Project Maths

vallo wrote: »

That man in the audience really annoyed me. He (and Pat) were dismissing the idea of taking maths out of the classroom and going out to measure the height of a tree using trigonometry. I have always done this and I firmly believe that it helps all students to learn the basics of trig, whatever their ability.

having taught maths successfully for over 40 years and never gone out to measure a tree, i feel sorry for any students who have engaged in such a time wasting activity.
But you are not alone .I also heard of one genius who took a half day to measure the waterfall in Powerscourt . No wonder maths results are the way they are .
The class room is the place for maths tuition not the school tour!

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I actually think you're on the wind up. You're seriously saying that there's no place for tuition outside the classroom? I think I've figured out your resistance to Project Maths, you don't want to change 40 years of bad habits.

Project maths believes that maths most have some relevence not true maths can be just pure maths .
I think anybody who wastes time to measure a tree to solve a right angled triangle need to get in the real world.
but this person probably believes that interactive white boards are an educational tool rather than a cop out by the teacher

Anonymo wrote: »

I'm a bit perplexed by LeixlipRed who appears to be completely behind project maths. Have you had a look at last years L.C. exam paper. It's beyond poor. If that is the standard that is being set then there are serious worries. It also appears from reports that the NCCA and the states exam commission differ wildly in what they think the standard of such exams such be. It is such a monumental change that it can only be described as a huge experiment. To any pragmatic viewpoint, this is an utterly ridiculous situation.

While I don't agree with the points being made about the merits of particular topics at third level, I do believe there is now an undue weighting towards statistics and there also appears to be a trend in making the subject more 'wordy'.

A proposal which I'm sure many would advocate would be to adjust the previous maths course to make better use of technologies. Topics like geometry and statistics lend themselves easily to this (which I presume is why projectmaths focusses on them - although appears to use very little technology!). But above all, maths should be taught as maths. A module within the maths syllabus whose particular scope is the application of methods would be great and as such that module/paper should acquire a greater weighting. This would be a more sensible way of improving the education of maths.

In short there are many ways in which the previous course could have been improved. Project Maths is clearly too experimental and, given that teachers of many years of experience are so dubious of its merits, should be scrapped.

I agree with alot of the points made .
There was very little wrong with the post 94 Syllabus (although it was much easier than the pre 94 syllabus) .Ihave thought higher maths since about 1970 and in my opinion there has been a dumbing down of the course every time they change the syllabus . That is the first point .
Project maths was introduced to try to increase the numbers doing HLCM .
The numbers doing HLCM at the moment is about 8000 about 16% of the total taking LCM .
A committee was formed to address the "problem" this committee decided that what was needed (i)Syllabus change (ii)Change in method of teaching to make maths more relevant.
The committee then formed made up of mostly of non teachers or teachers with little or no teaching experience . The minister at the time Batt O'Keeffe apointed an ex Rose of Tralee with 6 months teaching experience as a spokesperson and "expert" . The committee was given lots of money and set about trying to change everything that was good about LC maths.
This committee decided on the Syllabus and on the new methods (rejected in Finland 2007)of teaching .The committee gets most of its information from UL. There was no consultation with teachers or the Irish maths teachers association .
The imtroduction of Project maths in 5th year was a mistake to much to far and should never have happened .
The NCCA has produced sample papers which are so out of touch with reality that the SEC wrote to the 24 pilot schools telling them to ignore the NCCA papers. So now those who are implementing the course and deciding the syllabus are at odds with the NCCA .
It is time for the NCCA project maths committee to resign.

ZRelation wrote: »

Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that while a course syllabus may not include 'geometry' as topic a fundamental knowledge of the topic may be still be required. Its not just 1st year college level maths courses that rely on what you learn in leaving cert maths.

And I would see stats as a pretty important part of the syllabus. How often are scientific reports/studies misinterpreted by the press and general public these days? If a student is hoping to go into almost any sort of scientific career then a knowledge of stats will be important.

All this said it does sound like the new course is being implanted pretty poorly, which is a shame. It sounds like it has/had potential.

I have no issue with geometry and statistics being on the HLCM syllabus .
It is the amount of compulsory Geometry and statistics that I object to!
I also question the wisdom of removing/reducing other important topics such as parts of algebra ,matrices/vectors/integration/series/Binomial theorem, Max and Min problems in differential calculus .
also the sine rule has been removed from HJC as has the area of a triangle and of course foundation level maths .
But my biggest concern is the people in the NCCA who are in charge of Project maths they have produced a series of sample papers which were littered with errors ,contained topics (5)not on the course and which the Dept of Ed instructed the pilot schools to ignore as they did not represent a fair assesment of the syllabus.
Students in the pilot schools sitting the LCM exam in June are at a serious disadvantage (but they have been assured that they will be looked after).
Another Irish solution to an Irish problem.
It is time that there is a complete review of Project maths and the present NCCA committee should resign

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Your comment about "real" universities just outlines how much credence we can give to your comments. You say you've been teaching for 40 years and yet you have the maturity of one of the pupils you teach.

I'm not pro Project maths. I'm anti-rote learning. The current LC syllabus and the teachers that teach it are entrenched in this system.

If you are so against rote learning why do you support Project Maths which involves learning Geometry Theorems off by heart (compulsory for first time on LCHM) and learning lots of definitions of different types of data off by heart ,learning the rules of probability using sets off by heart ,learning the rules for finiancial maths off by heart .
Check the draft syllabus.
Rote learning is alive and well in Project maths .
The bigger issue is the NCCA project maths committee which has lost all creditability as a result of their discredited sample papers .
see below minister Quinns reply to a parlimentary question.
NCCA issued mock papers to the 24 Project Schools in February 2011 which were
intended to supplement sample question material already sent to schools for the
relevant strands the previous summer, and the sample papers published by the
State Examinations Commission in October 2010.
The feedback indicates that the
questions in the mock papers were more difficult than expected. In response, all of the project schools were notified that it was the sample paper published by the SEC which reflects the standards and type of question likely to arise in the actual examination.
The SEC no longer agrees that the NCCA should set sample papers.
It is also interesting to note that the gen Sec of the ASTI did not support project maths on the recent frontline program

ray giraffe wrote: »

However the point bluewolf was trying to make is that Maynooth has very poor standards.

Just today I was giving grinds to a girl who is about to do her maths finals in Maynooth (BA). She was amazed to hear about composition of functions "f o g" i.e. "f after g". She had no familiarity with this, I was breaking fresh ground with her as I showed her simple examples.

She could not identify if a function was injective or surjective, and failed to recognise log(AB) = log(A) + log(B) when I wrote it down.

What is she going to do in September? H Dip in maths teaching. She is our next generation of maths teachers. :pac:

My point: Most maths teachers have a weak grasp of maths, having learnt it by rote to a fairly poor standard themselves. Therefore asking them to convey understanding to their students (in project maths) is a tall order.

Everything you say is a result of the dumbing down of maths in 2nd level.
The real major dropping of standards happened in 2003 with the changes to the Junior Cert . All of the following were removed
(i)Compositions of functions fog etc.
It can be a a very nice way to explain the chain rule in differentiation students do not understand the concept of a function of a function.
(ii)Logs including change of base .
(iii)Quadratic inequalities.
(iv)Binary Operations
(v)Symmetric difference in Sets .
(vi)Area of a triangle in Coordinate geometry .
(vii)Image of a line by a translation.
(viii)sum and difference of 2 cubes
And nothing was added!
This is why present 3rd level students know nothing .Because they came through a maths syllabus at Junior Cert which is basically 4th class primary standard.
Injections and surjections were on the Leaving cert Ordinary level in the 1980's!They were never very popular a bit to difficult for Ord students but they were there!
Project maths will do nothing to improve this! They have removed even more topics from the Junior cert H syllabus .
Including the area of a triangle and the sine rule.
If you compare the Project maths syllabus for Junior Cert and the Pre 1990 Junior Cert Syllabus you would be shocked how standards have dropped! Foundation level maths is also being removed.

Good luck with your student

Deleted User wrote: »

This paragraph is full of errors. Stats and probability account for one third of my modules in every year of my maths degree. Euclidean geometry is assumed as a prerequisite for Linear Algebra and Calculus courses.
Lastly, most statistical problems at 3rd level do not use a computer. Computer usage accounts for about 5% of stats module grades in UCD.



Excuse you! I entered third level education two years ago adequately prepared and ready to learn!


My own thoughts on Project Maths are uncertain. I do have definite opinions on what could have been done better. I think the addition of more Statistics was a bad move because, if the idea is to reduce rote learning and leave the more proficient students to pick the rest up in 3rd level, the statistics should be left until then, since it is taught from scratch again.
Rather than bolstering the content of the course, why not just have more questions on existing course material, and make it more open ended, as has been done?

They may account for every year of your maths degree but for 1st Science,1st commerce etc (not haeding towards pure maths) there is no Euclidian geometry .
Your point about bolstering up the content in HLC maths is vadid the present couse is fine . But H maths is only 8500 students there are 35,000 doing ordinary level and they now will have to answer compulsory questions on geometry and business maths which were options on the old course .The questions are so wordy that many Ord level students will have great difficulties