Is Project Maths hindering students' progress in subjects like physics/app maths?

Corkgirl18

I was at an inservice recently and was talking to other physics teachers. They were telling me how much damage project maths is doing to physics and applied maths students. Apparently their maths skills are much worse now than they were before the PM course.
Is it because things like matrices and integration are cut or the whole approach to maths?
I'm new to teaching so its not something I've come across.

Does anyone have any views on this?

silverharp

as a parent Im interested in this, although a few years away yet. Based on talking to a couple of teachers I get the impression that an 1980's Maths LC paper could make kids today cry, the course is smaller and the questions are easier. Applied Maths apparently has maintained its standards. What worries me is that it creates an artificial leap to University if kids go on to science type courses and even more so if a kid went to a university in a different country.
Whats behind it? it must mean a higher drop out rate at third level.

evolving_doors

theres a lot of issues in the mix to tease out!
From our perspective the dept inspector frowns on any A grades in O level, they should be scraping by in H level we're told.
Compounded with this is the bonus points pressure.
So basically honours classes are packed and yer teaching to the middle whereas previously you could fly with your top set. I suppose language teachers quite often have to differentiate for mixed ability with honours and ordinary in one class but I think the gulf between advanced students in maths and those just along for the bonus points ride is too wide.
There was a lot of procedural advantage with the old system... you knew what to do for q1, q2, avoid probability choice etc. Now I think comprehension is being tested a little bit more.
E.g previously, if I asked a student to sketch out a co-ordinate geometry problem and infer an approximate answer Id be given the 'raised eyebrow', and quickly told to 'just give us the formula, tell us what to do and we'll do the rest'.
Now its kind of borrowing from' tech. graphics for 'problem solving', which can be tricky for the old style of 'rote' student.
It definitely requires a change in teaching which I think was necessary.

one thing is certain though, the universities/media will always say secondary school's maths teachers arent good enough.

I think we are in flux at the moment so it might take about 10 to 15 yrs for things to settle.

In my day though (early 90's)... you could get through the physics course no bother with a reasonably good O. level math standard.
If you were doing physics and H.level maths then I would have thought Applied Maths was a no-brainer. I can't see what that would have changed tbh.

evolving_doors

As regards the high dropout rate in college (for maths based courses I presume you mean!) thats probably down to chosing the wrong course. This might be coming from the push for STEM which is relentless and creates a subject snobbery. Also universities are upping their game a bit with 'maths clinics' but I dont know the efficacy of these.

mirrorwall14

I can't speak for Physics but I will say that I know that in our school the physics teachers are tearing their hair out at students completely unprepared for the course taking it. They insist on taking it when they just don't have the ability to succeed because they did well in Project maths for JC. One extreme example I know of where one student who got 1% in their mock at HL and the parent/student are still insisting that they take HL at leaving cert. The student is also failing HL maths spectacularly

doc_17

Matrices and Integration aren't necessary for Physics at second level.

Robbiert

Just to chime in as an actual sixth year student (yay procrastination).

silverharp wrote: »

Based on talking to a couple of teachers I get the impression that an 1980's Maths LC paper could make kids today cry, the course is smaller and the questions are easier.

I take issue with this. The project maths course is by no means shorter than the previous leaving cert course, at least the previous iteration (I have no experience of that of the 1980s). Debatable the content is easier, although if you had a look at some of the financial maths and inferential statistics, they might make a maths student from the 1980s cry.

Teachers, including my physics/applied maths teacher decry project maths for dumbing down the syllabus. I don't think this is true. I do many of the previous maths papers for practice and the only thing they've taken out is some integration (which is not used in lc physics, and the applied maths integration question is the easiest on the paper) and Linear algebra. They've also removed the option for group theory, further integration, and ellipses etc. . However they have added a lot of prob/ stats, and financial maths that are more relevant in the vast majority of student's lives.

In addition the structure of the exam has changed for the better. The contexts and applications section really tests a students intuition and deeper level understanding of topics, rather than the almost rote learned procedural techniques of the previous syllabus.

I really get the impression that teachers use project maths as a scapegoat. However this is just my opinion as a lowly lc student and I may be horrendously mistaken.

evolving_doors

Robbiert wrote: »

Just to chime in as an actual sixth year student (yay procrastination).


I take issue with this. The project maths course is by no means shorter than the previous leaving cert course, at least the previous iteration (I have no experience of that of the 1980s). Debatable the content is easier, although if you had a look at some of the financial maths and inferential statistics, they might make a maths student from the 1980s cry.

Teachers, including my physics/applied maths teacher decry project maths for dumbing down the syllabus. I don't think this is true. I do many of the previous maths papers for practice and the only thing they've taken out is some integration (which is not used in lc physics, and the applied maths integration question is the easiest on the paper) and Linear algebra. They've also removed the option for group theory, further integration, and ellipses etc. . However they have added a lot of prob/ stats, and financial maths that are more relevant in the vast majority of student's lives.

In addition the structure of the exam has changed for the better. The contexts and applications section really tests a students intuition and deeper level understanding of topics, rather than the almost rote learned procedural techniques of the previous syllabus.

I really get the impression that teachers use project maths as a scapegoat. However this is just my opinion as a lowly lc student and I may be horrendously mistaken.

No, its great to get a student perspective esp. seeing as how you've looked at pre Pm past papers.

Out of interest how big is your hons. Class? Would there be many ' hangers-on ' who are sticking it out for the bonus points.

mirrorwall14

The style of question is very different on the new course. The 'problem' as I see it is the complete lack of 'basics' on any level paper means that there is no perfecting of any section done by students below the A/B standard. Instead of (for example) knowing the algebra inside out you are better to have a pretty poor idea of the whole course as there may not be much algebra on the paper. This means that many students are coming out with pretty much no knowledge of anything past the bare minimum but managing to pass because the marking schemes are a joke. This is at both higher and OL

I would argue that the old course and new course are almost incomparable as there are so many qualifications to be made if you make a statement about the course.

For example: I believe the new course is significantly shorter than the old one. Probability, financial maths and stats were on the old course they have just been expanded and many areas have been removed. HOWEVER the change to the exam papers means the teaching and learning involved in the material is far far higher than on the old course. It is no longer enough to know how to use simpsons rule on Q1 where it always is. Now you have to recognise it in a question, understand the context in which it is placed and then apply the rule. So while it is probably true to say the course is shorter in the syllabus, it is not shorter in the classroom


I would like a happy medium on the paper. A set number of questions which are progressive on the same topics each year in the 'old style' say worth 1/3rd of the paper. Similar to the current context section at leaving cert but more predictable and balanced. The other 2/3rds of the paper to be in depth knowledge based questions in the project maths style.

For Example: Leaving Cert Ordinary Level P1
Four 25 mark questions on paper one
Q1 Algebra
Q2 Functions
Q3 Income Tax (this absolutely should be on every LCOL paper-students need to know this)
Q4 Complex Numbers
These questions should be the old style A/B parts of questions only.
The other 200 marks can be made up of longer
more difficult questions.

This would allow weak OL students to attain by knowing exactly what they need to pass the exam but challenge those who have dropped.

At HL a similar system would add clarity to students struggling with the HL paper. If you cannot pass those 4 questions you will not pass the exam and should drop down