I'd say a surprising amount of people do. Questions are so repetitive that I generally wouldn't do them out, but there's usually the odd tricky or interesting one.
I'm not sure about the timing. The choice on the paper and lack of surprises probably counts against extending it. Because the theory is so basic, you might have a situation where people are able to grind out answers.
See you next year!
Believe it or not I have the same log tables bought back in 1985 I think - they were needed back then for Inter Cert Maths to find square roots and logs of numbers I must admit I never actually use the tables for the formulas at all - they're almost ingrained in my mind, it'd be more for when I'm unsure whether the derivative of Sinx is CosX or -Cosx and the like.
It's great to check in on it for sure - I must be a very sad person to be waiting for about 6pm on the Friday of the exam so that I can get the paper online!! I do the Maths papers also, although some of the maths topics have changed a fair bit since I was in school, so I'm learning new things also e.g. the financial maths bits. It's amazing how much of the "old" maths is no longer covered e.g. vectors, matrices, groups, parabola, integration is really watered down a lot etc - but the project maths presents its own challenges as there are zero choices on the paper, you simply have to do them all. Whereas when I did my LC we had lots of choices on the paper to be honest.
I can absolutely see where you're coming from in terms of not extending the AM exam duration - there is definitely the possibility that some questions can almost be "ground out" with enough time given - what I'd really love to know is how many questions on average does the typical A, B and C student fully attempt in the 2.5 hours and whether they find timing an issue.
Definitely see you back here again next year, all being well :pac: And of course, the very best of luck to all the students with their results in August - time to kick back now and relax for a while!0 -
Believe it or not I have the same log tables bought back in 1985 I think - they were needed back then for Inter Cert Maths to find square roots and logs of numbers I must admit I never actually use the tables for the formulas at all - they're almost ingrained in my mind, it'd be more for when I'm unsure whether the derivative of Sinx is CosX or -Cosx and the like.
It's great to check in on it for sure - I must be a very sad person to be waiting for about 6pm on the Friday of the exam so that I can get the paper online!! I do the Maths papers also, although some of the maths topics have changed a fair bit since I was in school, so I'm learning new things also e.g. the financial maths bits. It's amazing how much of the "old" maths is no longer covered e.g. vectors, matrices, groups, parabola, integration is really watered down a lot etc - but the project maths presents its own challenges as there are zero choices on the paper, you simply have to do them all. Whereas when I did my LC we had lots of choices on the paper to be honest.
I can absolutely see where you're coming from in terms of not extending the AM exam duration - there is definitely the possibility that some questions can almost be "ground out" with enough time given - what I'd really love to know is how many questions on average does the typical A, B and C student fully attempt in the 2.5 hours and whether they find timing an issue.
Definitely see you back here again next year, all being well :pac: And of course, the very best of luck to all the students with their results in August - time to kick back now and relax for a while!
Not sad at all. It's a shame the LC is associated with youth, because I think there would be much merit in having adults sit it, either for enjoyment or career. Obviously issues concerning people such as yourself skewing the curve would have to be addressed!
Had this debate with a few people on the maths thread, but not as much was removed as is often said. Vectors and Matrices were a very small part of the course and were considered the easy questions, and Groups was an option that was taken by about two percent of students. I predict the nay-sayers will be largely silenced in years to come!
Equally, I can see where you're coming from with timing. There's an argument that those who approach the problem with creativity on the day are disadvantaged at the expense of those who rote-learn the method and are therefore quicker.
If you get bored, you should check out some of the ALevel papers - very similar style.0 -
Not sad at all. It's a shame the LC is associated with youth, because I think there would be much merit in having adults sit it, either for enjoyment or career. Obviously issues concerning people such as yourself skewing the curve would have to be addressed!
Had this debate with a few people on the maths thread, but not as much was removed as is often said. Vectors and Matrices were a very small part of the course and were considered the easy questions, and Groups was an option that was taken by about two percent of students. I predict the nay-sayers will be largely silenced in years to come!
Equally, I can see where you're coming from with timing. There's an argument that those who approach the problem with creativity on the day are disadvantaged at the expense of those who rote-learn the method and are therefore quicker.
If you get bored, you should check out some of the ALevel papers - very similar style.
What you say about vectors and matrices is definitely true enough - I think back then we could do groups or parabola, something like that - we did groups, there was some unusual maths in that topic. I'm coming more around to project maths as the years pass myself - it's challenging for sure and the fact that there are no choices makes it especially difficult ... you literally need to cover everything on the syllabus in order to get top marks. I was wondering how the examiners got away with that, as I'd estimate every single other exam has a number of choices available.
On the AM front, I guess there is little room for creativity when coming up with the solutions, as time just doesn't allow for it really. I'd say the exam is likely to remain 2.5 hours for the foreseeable future - stats would have to be gathered in terms of questions fully completed to support the move to 3 hours and I can't see these stats being gathered really, especially given it's a minority subject, but you just never know.
Thanks for the mention about the A-Level papers - I never knew they had an equivalent paper and that they were available online, I'll have to check them out to see what they look like. I've done back to about 1982 or 1983 with the AM papers over the years - I think I still have about 10 or so left to get back to 1970 Might do some more of them over the summer if I can get the chance. You may know this already but there's great information on thephysicsteacher website about the subject too with older past papers and solutions too to many questions. 0 -
What you say about vectors and matrices is definitely true enough - I think back then we could do groups or parabola, something like that - we did groups, there was some unusual maths in that topic. I'm coming more around to project maths as the years pass myself - it's challenging for sure and the fact that there are no choices makes it especially difficult ... you literally need to cover everything on the syllabus in order to get top marks. I was wondering how the examiners got away with that, as I'd estimate every single other exam has a number of choices available.
On the AM front, I guess there is little room for creativity when coming up with the solutions, as time just doesn't allow for it really. I'd say the exam is likely to remain 2.5 hours for the foreseeable future - stats would have to be gathered in terms of questions fully completed to support the move to 3 hours and I can't see these stats being gathered really, especially given it's a minority subject, but you just never know.
Thanks for the mention about the A-Level papers - I never knew they had an equivalent paper and that they were available online, I'll have to check them out to see what they look like. I've done back to about 1982 or 1983 with the AM papers over the years - I think I still have about 10 or so left to get back to 1970 Might do some more of them over the summer if I can get the chance. You may know this already but there's great information on thephysicsteacher website about the subject too with older past papers and solutions too to many questions.
Still would've been nice to cover matrices because all the college courses I've looked at have that sort of algebra in them.. and I think that's some peoples biggest complaint about the new PM system, it's not preparing people for college in some cases.0 -
-
-
There is a new draft syllabus being discussed for Applied Maths which may be of interest to some of you.
http://http://ncca.ie/en/file/post_primary/BP-Applied-Maths_Eng.pdf
Thanks for letting us know about that document lostatsea, it makes for interesting reading. I'd be kinda sad to see the syllabus change after all the years in one way (can't believe it hasn't changed since 1970 :eek:) but I always feel in these situations that there is no avoiding it eventually, as someone out there has a job to do and has to appear to be "modernising" things I wouldn't be completely against the idea of having a core of 40% with the matrices/vectors/linear programming/further calculus & diff equations and then 2 options from the 6 areas mentioned, 2 of which are mechanics related - at least that wouldn't be a massive jump. The computer programming and game theory options are very interesting in there and could have a serious affect on the number of students taking the subject (in a positive way). In my opinion, there is a serious need to get computer programming into the LC in some form or other, and this may be a good vehicle for it. It would also let students who are inclined to go for computing-related courses an idea of what it really involves and whether or not they have an aptitude for programming, which is at the core of most of these courses.
I'll be very interested to see what comes of this in the end, as it mentions in the document, "a significant challenge for the development group working on the specification will be to present the material from the core in a way that will motivate and engage learners with a range" - but I'm sure there are many application areas for each of those topics that interesting questions can be manufactured for.
It was interesting also to read on pg 3 that "Leaving Certificate Applied Mathematics is also promoted as a subject that enhances students’ problem solving skills. However, with its emphasis on content as opposed to the development of skills and mathematical reasoning students’ are not problem solving per se but rather, learning to solve particular problem types in mathematical physics". I do genuinely believe that AM is the best subject on the LC in terms of helping students become better problem solvers. It is true that scenarios often repeat in exam questions but, even still, students have to get to grips with these scenarios and have a very good understanding of the situation involved in order to come out with the correct governing equations and the correct answers in the end - I don't believe it's fair to say that students are not problem solving. I believe it's usually the very best of students that take on AM (since these students are also taking HL Maths and usually HL Physics also), so therefore it's no accident that the % taking OL AM is so low and also no accident that the A rate is so high. If the students are strong, then they are more likely to be good problem-solvers naturally. You can say that AM procedures can be rote learned to a certain extent, but there are such a variety of possible questions available to the examiner on any given topic, the student would have to cover some serious ground in order to ensure they have covered every single possibility - and even then there will always be something unusual thrown into a few of the questions, remember the "outrage" at the question on relative velocity last year and even the projectiles question on tennis would have thrown a few this year!! I guess what I'm saying is that I have a problem with the phrase "emphasis on content as opposed to the development of skills and mathematical reasoning students’" - it's fluffy language and what does it mean? Teachers of the subject have to go through the content of the syllabus with the students, explain that content as best they can, take questions from students about that content, then go for the exercises to try to put the content into practice. What skills are the students developing? Well they're becoming better problem-solvers as a result in my mind! Their mathematical skills are definitely getting better in that they are using simple and simultaneous equations, vectors, trigonometry, geometry, differentiation, integration so it reinforces much of what they are covering in PM. And surely their mathematical reasoning is getting better too with each topic covered.
The comparison with the situation in other countries is very interesting also. I nearly fell off the seat when I read that between 51% and 80% of students in Scotland do not study Maths in 5th/6th year!! Also, the number of hours allocated for maths is Ireland seems to be very low indeed compared with some other countries, especially given that many students here think of LC maths as being almost the equivalent of 2 subjects in terms of the amount of material to be covered.
Bottom-line for me is that I'd be happy as long as AM survives in some form or other, as I do believe it serves a very useful purpose and remains the number one subject in terms of problem-solving. I'll watch with great interest at how this document evolves and what the new syllabus will become - interesting times ahead :pac:0 -
-
I was just wondering, in relation to projectiles, are you allowed to assume that the greatest height a particle will reach is u^2sin^2@/2g and its range is u^2sin2@/g unless the question specifically asks to prove it?
Or would you have to prove it anyway?
Example : Exercise 3B Question 13, page 44
I'm not 100% sure but I believe you'd have to derive those formulas in any question that requires them, unless they were given to you explicitly for use in the question. You have enough formulas to remember as it is 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
You would probably get away with pulling these formulae out of a hat and using them. But my advice, as you know the proof so well because it could be asked, is to spend 1 minute scribbling it out.
Using these formulae can give you a huge advantage and give you a solution to a problem in no time.
Wow, I never realised that at all - that is a big advantage for sure as the likes of range especially comes up a lot over the years! Could shave some serious time of some questions 0 -
-
-
Thanks for the mention about the A-Level papers - I never knew they had an equivalent paper and that they were available online, I'll have to check them out to see what they look like.
They can be a little hard to find if you're not familiar with the ALevel system. In short, there are several exam boards that offer ALevels, unlike over here where there is a single examining body. There are (usually) four optional mechanics modules as part of their Maths and Further Maths subjects which they can do in addition to compulsory core modules. If you go to the maths ALevel section of each exam board's website, there are past papers and marking schemes. Here is OCR's.Still would've been nice to cover matrices because all the college courses I've looked at have that sort of algebra in them.. and I think that's some peoples biggest complaint about the new PM system, it's not preparing people for college in some cases.
Probably tired of me making this point, Kremin, but the fact that matrices had a single part (a) in 2007, 2008 and 2010, and an easy part (b) in 2009, illustrates how insignificant they were on the course. We only dealt with 2x2 matrices. On my first day of a science degree, which had people who had done Ordinary maths and therefore hadn't done matrices, we began with 3x3 matrices. Ideally they'd be on the course, but given how basic they were they're not a huge loss.Thanks for letting us know about that document lostatsea, it makes for interesting reading. I'd be kinda sad to see the syllabus change after all the years in one way (can't believe it hasn't changed since 1970 :eek:) but I always feel in these situations that there is no avoiding it eventually, as someone out there has a job to do and has to appear to be "modernising" things I wouldn't be completely against the idea of having a core of 40% with the matrices/vectors/linear programming/further calculus & diff equations and then 2 options from the 6 areas mentioned, 2 of which are mechanics related - at least that wouldn't be a massive jump. The computer programming and game theory options are very interesting in there and could have a serious affect on the number of students taking the subject (in a positive way). In my opinion, there is a serious need to get computer programming into the LC in some form or other, and this may be a good vehicle for it. It would also let students who are inclined to go for computing-related courses an idea of what it really involves and whether or not they have an aptitude for programming, which is at the core of most of these courses.
I'll be very interested to see what comes of this in the end, as it mentions in the document, "a significant challenge for the development group working on the specification will be to present the material from the core in a way that will motivate and engage learners with a range" - but I'm sure there are many application areas for each of those topics that interesting questions can be manufactured for.
It was interesting also to read on pg 3 that "Leaving Certificate Applied Mathematics is also promoted as a subject that enhances students’ problem solving skills. However, with its emphasis on content as opposed to the development of skills and mathematical reasoning students’ are not problem solving per se but rather, learning to solve particular problem types in mathematical physics". I do genuinely believe that AM is the best subject on the LC in terms of helping students become better problem solvers. It is true that scenarios often repeat in exam questions but, even still, students have to get to grips with these scenarios and have a very good understanding of the situation involved in order to come out with the correct governing equations and the correct answers in the end - I don't believe it's fair to say that students are not problem solving. I believe it's usually the very best of students that take on AM (since these students are also taking HL Maths and usually HL Physics also), so therefore it's no accident that the % taking OL AM is so low and also no accident that the A rate is so high. If the students are strong, then they are more likely to be good problem-solvers naturally. You can say that AM procedures can be rote learned to a certain extent, but there are such a variety of possible questions available to the examiner on any given topic, the student would have to cover some serious ground in order to ensure they have covered every single possibility - and even then there will always be something unusual thrown into a few of the questions, remember the "outrage" at the question on relative velocity last year and even the projectiles question on tennis would have thrown a few this year!! I guess what I'm saying is that I have a problem with the phrase "emphasis on content as opposed to the development of skills and mathematical reasoning students’" - it's fluffy language and what does it mean? Teachers of the subject have to go through the content of the syllabus with the students, explain that content as best they can, take questions from students about that content, then go for the exercises to try to put the content into practice. What skills are the students developing? Well they're becoming better problem-solvers as a result in my mind! Their mathematical skills are definitely getting better in that they are using simple and simultaneous equations, vectors, trigonometry, geometry, differentiation, integration so it reinforces much of what they are covering in PM. And surely their mathematical reasoning is getting better too with each topic covered.
The comparison with the situation in other countries is very interesting also. I nearly fell off the seat when I read that between 51% and 80% of students in Scotland do not study Maths in 5th/6th year!! Also, the number of hours allocated for maths is Ireland seems to be very low indeed compared with some other countries, especially given that many students here think of LC maths as being almost the equivalent of 2 subjects in terms of the amount of material to be covered.
Bottom-line for me is that I'd be happy as long as AM survives in some form or other, as I do believe it serves a very useful purpose and remains the number one subject in terms of problem-solving. I'll watch with great interest at how this document evolves and what the new syllabus will become - interesting times ahead :pac:
Interesting that you picked up on that. You may remember from last year that Noel Cunningham (Mr Thephysicsteacher.ie) posted his displeasure with last year's paper on this forum. Well, he posted on his blog about his displeasure with the Applied Maths document you looked at. (To clarify, it is not a draft syllabus.) Here is Cunningham's blog. Some teachers made comments in a similar vein underneath.
My own opinion is that we think too much about the A/B student when considering Applied Maths. It may be the case that they do demonstrate higher-order problem solving, but the C/D student (roughly 40%) can hardly be said to. Setting up AM problems is systematic, and often any requirement for problem-solving comes near the finishing stages. They've long tapped-out at that point. Even the extent to which A/B students practise by doing endless questions is a cause for concern. Would be interested in your response to Cunningham's post.Firstly, you need to show the time it takes to reach this height is half the time of flight which you will compute by putting the vertical speed equal to zero. Now work out H which is probably the hardest calculation you can do.
I think you're allowed to assume, given it's a parabolic flight, that TMH is half TOF.0 -
They can be a little hard to find if you're not familiar with the ALevel system. In short, there are several exam boards that offer ALevels, unlike over here where there is a single examining body. There are (usually) four optional mechanics modules as part of their Maths and Further Maths subjects which they can do in addition to compulsory core modules. If you go to the maths ALevel section of each exam board's website, there are past papers and marking schemes. Here is OCR's.
Thanks a million for that info qweerty, I'm definitely not in least familiar with the A-Level system at all! I look forward to checking some of those papers out in due course - how quickly I get to them depends on how fine the summer will be 0 -
Hi qweerty,
I'm just getting back to you with my thoughts about Noel's comments on his blog about the AM document.
* It's such a pity that someone involved in researching for the document came across Noel's blog message mentioning about the fact that recent exams basically consisted of similar questions that had appeared in older papers. I do believe Noel was just genuinely trying to bolster the take up for this minority subject and never thought his comments would be used against his much-loved subject. His comment, however, does make it appear that if you do enough past papers, you ought to do very well in future exams. My opinion is that this is indeed true and, unlike Noel, I do honestly believe that if you were to cover enough past papers (going back to 1980 even) then you could realistically expect to have a serious chance of getting an A grade, even without having a very good understanding of the underlying procedures (provided you're a student who can think and write quickly - I must mention that requirement as I am personally not in that category and would have trouble completed 6 questions fully in 2.5 hours).
* I also do believe that there are students out there who could almost rote learn AM procedures to answer questions, as long as they fall into a recognisable category of question e.g. the relative velocity question where 2 cars approach an intersection and the shortest distance between the cars is required. So there is definitely a possibility that you could have a student who learns off formulas and can apply them to "well-known" scenarios without really understanding the basis of the formulas, where they come from and what they really mean. This of course goes against the ethos of the subject, but I wonder just how many students fall into this category - as qweerty says it could be some of the C/D students that do since they show enough knowledge to write down some governing equations, but cannot make the leap to solving the problem fully as they don't fully understand the mechanics of the problem. These students may not have put in the effort to covering lots of past exam questions either and analysing their solutions.
* I agree with Noel in that there are always going to be some "twists" thrown into at least a few of the AM exam questions that mean a student can never truly be 100% prepared for all questions, However I'd wager that oftentimes, if a particular cohort feels they have been hard done by with their particular paper then marking schemes will be altered to ensure consistency of grades with previous years and the more difficult parts marked much more leniently. So again, students who had diligently covered lots of past papers and did most parts of the 6 questions successfully will still get their A grade nevertheless.
* Having studied physics, chemistry and AM for the LC (a long time ago) I would agree with Noel that practically all of the physics and chemistry material can be rote learned (definitions can just be learned off by heart - Coulomb's Law anyone? :eek:) and that questions involving calculations involve very little, if any, problem solving in the real sense of the term - it's still not that easy to get an A in either though!! Basically though for calculations, as long as you know the formula at hand, its generally just a case of plugging in the values and away you go (some of those formulas are difficult to recall though and there are lots of them!!). Although AM does involve a much higher degree of problem-solving for certain, as I already mentioned, I do believe that students can almost rote-learn many of the problem-solving techniques from analysis of past paper solutions and, as long as the question appearing on the paper resembles a scenario covered previously, then writing the solution becomes less thinking/problem-solving and more regurgitation - I guess this is why there was so much trouble with the relative velocity question from last years paper. The format of the question was presented differently to what had come up before, but in my mind this question was very fair and doable, as long as you had a decent understanding of the topic.
* The comment from the NCCA in the document about AM students "learning to solve particular problem types" rather than "problem-solving" and saying that the subject didn't facilitate the "development of skills and mathematical reasoning" was very harsh I think, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Although students may cover vast quantities of past papers and analyse past solutions to problems, they are still (hopefully) learning from this process and using this knowledge to adapt to new scenarios that may appear in future questions. It is true that students are learning to solve particular problem types to a certain extent, I mean if a student goes off to study the "uniform accelerated motion" chapter then they are learning to solve this particular type of problem, aren't they? They get stuck into a variety of questions on the topic and then head for some exam questions, hoping to use the basic formulas they have learned to problem-solve on the fly.
* Noel's comment about the document author using an examiners report for maths to highlight deficiency in the AM subject is very interesting to say the least :eek: He is kind when he calls this "mischievous". It looks like someone has the daggers out for AM!!
* Finally, I would disagree with Noel about the papers of 2013 and 2014. I did both papers and, while there were some tricky parts in both, I wouldn't agree that the exam "simply went too far". The strong students would still have been able to have a right good go at the questions while the "average" student could find these parts troublesome but, in my mind, thats what AM is meant to be - not entirely predictable (even Noel says that) - and weaker students are always going to struggle with such questions whether we like it or not. But as I said earlier, the marking schemes usually take care of any major anomolies, although I know that is scant consolation to students in the aftermath of an exam. It is also important to mention that there are 10 questions on the AM paper, but unfortunately many students (especially the weaker/"average" ones) are only preparing themselves for 6 and taking their chances with those - of course, when something odd looking pops up in 2 or 3 of these "favourite" questions, bedlam ensues
I'm nearly asleep myself now after all that typing!!!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement