Project Maths

18-09-2010 8:01pm

The main thing I don't like about project maths is that knowledge of vectors and calculus were both assumed, and both used everywhere, in my first year of undergrad maths.

They shouldn't be removed. Extra stats might be fine for some, but I think in a subject called mathematics, you would expect to be taught the main mathematical tools for understanding our world, not just the ones that are easiest to 'get'.

Permabear · 18-09-2010 8:18pm

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater · 18-09-2010 8:52pm

I actually think calculus is very important, and can be a useful tool in understanding the world. I was watching a TED video on society collapse by Jared Diamond yesterday, for instance, and he made reference to the rate of change of a thing (he specifically said "first and second derivative"). Mr Diamond wasn't using actual mathematics; he was just using the concept.

Even for those who won't go on to use it directly, I think mathematics is important because it develops a logical and methodical way of thinking that is highly beneficial.

MathsManiac · 18-09-2010 9:14pm

Sigh.

Let's get one thing clear at least. Calculus is NOT being removed from the syllabus, as anyone who bothers to actually read the syllabus will see.

There is still differential calculus on the ordinary level syllabus, and there is still both differential and integral calculus on the higher level.

The syllabus is here:
http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Review_of_Mathematics/Project_Maths/LC_str1-5_sep10_ex12.pdf

It seems to me that what's changing is that the emphasis is moving from being able to aimlessly differentiate or integrate gazillions of weird and wonderful functions to actually apply the skills a bit more often in a meaningful way.

And the removal of vectors could hardly be described as taking one of the hard bits off. My students never had any great trouble with it. The problem with it as it stands in the old course is that it doesn't get sufficiently well developed to do anything really useful with it, as it wasn't well integrated with the other topics. To solve this problem would have involved expanding the course, so I can understand why they decided to drop it. If you can't do it right, then don't do it at all, and spend your time developing something else properly. Second level students only ever get to see vectors doing something useful in applied maths, and there's no reason why they can't continue to live a long and happy life on that syllabus.

FoxT · 22-09-2010 2:36pm

MathsManiac - I agree with you about vectors, and in fact I would use the same argument to justify removal of matrices from the Leaving Cert course as well - neither are sufficiently well developed to the point where the student can do anything meaningful.

Looking at the paper 2 sample, I like the focus on being able to read, interpret, and understand statistical distributions - and I would welcome this. Overall though, many of the questions look very, very basic.

I am an engineer myself, not a math expert but v. interested in math etc. and doing hons LC maths with my kids at home. I find it striking that my kids have
- no 'feel' for the subject. When they work through a problem & get an answer - no idea if it right, wrong, or even in the ballpark.
- no liking for the subject. (They find subjects like business & geography interesting for example, but not math)

I believe that the rot starts at primary school level. There is insufficient value/emphasis placed on math at that stage and I think it is unrealistic to get teens to engage with the subject if they have not had a rewarding & pleasurable experience of it as children.

- FoxT

22-09-2010 7:42pm

I'm not sure what the aims of the curriculum are. My opinion would be that if the goal is simply to boost uptake of mathematics, particularly at higher level, and possibly increase the numeracy of the general population, Project Maths may succeed, but if the goal of reforming the course is to encourage more students to study maths at third level, then I feel a better approach would have been to develop the concepts further, particularly vectors.

In Mathematics in Trinity, statistics is only compulsory for one semester, so I don't feel increasing the amount of it in the Leaving Certificate serves this need.

MathsManiac · 22-09-2010 9:39pm

FoxT wrote: »

I believe that the rot starts at primary school level. There is insufficient value/emphasis placed on math at that stage and I think it is unrealistic to get teens to engage with the subject if they have not had a rewarding & pleasurable experience of it as children.

- FoxT

Is it any wonder, when so many primary school teachers have significant difficulties themselves with mathematics?

I think it's completely mad that you only need an ordinary level D3 to get into primary teaching.

The typical entrant to primary teaching these days is a reasonably intelligent person, scoring CAO points in the high 400s at least. Yet only a minority of these have done higher maths.

Higher level maths (C3 at least, and that's the rock bottom in my view) should be an entry requirement to primary teaching. There might then be some hope for the future.

rainbow kirby · 23-09-2010 11:29am

MathsManiac wrote: »

Is it any wonder, when so many primary school teachers have significant difficulties themselves with mathematics?

I think it's completely mad that you only need an ordinary level D3 to get into primary teaching.

The typical entrant to primary teaching these days is a reasonably intelligent person, scoring CAO points in the high 400s at least. Yet only a minority of these have done higher maths.

Higher level maths (C3 at least, and that's the rock bottom in my view) should be an entry requirement to primary teaching. There might then be some hope for the future.

I very much agree with this. There are far too many primary teachers who are scared of the subject, and will pass that fear on to their students at a very early age.

doc_17 · 24-09-2010 9:59pm

One month into this new Project Maths with the first years and it sucks a**!!!!

caffrey · 25-09-2010 2:35am

I agree with most about this being WAAAYY too easy. And for those who think that its not then I ask...what does it take for a person to get an A1 in French, say,

i) Excellent Oral and listening skills
ii) Excellent comprehension
iii) Excellent grammar

will this person who gets an A1 in french be well set up for french at 3rd level?
yes!!

Will a person who gets an A1 in project maths?
Not necessarily.

The new emphasis is on "everyday" maths. That is not what HL LC maths is supposed to be, that is what OL should be. Which is the way all courses should be structured, french OL should be enough for you to get by on in france on holiday. Same with german, italian etc. The likes of physics, chemistry, biology, geography, metal work etc etc should and do have a similar setup where students do HL to understand the more advanced concepts.

The information needed for a student to advance to the next level of education in a chosen subject does not change from year to year just because students are not doing as well. What goes along with this is the fact that the students are not more stupid year on year. Irish people are not genetically getting more stupid. Something is happening in their education which means that they aren't as good as previous students. It has steadily been happening over the last 20 years. So, instead of tackling the real problem, it is ignored!!

caffrey · 25-09-2010 2:38am

It just dawned on me...

They are doing a reverse spinal tap....

This one goes to 9!!!

mathsman · 14-10-2010 9:28pm

I notice that this forum has a lot of anti-Project Maths sentiment in it and the newspaper websites are pro-Project Maths e.g Project Maths syllabus expected to pass its first test with flying colours and a conspiracy by grind schools and high-profile textbook writers trying to get rid of Project Maths.

https://projectdumbdownmaths.wordpress.com

TommyDoyle · 29-10-2010 7:18pm

doc_17 wrote: »

One month into this new Project Maths with the first years and it sucks a**!!!!

I have a daughter in first year and I'm glad she doesn't have this "teacher"!!! How could you be 1 month into Project Maths material in September??? Does this mean you have taught Probability/Stats/Geometry without giving your students a grounding in Number Systems which is needed for all three areas? No wonder the subject is in trouble if this is the calibre of instruction.

sponsoredwalk · 30-10-2010 12:10am

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Its only paper 2 that is different, so I have the three projects maths ones first and the old syllabus scond

PM Higher level Higher level

I've just skimmed this thread and seen people saying vectors aren't on the
syllabus yet in the above exam they're using dot products and explicitly
mentioning vectors

Also, that thing can't be the higher level LC can it?

I thought diff eq's were on it?

Apart from the probability & statistics stuff, which seems to completely
predominate the entire thing & something I've never studied because I find
it extremely boring (but will in the future, honests! ), I'm shocked at how easy
that stuff is.

Should not, at the very least, a passing grade in college level algebra and
analysis not be the requirements to teach secondary school mathematics?
I mean if you can pass these two subjects you can teach LC stuff, it's
foolproof. They would totally weed out the teachers that will fail the better
part of another generation of students. For me these subjects are the
reason you're learning all the stuff you do, without these subjects to
apply your knowledge to there's very little motivation to even learn these
things. A teacher knowing this can certainly help students see the reasons
why they're learning X that way, no? Also, you can't fake an understanding
of the material at LC level and pass either of these courses, you may
fake an understanding of the density of the real's and pass analysis but
you can't fake concepts like cross multiplication as being serious
mathematical manipulations that students must memorize (as opposed to
the idea of equality like
[latex] \frac{whatever_1}{ \lambda} \ + \ whatever_2 \ \rightarrow \ \frac{1}{1} \cdot \ \frac{whatever_1}{ \lambda} \ + \ \frac{1}{1} \cdot \ whatever_2 \ [/latex]

[latex] \rightarrow \ \frac{whatever_1}{ \lambda} \ + \ \frac{\lambda}{\lambda} \cdot \ whatever_2 \ = \ \frac{whatever_1 \ + \ \lambda \ \cdot \ whatever_2 }{ \lambda}[/latex])
and do analysis. Really you can't even do limits without knowing this, but
still...

Anyway, get rid of the matrices and vectors ffs! What use are they until
you encounter physics and linear algebra, i.e. find a place to apply these
things you're learning? In fact I've read many arguments where the claim is
that linear algebra in high school would do the students better than
calculus & I'd agree, the abstraction isn't great and proofwise it's great
training. Plus it codifies a lot of the concepts you're learning on the
syllabus. LA would be a good place to flex these muscles.

If vectors & matrices are being taken off, from what I've seen you're
talking about a level of understanding that is covered from scratch
in every single intro college level textbook I've seen perfectly adequately
(where I first learned of these concepts). It's not a loss at all, it's
probably going to benefit students as they'll be taught right the first time
as opposed to the rank algorithmical pedagogy the LC stands for...

doc_17 · 30-10-2010 11:39am

TommyDoyle wrote: »

I have a daughter in first year and I'm glad she doesn't have this "teacher"!!! How could you be 1 month into Project Maths material in September??? Does this mean you have taught Probability/Stats/Geometry without giving your students a grounding in Number Systems which is needed for all three areas? No wonder the subject is in trouble if this is the calibre of instruction.

Wow...lots of hostility there. One of the central points in PM was for a streamlined first year syllabus. Apparently from research most first year material was already taught at primary level so the repitition was generally thought to be a waste of time.

An remember....attack the post not the "poster"

LeixlipRed · 30-10-2010 11:42am

TommyDoyle wrote: »

I have a daughter in first year and I'm glad she doesn't have this "teacher"!!! How could you be 1 month into Project Maths material in September??? Does this mean you have taught Probability/Stats/Geometry without giving your students a grounding in Number Systems which is needed for all three areas? No wonder the subject is in trouble if this is the calibre of instruction.

Yes Tommy, relax a tad.

ED E · 30-10-2010 12:41pm

Sat the LC last year(This year). Our school prided itself on its maths teachers, two full time maths, two AppMaths/Maths/Physics, One Maths/Bio(IT) and one Phys/Maths. We had 3HL, 2OL and one small FL classes. The three of the teachers that discussed PM with us completely condemned it. It doesnt seem coincidental that two of them have now retired.

I'm doing computer science now and tbh our maths and Digital logic(Boolean algebra, all new but having good maths helps) professors dont mess around. I wouldnt like to be one of these new wave of students in six years starting into those tutorials, even with two week catch-up lectures it would still be pretty harsh. There isnt an option IMO to dumb the course down as they are in the process of trying to increase the course content and duration(it appears to satisfy the accreditors).

doc_17 · 30-10-2010 5:45pm

Perhaps I shoud just expand a bit on why I made that origional statement. I find some of the material to be dumbing it down a bit and their aim of making answers "wordy" is not something I'm a huge fan off in certain areas.

Also the removal of certain topics whilst maintaining some of the others (like all the twenty formula for Trig) will be dissappointing to students and possibly some teachers.

The accompanying workbook for the textbook (Active Maths) has questions like "Write out the letters of the alphabet"

Some tweaking of the Syllabus has been ok as I think Probabilty is a good thing to do for first years and at least the Leaving Cert Higher Level actually has Statistics on it as a question now whereas before it was basically an algebra one.

However leaving Cert Ordinary Level Students will have to do geoemetry theorems in PM and this is less than ideal as for lots of them it was the reason they stopped Junior Cert Higher Level.

I was in favour of change but I would have done some things differently.

I asked my first year class of 25 on the very first day "How may of you like Maths" 9 put their hands up. That points out the challenge straight away. I'll ask it again after Christmas and see if PM and my methods can improve on that!

TommyDoyle · 31-10-2010 10:38am

Doc17,
What PM material exactly did you spend a month teaching?? Also from my general knowledge of what PM is about:
1. I don't think the intention is to make it "wordy" moreso to get the students to think, something they do little of in irish maths classrooms unfortunately
2. All twenty formulae for Trig haven't been removed
3. Textbooks are totally independent of what PM is about, they are just the authors take on what the syllabus requires to be covered.
4.LC ord have to do theorems now as the teachers were leaving them out. The difference now is the students won't have to learn proofs off by heart but will have to apply the results in context. This can lead to some great questions and also again requiring the students to think and problem solve.
5. If 9 out of 25 students say they like maths-surely it's up to you alone to change that. Distinguishing PM methods from what you've done in the past is like saying one is "real" maths and the other isn't. It's all still maths but PM is trying to move away from the rote memorisation of procedures which predominated in Irish maths classroom and hasn't produced the problem solvers that we need.

What exactly would you have done differently???? And if you talk about syllabus you will have missed the point. You can have the best syllabus in the world but nothing changes unless the teaching practices change.

doc_17 · 31-10-2010 1:40pm

I never said the twenty formulae had been removed. Read the post!

TommyDoyle · 31-10-2010 3:11pm

My apologies for not reading your post correctly but you have failed to respond to almost all of mine. I'll try again: Can you tell me exactly what Project Maths material you spent a month on? (The stuff that you said "sucks a**e")

sponsoredwalk · 31-10-2010 5:31pm

There are 20 trig formulae on the LC? :eek: We're not talking versine. coversine, covercosine, hacovercosine etc... are we?

doc_17 · 31-10-2010 7:20pm

TommyDoyle wrote: »

My apologies for not reading your post correctly but you have failed to respond to almost all of mine. I'll try again: Can you tell me exactly what Project Maths material you spent a month on? (The stuff that you said "sucks a**e")

The statistics. line plots, stem and leaf have not realy added anything to the course imo.

TommyDoyle · 01-11-2010 10:17am

Have you honestly spent a full month on the stats section that 1st years have to follow? I can't see how it would take you that long to cover such a small amount of material. The census at school website has added enormously to the stats section so I'm presuming that you didn't use any of their material. I also find it unusual that statistics would be covered before teaching Natural Nos etc. I think your "sucks a**e" comment was a throwaway one because I'm not convinced by any of your replies since. You have condemned the new material while also admitting that you have taught very little of it. Testimony from the project schools is that the stats material is very popular with 1st year students. Again we come back to the syllabus issue- WHAT teachers teach isn't at all as important as HOW teachers teach.

Brussels Sprout · 18-04-2011 11:55pm

Just heard some teacher complaining about this on the Frontline saying it was a disaster and that it was really lowering the standard of maths in our schools.

Is Project Maths taking over from the classical syllabus or is it a parallel option?

The third level institutes are already complaining about science and engineering students saying they can't do a lot of basic things. I can't imagine that this is going to help matters in that regard.

LeixlipRed · 19-04-2011 12:05am

Sounds like you've just jumped to a lot of conclusions based on one teacher's opinion? Project Maths will be replacing the old curriculum. And having attended a recent conference about the new syllabus I'm convinced this can only improve the standard of mathematics in the long term. What exactly did the teacher say?

Michael Collins · 19-04-2011 1:10am

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Sounds like you've just jumped to a lot of conclusions based on one teacher's opinion? Project Maths will be replacing the old curriculum. And having attended a recent conference about the new syllabus I'm convinced this can only improve the standard of mathematics in the long term. What exactly did the teacher say?

You can check it out here: http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0418/thefrontline.html#

They talk about maths specifically fairly near the start (about 10 mins in) but Pat quickly brings it back to teaching in general.

The teacher in question is John Brennan who has a lot of experience teaching maths at the Ballinteer institute.

Then again I've heard from plenty of third level lecturers, including the previous head of Maths at UCD, that there's more to this Project Maths thing than meets the eye.

Would you mind giving us a few reasons as to why you think it's good Leixlip? I'm quite curious to hear people's opinions on this.

Looking over it myself (not sure about the latter strands yet, which concern integration and differentiation etc.), I don't get a great impression of it.

Take one example: the Factor Theorem is still used on the new course, but the students don't prove it anymore - I really don't think this helps in the understanding of maths. Now they're just applying some mystery rule which happens work. Surely you're better explaining how things work, thus removing the mystery of it all, which has to be one of the major reasons why people don't like it / hate it.

There is an argument that the weaker students need to be inspired first, maybe that's true, but what about the previous 16% that actually did honours maths, what about the previous A1/A2 students who stood up to the challenge of the older paper? They're should be a paper for them, without cutting out bits of paper to make triangles or whatever other distractions are on the course (that are more physics related anyway).

In fairness the new paper does, in general, try to get the student to understand things more I think, but sadly seems to reduce the level of maths by a certain amount.

I'm open to correction/debate on any of the above, however...

LeixlipRed · 19-04-2011 11:05am

No, I think that's a fairly good summary of what is does do. I agree that the higher level A1/A2 standard students may not be quite as challenged by this syllabus and that is an issue.

However, the aims of the syllabus are to eliminate "by rote" teaching. Teaching to the exam is one of the most detrimental aspects of the current curriculum. Students memorise a list of procedures and algorithms and completely flounder when they hit third level. From the workshops, sample papers, arguments I've seen, the new syllabus will attempt to eradicate this. The introduction of open ended questions, introducing the idea of multiple right answers, multiple correct methods. And that can only be an improvement.

There's also more emphasis on understanding, why are we doing this, etc, a greater emphasis on discussion, group work, etc,. Maths should be debated amongst students and teachers and that can only improve the standard of mathematics across the board.

My belief is that the heart is in the right place, all those I've met on the curriculum development side are saying the right things. However, practically there are several obstacles:

-Inability of teachers to adapt to the new curriculum. A survey from UL in 09 suggested that almost 50% of secondary level maths teachers are not qualified to teach maths. Those teachers probably struggle to teach the current curriculum never mind a more open ended curriculum where students are constantly questioning the material (I think this debate is good for both student and teacher but I know some teachers are afraid of this).

-Reluctance of teachers to teach the syllabus as intended. Probably for reasons outlined above, general fear of the unknown I reckon. NUIM have been running a Project Maths Workshop for teachers and I was lecturing a bit on it and it's clear that some teachers are looking to take short cuts. Most are just struggling with the point above however.

-The points race, once we still have the current points system there will always be teaching towards the exams sadly. Nothing can be done about this in the short term unfortunately.

Anyway, as I said, it's my believe that this curriculum is going some way to correct the basic errors of the previous curriculum but that it favours the improvement of weaker students as opposed to stronger students. It's still in development though and it'll be a year before we see the complete Paper 1 and Paper 2 so we can hold final judgement until then.

Eliot Rosewater · 19-04-2011 9:29pm

LeixlipRed wrote: »

No, I think that's a fairly good summary of what is does do. I agree that the higher level A1/A2 standard students may not be quite as challenged by this syllabus and that is an issue.

That is my primary concern about Project Maths. Even under the current curriculum you have students cruising though. I found Leaving Certificate easy enough. If any students can get an A1 easily then the system's failing, because they're wasting their time doing stuff far below their level. And then they have to waste time in University covering stuff they could have covered already.

Of course, it's not fashionable to design courses and education systems that enable the strong students to reach their full potential.

LeixlipRed · 19-04-2011 10:40pm

In fairness Project Maths is a momentous undertaking. Basically you're taking thousands of teachers out of their comfort zone and dumping them in unknown territory. Given how resistant teaching unions are to change that's pretty daring. I should mention that there is a push running parallel with Project Maths to inform teachers about the Maths Olympiad training that takes place across the country. So there is some attempt to cater to the more mathematically talented students being made. Baby steps is the key here

COUCH WARRIOR · 22-04-2011 8:00pm

Michael Collins wrote: »

You can check it out here: http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0418/thefrontline.html#

...Take one example: the Factor Theorem is still used on the new course, but the students don't prove it anymore - I really don't think this helps in the understanding of maths. Now they're just applying some mystery rule which happens work. Surely you're better explaining how things work, thus removing the mystery of it all, which has to be one of the major reasons why people don't like it / hate it. ...
...

LeixlipRed wrote: »

...However, the aims of the syllabus are to eliminate "by rote" teaching. Teaching to the exam is one of the most detrimental aspects of the current curriculum. Students memorise a list of procedures and algorithms and completely flounder when they hit third level. From the workshops, sample papers, arguments I've seen, the new syllabus will attempt to eradicate this. The introduction of open ended questions, introducing the idea of multiple right answers, multiple correct methods. And that can only be an improvement...

I think the aim to eliminate "by rote" teaching is definately a positive one that should be supported. Teaching maths to train students jump through hoops in an exam will never allow them to apply what they've learnt outside en exam. So the choice is to lessen the scope of the course to broaden the understanding of what remains so that it can be useful outside of maths class should not be dismissed.

However, if you present a theorem as some sort of truth that you just have to learn off without understanding why, you're bound to fail in the objective. How can a student be expected to apply something the can't really understand (and they won't understand a theorem if they haven't understood the proof) in a truely novel way to solve a problem that is new to them.

I finished education with a masters in maths, but would never have studied it if I was expected to learn stuff off by rote. Gave up chemistry after first year because of this, in favour of statistics

MathsManiac · 23-04-2011 2:20pm

I've read these syllabuses in some detail. I didn't see anything there to tell me that you're not allowed to see a proof of the factor theorem!

In fact, my interpretation is the opposite. From the intention of the syllabus, it seems clear to me that the students should either prove it for themselves or see a proof of it.

Whether or not they are expected to reproduce such a proof in the examination is an entirely separate matter.

COUCH WARRIOR · 23-04-2011 3:21pm

Well that's certainly positive, but in the pressured environment of the leaving cert would it be skipped over if it's not "needed" for the exam.

Question I hated most for the bit of leacturing I did was is this going to be on the exam? Commerce students were the worst:(

LeixlipRed · 23-04-2011 3:55pm

Remember that everything is in flux, the syllabus is there but it's still being interpreted by teachers, those who set the exams and most importantly, the text book publishers.

vallo · 26-04-2011 3:00pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Just heard some teacher complaining about this on the Frontline saying it was a disaster and that it was really lowering the standard of maths in our schools.

Is Project Maths taking over from the classical syllabus or is it a parallel option?

The third level institutes are already complaining about science and engineering students saying they can't do a lot of basic things. I can't imagine that this is going to help matters in that regard.

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.

jimkekk · 23-05-2011 1:10am

Michael Collins wrote: »

You can check it out here: http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0418/thefrontline.html#

They talk about maths specifically fairly near the start (about 10 mins in) but Pat quickly brings it back to teaching in general.

The teacher in question is John Brennan who has a lot of experience teaching maths at the Ballinteer institute.

Then again I've heard from plenty of third level lecturers, including the previous head of Maths at UCD, that there's more to this Project Maths thing than meets the eye.

Would you mind giving us a few reasons as to why you think it's good Leixlip? I'm quite curious to hear people's opinions on this.

Looking over it myself (not sure about the latter strands yet, which concern integration and differentiation etc.), I don't get a great impression of it.

Take one example: the Factor Theorem is still used on the new course, but the students don't prove it anymore - I really don't think this helps in the understanding of maths. Now they're just applying some mystery rule which happens work. Surely you're better explaining how things work, thus removing the mystery of it all, which has to be one of the major reasons why people don't like it / hate it.

There is an argument that the weaker students need to be inspired first, maybe that's true, but what about the previous 16% that actually did honours maths, what about the previous A1/A2 students who stood up to the challenge of the older paper? They're should be a paper for them, without cutting out bits of paper to make triangles or whatever other distractions are on the course (that are more physics related anyway).

In fairness the new paper does, in general, try to get the student to understand things more I think, but sadly seems to reduce the level of maths by a certain amount.

I'm open to correction/debate on any of the above, however...

Project maths and the way it is being implimented is the most retrograde step that has happened in maths education in the history of the country.
For the following reasons
(i)The syllabus is wrong too much emphesis on Statistics and Geometry .
(ii)The people in the NCCA have not a clue they have produced three sample papers that are full of errors and questions not on the course!All their mock papers were rejected by the pilot schools.
(iii)The inservice courses are an insult to teachers , many of these courses have ended up in teachers leaving early ,people giving the seminars badly prepared and refuse to answer questions.
The good news is the SEC (state examinations commission) are completely ignoring the NCCA and will produce good examination papers.
It is the view of many teachers will be abondoned in its current for by 2015!

jimkekk · 23-05-2011 1:21am

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Sounds like you've just jumped to a lot of conclusions based on one teacher's opinion? Project Maths will be replacing the old curriculum. And having attended a recent conference about the new syllabus I'm convinced this can only improve the standard of mathematics in the long term. What exactly did the teacher say?

The faults in project maths is not just the opinion of one teacher .It is the opinion of most maths teachers!
It's implimentation in 5th year has been a disaster ,no settled syllabus ,
nobody knows what is on the course .No text books! The current text books are following the wrong syllabus ,they were produced in late 2009 and the syllabus changed in sept 2010 and is due to change again in sept 2011.
The following changes are true
The factor theorem proof is gone as are questions on alpha and beata,
most of sequences and series (replaced by Celic tiger business maths)is gone as is most of integration .
The value of questions on the line/circle has been reduced by 50%.
Statistics and probability are now 50% of the marks on paper 2.
They have changed their minds Geometry is now sort of optional.
Good news Ruarai Quinn is looking into it.
It's days are numbered

jimkekk · 23-05-2011 1:28am

Michael Collins wrote: »

You can check it out here: http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0418/thefrontline.html#

They talk about maths specifically fairly near the start (about 10 mins in) but Pat quickly brings it back to teaching in general.

The teacher in question is John Brennan who has a lot of experience teaching maths at the Ballinteer institute.

Then again I've heard from plenty of third level lecturers, including the previous head of Maths at UCD, that there's more to this Project Maths thing than meets the eye.

Would you mind giving us a few reasons as to why you think it's good Leixlip? I'm quite curious to hear people's opinions on this.

Looking over it myself (not sure about the latter strands yet, which concern integration and differentiation etc.), I don't get a great impression of it.

Take one example: the Factor Theorem is still used on the new course, but the students don't prove it anymore - I really don't think this helps in the understanding of maths. Now they're just applying some mystery rule which happens work. Surely you're better explaining how things work, thus removing the mystery of it all, which has to be one of the major reasons why people don't like it / hate it.

There is an argument that the weaker students need to be inspired first, maybe that's true, but what about the previous 16% that actually did honours maths, what about the previous A1/A2 students who stood up to the challenge of the older paper? They're should be a paper for them, without cutting out bits of paper to make triangles or whatever other distractions are on the course (that are more physics related anyway).

In fairness the new paper does, in general, try to get the student to understand things more I think, but sadly seems to reduce the level of maths by a certain amount.

I'm open to correction/debate on any of the above, however...

The truth about Project maths is they implimented it in 5th year because they had the money !
It has been a disaster from the start .The NCCA the people in charge have not a clue .They have produced a series of "mock papers" which have been universally condemmed as off the wall and out of touch with reality!
Apart from the fact that the most recent effort had 5 or more questions not on the course (yes the course they are supposed to be in charge).
Good news it's on its last legs .The SEC have decided to do their own thing

LeixlipRed · 23-05-2011 3:19pm

Evidence please for all these wild claims you're making. Universally condemned where?? In your own head or your own maths department? It's a new syllabus, things will go wrong, mistakes will be made but I will reiterate my point that these syllabus will go some way to rectifying the issue of rote learning as the focus of mathematics teaching at secondary level. Yes it's completely flawed but you haven't really said why you think it is. All I read here is hyperbole.

doc_17 · 23-05-2011 4:00pm

Our school have cut back on Maths for 1st years this year to 4 classes per week and next year both first and second years will only hace 4 classes per week. All of this when the course is in flux! maybe one of the best things to come out of PM is that the implementation body have recommended that every student get one maths class per day....

It's a pity about the scatter gun implementation of it.

jimkekk · 23-05-2011 4:22pm

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Evidence please for all these wild claims you're making. Universally condemned where?? In your own head or your own maths department? It's a new syllabus, things will go wrong, mistakes will be made but I will reiterate my point that these syllabus will go some way to rectifying the issue of rote learning as the focus of mathematics teaching at secondary level. Yes it's completely flawed but you haven't really said why you think it is. All I read here is hyperbole.

There was nothing wrong with the current LCHMaths syllabus .It prepared students very well for 3rd level.Rote learning will not get you an A or B in the LCH maths .There was no need to change the syllabus tweek it a bit yes but to radically change it was a mistake.
The reasons teachers do not approve of the new syllabus
(i)Too much emphesis on statistics and probability gone from worth 25% of the marks on paper 2 to 50% .Probability and statistics do not feature in many first year 3rd level courses.
(ii)Compulsory Geommetry (rote learning of Theorems).Geometry has never been examined at LCHM nor is it examined at 3rd level.
(iii)Important topics such as vectors,matrices,linear transformations,most of sequences and series ,most of the algebra course based on quadratics.
20% of the differential calculus course ,about 30% of the course on Integration have all been removed.All of which are examined at 3rd level .
(iv)A new subjective marking scheme has been introduced which will enable the SEC get what ever results they require .
(v)The people running project maths have had their sample papers rejected by the pilot schools see ministers reply to a question from Olivia Mitchell
"It is not the normal practice to issue mock examination papers. However, the
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."
I rest my case when the SEC tell the pilot schools to reject the mock papers set by the NCCA enough said

jimkekk · 23-05-2011 10:17pm

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 · 23-05-2011 11:54pm

I'm sorry but I work at third level and my phd is specifically in researching undergraduate students as they encounter university maths for the first time and these students are NOT prepared for 3rd level.

Also your claims of stats and probability not appearing in most 3rd level courses that require maths is rubbish. In NUIM the only students who don't take stats are the maths/theoretical physics people and there's about ten of them as opposed to almost 900 maths students in total.

Geometry is studied at third level, again just rubbish.

I put it to you that you're talking crap.

LeixlipRed · 23-05-2011 11:58pm

jimkekk wrote: »

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!

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.

jimkekk · 24-05-2011 12:13am

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I'm sorry but I work at third level and my phd is specifically in researching undergraduate students as they encounter university maths for the first time and these students are NOT prepared for 3rd level.

Also your claims of stats and probability not appearing in most 3rd level courses that require maths is rubbish. In NUIM the only students who don't take stats are the maths/theoretical physics people and there's about ten of them as opposed to almost 900 maths students in total.

Geometry is studied at third level, again just rubbish.

I put it to you that you're talking crap.

It is quite obvious that you are living in some ivory tower in NUIM and did not bother to check what is on the maths syllabus in 1st Science/Ist Commerce 1st Engineering in UCD and in Trinity (real universities).
There is no ecludian geometry being examined in any of the 1st year exams.Basic stats are examined in Science in 2nd year in DCU.
If you think project maths will prepare students for 3rd level you are not living in the real world (I suspect in some acedemic Ivory tower supported by the state )The real world is the 2nd level classroom and project maths is about the worst solution to our current maths problems.It is a total dumbding down of maths .see projectmaths.com to see how they are awarding the marks .
I not sure that you are aware of the fact that foundation level maths is going at Junior Cert ,this does not lead to a great hope for an improvement in standards.
With all due respects you know nothing about project maths as you have no teaching experience of the course .Save your opinions until you have taught it for two years

jimkekk · 24-05-2011 12:19am

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 · 24-05-2011 1:31am

jimkekk wrote: »

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

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.

ZRelation · 24-05-2011 10:04am

jimkekk wrote: »

With all due respects you know nothing about project maths as you have no teaching experience of the course .Save your opinions until you have taught it for two years

I'm gonna say the same to you regarding college courses, just reading up on the 1st year maths syllabus isn't going to tell the whole picture on whats covered.

Statistics is covered in most engineering courses, even in 'real' universities like UCD. And even though there are no courses or topics titled 'geometry' doesn't mean its not used extensively in other courses like mechanics and structures.

jimkekk wrote: »

If you think project maths will prepare students for 3rd level you are not living in the real world (I suspect in some acedemic Ivory tower supported by the state )The real world is the 2nd level classroom and project maths is about the worst solution to our current maths problems.

Having spent 40 years as a secondary school teacher its a bit rich accusing others of not being in 'the real world' when it comes to the later application of maths.

24-05-2011 10:09am

LeixlipRed wrote: »

In NUIM the only students who don't take stats are the maths/theoretical physics people and there's about ten of them as opposed to almost 900 maths students in total.

Our thphys lecturer in NUIM was appalled at our lack of stats by final year

Anonymo wrote:

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 don't think experimental is a problem, although standards certainly are...

jimkekk · 24-05-2011 10:28am

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.

Project Maths

Comments