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

Project Maths

12346

Comments

  • #152
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    jimkekk wrote: »
    This thread is getting very personal and I think it is better for everybody (including me) to move on. At the moment it is the students that are important and nothing should be said or written that will upset them in any way.

    That's rich, considering the personal attacks you've been throwing around.

    Having observed the later development of this thread from the sidelines since jimkekk joined in, I find I can no longer resist pointing out a few glaring inaccuracies in his posts:

    (Sorry for my longest post ever, but there's just so much to contradict, and this is only a selection! See end for TLDR.)

    Post #87
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    The good news is the SEC (state examinations commission) are completely ignoring the NCCA and will produce good examination papers.
    I see no evidence that SEC is ignoring NCCA. It looks to me as though their sample papers and real papers have been doing pretty much what the NCCA said they would do.

    Post #89:
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    Good news it's on its last legs .The SEC have decided to do their own thing
    Again, no evidence for this.

    Post #92:
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    (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.
    As already pointed out, this claim is ludicrous. The number of students who will need to take a statistics course at some stage at 3rd level vastly exceeds the number who will need to take any other type of mathematically related course.

    Anyway, the LC course is not just about preparing for 3rd level. It is also about educating people to be informed and discerning citizens. Beyond basic numeracy, statistics is one of the areas of mathematics that are most relevant in trying to achieve this goal.
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    (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

    LOL! The SEC told the pilot schools no such thing.
    The message that was sent to the pilot schools came from the NCCA themselves.
    And what does the message reveal:
    People who never had to produce exam papers before were pressured by schools into producing some mock papers, because it seemed that none of the commercial companies wanted to bother. Lo and behold, they didn't do quite as good a job as the state agency whose sole function it is to make good exam papers. The teachers told them that they were a bit too hard. They accepted the feedback and pointed out to the schools something that should have been obvious anyway: the best indicator as to the standards that the SEC will expect in June is given by the sample papers that the SEC issued.

    Post #101:
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    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" .
    This is simply false. As I pointed out in a post on another thread to someone who was claiming that this course was produced by people with no mathematical background:
    ...They are produced by course committees of the NCCA. The course committee for a Leaving Cert subject consists of:
    - 5 teacher representatives (2 ASTI, 2 TUI, 1 subject association)
    - 3 school management representatives (1 ACCS, 1 IVEA, 1 JMB)
    - 3 representatives of third level (2 IUA, 1 HETAC)
    - 1 DES representative
    - 1 SEC representative.

    The school management bodies typically nominate principals or vice principals whose teaching subject is the one concerned. IUA and HETAC nominate lecturers in the subject concerned. The DES rep is usually an inspector of the subject, and the SEC rep is usually the EAM/Chief Examiner for the subject.

    So, by my reckoning, the 13 people you are claiming have "no mathematical background" are, if the nominations followed their typical patterns:
    5 current maths teachers, (nominated by their colleagues)
    3 former maths teachers, now in school management
    3 professional mathematicians
    1 DES inspector of mathematics (i.e., a person whose profession it is to evaluate quality of teaching and learning in mathematics)
    1 SEC Chief Examiner (i.e., a person whose profession it is to assess mathematics achievement)

    In fact, you can find out precisely who is on these committees on the NCCA website: http://www.ncca.ie/en/About_Us/Commi...March_2011.pdf
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    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 person referred to is not on any syllabus committee of the NCCA, not that I would see any problem if she was.
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    The committee gets most of its information from UL. There was no consultation with teachers or the Irish maths teachers association .
    False again. There is no-one from UL on the course committee, as far as I can see. There was a wide public consultation process beforehand, which was well advertised and open to anyone to make their opinions known. (I didn't get around to making a submission myself, but there you go.) As you can see from the list above, the Irish Maths Teachers Association are represented on the committee itself, not to mind being consulted with!
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    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 .
    False, as previously explained.

    Post #105
    jimkekk wrote: »
    I also question the wisdom of removing/reducing other important topics such ... Max and Min problems in differential calculus .
    I see no evidence in the syllabus document that this has been removed. In fact, it looks to me as though applications of differentiation have been expanded. Section 5.2 explicitly mentions applying differentiation to both max/min problems and rates of change at both Higher and Ordinary level. Combining this with the skills specified in section 5.3 opens a whole world of possibilities.
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    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.
    (Repeating it doesn't make it true.)
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    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).
    So, you think it's a big dumbing down exercise, and yet the people who have to do it are at a disadvantage. Make your mind up.

    Post #109:
    jimkekk wrote: »
    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 .
    There is no directive in the syllabus to learn these theorems by rote. It is not unusual in second or third level maths exams anywhere in the world to expect students to be able to produce some specified proofs in an examination. Nobody in their right mind would recommend that the best way to prepare for this is learning by rote. Theorems are immeasurbly easier to reproduce by understanding them and just remembering the one or two key ideas.

    There is no requirement to learn definitions of data types. There is, however, a requirement to understand and distinguish between different types of data, which is reasonable.

    There is no real "learning off by heart" involved in the rules of probability. If you have mental picture of a Venn diagram, and/or use a bit of common sense and understanding, the rules simply pop out.

    There is no requirement to learn "rules for financial maths" (whatever they are) off by heart. All the formulae needed are in the formula book. Basically, they just need to be able to understand and apply the idea of present value. And, at higher level, to be able to treat a sequence of regular cashflows as a geometric series, which is quite a nice application of geometric series.
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ...
    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 ... actual examination. [/U][/B]
    The SEC no longer agrees that the NCCA should set sample papers.
    Another twist on your earlier false claim. In this case, it's worth noting that NCCA never has set sample papers. Sample papers have been produced by the SEC since it was established, and before that were produced by the Department of Education.

    Post #114:
    jimkekk wrote: »
    ... the leaving cert H has always had what I would call A1,A2 blockers usually in the most popular questions on Paper 1.
    Aside: the only person I've ever heard using this phrase is the self-styled "maths guru" John Brennan. Methinks TommyDoyle has stumbled upon an unomfortable truth. I note you also share JB's interest in forestry matters in South Dublin: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72429608:

    Post #133:
    jimkekk wrote: »
    Project will not exist in 3 years time the Minister already wants to abondon it
    Can you provide a link to a quote from the Minister?

    Post #145:
    jimkekk wrote: »
    I was a student of JB in the 80's . I now work at 3rd level but do a lot of leaving cert grinds .
    Jonnie B is a legend in our class we had 6 students who did acturial studies . I can remember the results of our class 12 A1 ,6 A2 .Nobody got a B or a C . That was the real LC (1988) .
    He has helped so many students .If he says PM is not a good idea ,it's not a good idea !
    I won't have a bad word said about Jonnie B he was my teacher for 5 years so do not call him a dinosaur!

    So, you were in JB's class in the 80s, did your Leaving Cert in 1988 and have been teaching maths for over 40 years. That's a good trick.

    TLDR: although I wouldn't have phrased it quite so crudely as he did, the evidence supports LeixlipRed's assertion that JimKekk/JB is speaking through the orifice obtained from the correct one by applying the orthonormal change of basis represented by the diagonal matrix 1 0 0],[0 -1 0],[0 0 -1, (assuming a suitably chosen initial basis).


  • #153
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #154
    doc_17
    Registered Users Posts: 6,826 ✭✭✭doc_17


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Ha!!!!! wonderful stuff lads. wonderful. He can't counter that I'm afraid!


  • #155
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    jimkekk wrote: »
    Did you know that hundreds of students attend his grind classes every week he is obviously doing something right .

    I don't know if the humourous suspicions about you are correct and frankly I don't really care. I'm only posting because these kinds of comments grind my gears.

    Businesses love to use the "x thousand people say otherwise" line when they are being scrutinised or criticised on some issue or another.Whether a statement or idea is true or false has nothing to do with the amount of people who believe in that idea. It's either true, or it isn't. The truth has no bearing on popular opinion, end of.

    As you are someone who claims to understand and have an experience in maths I find your comment above truly shocking.


    On topic : I'm pro PM.


  • #156
    TommyDoyle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭TommyDoyle


    jimkekk wrote: »
    This thread is getting very personal and I think it is better for everybody (including me) to move on. At the moment it is the students that are important and nothing should be said or written that will upset them in any way.

    Do you think advising students, on national radio, to ditch the maths they had been studying for 2 years and switch to an exam they were unfamiliar with is the action of an individual who cares in the slightest about students? Hypocrite. P.s.Proving product rule using logs much nicer than delta x legendman.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Fremen
    Registered Users Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    jimkekk wrote: »
    Ignore all the pious platitudes of the pro project maths lobby they are either people who have never taught maths or are in some ivory tower in 3rd level .
    jimkekk wrote: »
    I was a student of JB in the 80's . I now work at 3rd level but do a lot of leaving cert grinds .

    .


  • #158
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,955 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    If a report in the Irish Times today is any guide, Project Maths isn't working:
    Last year only 18 per cent of students took the new programme at higher level. This year 21 per cent have registered to take higher level in Project Maths but this is expected to drop on the morning of the exam.In the Dáil recently, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn revealed that 20 per cent of students who registered to sit higher level maths in the Leaving Cert dropped down to ordinary level in 2010. This reflects concern among students that they could fail higher level maths, making them ineligible for many CAO courses. Last year more than 4,300 students failed maths at higher, ordinary and foundation level.
    Students are also reluctant to take higher level maths because it is regarded as tougher and more time consuming than other subjects.
    I didn't go through the Irish education system, so I didn't know that students could drop down to an easier exam at the last minute?

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • #159
    Michael Collins
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 1,846 Mod ✭✭✭✭Michael Collins


    bnt wrote: »
    If a report in the Irish Times today is any guide, Project Maths isn't working:

    I didn't go through the Irish education system, so I didn't know that students could drop down to an easier exam at the last minute?

    Yep. Bit crazy considering higher level and ordinary level courses are actually different (Simpon's Rule and Linear Programming are on OL but not HL, for example - I doubt even an A1 standard HL student could do these without practice) but this is an option students have alright.

    I wonder how much the media and people's general "maths is so hard" attitude has to do with it - if you keep hearing HL maths is "very hard" you'll probably just accept it, instead of working at it.
    In the Dáil recently, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn revealed that 20 per cent of students who registered to sit higher level maths in the Leaving Cert dropped down to ordinary level in 2010

    :eek: I wonder how many of these decided on the day?


  • #160
    doc_17
    Registered Users Posts: 6,826 ✭✭✭doc_17


    Most of that 20% drop down between the mock and the day of the exam. It's a fear of failing the higher level paper.


  • #161
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    Typical lazy journalism from Flynn.

    I guess the story as follows wouldn't be exciting enough:
    "Newsflash: numbers taking Higher Level Maths fairly stable over time. The latest shocking figures from SEC reveal that the proportion of students taking Higher level maths has remained consistently between 16% and 19% for the last 15 years."

    Ok., I'll admit there has been a discernible pattern of decline from the record high of 18.9% in 2005 to last year's 16.0%, but it's amazing to me that this small and gradual decline over five years has been protrayed as a catastrophic plummetting of interest and achievement in HL maths, while the fact that the 24 pilot schools have reversed it almost in its entirety in a single year of teaching only the first phase of Project Maths, is portrayed as a marginal increase and a disappointing failure!

    Anyway, while admitting that the small decline since 2005 is unwelcome, who would realise, from the reporting we've had over the last few years, that the last decade has seen the greatest level of uptake of HL maths in the history of the state? Or be aware that in the eighties and early nineties, while we were educating those who built the Celtic Tiger economy, we typically had about 10% doing HL maths.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Michael Collins
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 1,846 Mod ✭✭✭✭Michael Collins


    MathsManiac wrote: »
    ...I'll admit there has been a discernible pattern of decline from the record high of 18.9% in 2005 to last year's 16.0%...we typically had about 10% doing HL maths.

    I remember you said this before. I'm really very surprised about this relative stability in the numbers - not at all the impression I was given from the various media. Not that I doubt the truth of it, but can you point to a source for the percentages doing Higher Level during the 80s/90s?

    This story has been in the Irish Times every year for as long as I can remember. It will come around again comes results time in August...


  • #163
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    You can see the stats back as far as '93 of this report: http://www.examinations.ie/archive/examiners_reports/cer_2005/LCMathematics.pdf (pdf page 6; labelled page 5)
    It shows 11.2% for 1993.

    It gets a bit sketchy before then, but my recollection is that that was about the norm.

    For example, the stats for the 1980 Leaving Cert are in this report:
    http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/stats_statistical_report_1979_1980.pdf
    (Page 66 & 67 of the pdf, labelled pages 57 & 58)

    These show 3308 candidates at higher level and 34830 at ordinary, giving a 9.5% higher level uptake.

    It might take a bit of digging to fill in that gap a bit, but at 9.5% in 1980 and 11.5% in 1993, I'm fairly sure it wasn't too far from 10% throughout the eighties.

    Of course, the further back you go, the more you have to take account also of the proportion of people who didn't stay on to Leaving Cert at all.

    In absolute terms, we had two and a half as many people doing HL maths in 2010 as we had in 1980.


  • #164
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #165
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    I agree that those conclusions are revealing, but I would find the existence of these comments in such a document encouraging in the following sense. To me, it indicates that the Chief Examiners are prepared to call it as they see it when necessary, rather than roll over and pretend everything is hunky dory.

    I agree that this report clearly does support the assertion that what students want is not to be challenged with unfamiliar problems. However, I don't see evidence that the examiners have capitulated to these desires. In my view, mathematics has remained a subject where you really do need to be able to think to get the top grades. How could the Chief Examiner say that the students are not as good at these trickier tasks as they should be, if there weren't any such tasks on the exam?

    Also, it's hard to say definitively that there is evidence here of an overall decline in the standard of the student population as a whole. The extract you quoted says that this issue was already commented upon in the previous report in 2000. So what we have here is that, following a period which saw a significant growth in the proportion of students taking higher level, the examiners noticed a decline in the proportion of higher-level students that displayed higher order thinking skills. Depending on how these two proportions compared to each other, this could mean that the prevalence of these skills in the population was largely stable.

    I'm not saying that standards have remained stable - I'm just saying that solid evidence to the contrary is thin on the ground. And it's known that people's perceptions are notoriously unreliable in such matters.

    On a subjective basis, if I compare, say, the last three or four years of exam papers to the first three or four after the change of syllabus, (i.e. 94-97), I can't see any evidence that they have become easier. (Maybe even a smidgoeon in the opposite direction.) Of course, I've no way of knowing whether the students are handling these papers worse now than then!


  • #166
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Doesn't matter what subject you're teaching or how interesting it is.
    When you have the institutional structure set up in such a way that
    the only thing that matters are points at the end of 2 years you are
    encouraging students to view their subjects these ways. There's no other
    way about it, a students future potentially hangs in the balance dependent
    on their ability to regurgitate answers to a set curriculum on one/two days
    at the end of 2 years whether they understand the material or not.

    I think its highly unfair to criticize the students for playing the game
    according to the rules the people who structure the curriculum allow
    for. If they didn't want to encourage the obvious regurgitation that has
    been prevalent in systems such as this one since their origin then they
    would change the structure of the system. If not then I think they are
    to blame, not the students. There are unintended but real consequences
    to every action, regurgitation on test day is one of them. A way to stop
    this would be to structure the system cumulatively or better yet to
    structure a system by which progression to the next topic is only achieved
    after mastery of the current topic - with time to go over the prerequisite
    material back from the junior cert if a student does not progress. This
    is basically the system I'm working on with my brother & for the first
    time in 5 years of school he's learning the material & not seeing it as
    memorization of disconnected facts. This goes for all subjects. Project
    maths is just a band-aid on a dysfunctional system & the makers are
    obviously aware of this considering how low the figures they hope to
    achieve with this system are ("An uptake of 30% at Higher level is
    targeted").

    If technology was adequately implemented a realistic system with figures
    to be proud of this could be realized. I could go on but I think it will fall
    on deaf ears, I'll bide my time :D Just don't like the continual blame put
    on students for playing the game according to the rules allowed for by
    the system.


  • #167
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Doesn't matter what subject you're teaching or how interesting it is.
    When you have the institutional structure set up in such a way that
    the only thing that matters are points at the end of 2 years you are
    encouraging students to view their subjects these ways. There's no other
    way about it, a students future potentially hangs in the balance dependent
    on their ability to regurgitate answers to a set curriculum on one/two days
    at the end of 2 years whether they understand the material or not.

    I think its highly unfair to criticize the students for playing the game
    according to the rules the people who structure the curriculum allow
    for. If they didn't want to encourage the obvious regurgitation that has
    been prevalent in systems such as this one since their origin then they
    would change the structure of the system. If not then I think they are
    to blame, not the students. There are unintended but real consequences
    to every action, regurgitation on test day is one of them. A way to stop
    this would be to structure the system cumulatively or better yet to
    structure a system by which progression to the next topic is only achieved
    after mastery of the current topic - with time to go over the prerequisite
    material back from the junior cert if a student does not progress. This
    is basically the system I'm working on with my brother & for the first
    time in 5 years of school he's learning the material & not seeing it as
    memorization of disconnected facts. This goes for all subjects. Project
    maths is just a band-aid on a dysfunctional system & the makers are
    obviously aware of this considering how low the figures they hope to
    achieve with this system are ("An uptake of 30% at Higher level is
    targeted").

    If technology was adequately implemented a realistic system with figures
    to be proud of this could be realized. I could go on but I think it will fall
    on deaf ears, I'll bide my time :D Just don't like the continual blame put
    on students for playing the game according to the rules allowed for by
    the system.

    While I agree with some of what you're saying I don't think students should be free from the blame either. I'd take your point if we only had students who were intending to study maths as a passageway to achieve points to study a non math intensive course e.g History. However, if their choice of course is anything science, engineering, or math related then learning Maths by rote learning is just something that needs to be discouraged. Project maths is, I hope, really targeting this demographic. And as no student is ever guaranteed their particular first choice CAO I'd argue the last thing you want for an already stretched education system is a student who approaches a math based module or course with a learning by rote entrenched background. Old Habits die very hard.


  • #168
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #169
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users Posts: 6,453 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    This is simply human nature. People oppose change even if it's for their own good.

    There is no change that you could have made to the syllabus that wouldn't have had people complaining. I'm sure back in 2001 there was outcry when the new English curriculum came in and I can't even imagine what it must have been like when the 'new' points system came in back in the early 90s.

    It will take several years for this noise to die down and for real objective analysis of the impact of Project Maths to be carried out.


  • #170
    doc_17
    Registered Users Posts: 6,826 ✭✭✭doc_17


    As well as reforming the curriculums I've always said that other things should be done in order to attract students to STEM courses at third level and increase the participation rate at HL LC
    1. target STEM courses for reduced (or elimated) registration fees.
    2. When fees return ignore STEM courses (or have lower fees for them)
    3. Bursary or Scholarships
    4. Make HL Maths compulsory for primary school teaching in the same way that Irish is.
    The first 3 suggestions are financial and a way to get students at least looking at Hi-tech courses. The last one might annoy people a bit but when it comes to picking who gains entry to a primary school teaching course we can afford to be picky - HL English, Irish & Maths should be required.


  • #171
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    TheBody
    Registered Users Posts: 5,618 ✭✭✭TheBody


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.


    Couldn't agree more!!


  • #173
    doc_17
    Registered Users Posts: 6,826 ✭✭✭doc_17


    I know in reality there are very few who get a D3 in OL Maths and go to become primary teachers but even allowing that to be possible is out of order. Anyone who gets a D3 in OL maths is awful at it. Should be higher C or at the very least an A in the OL paper


  • #174
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #175
    rebel girl 15
    Registered Users, Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 15,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭rebel girl 15


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Why? You could be eliminating an extremely good educator who is poor at the maths required at second level, who like many other students is poor at maths simply because of nerves, and not being able to manipulate the information. Being realistic, I don't see any person achieving the points for primary teaching being so poor at maths and to be fair, anybody looking for primary would want to be getting well over a OL D3 so it should prob be raised. It would prob look better having the same maths and English requirement and higher than what it is.

    I think part of the problem lies within the primary sector, but more specifically with the 6th class/1st year divide

    The reason for PM was the drop in the PISA scoring and the outcry at the lack of students taking HL maths IMO
    PISA 2009 wrote:
    Ireland’s ranking in mathematics is 26th out of 34 OECD countries and 32nd out of 65 participating countries.

    that took Ireland from average score to below average - and it showed that Ireland had 1.2% less students at or below the average lowest level (Level 1) compared to the OECD average, similiar to UK and Poland, who achieved overall scores closer to the average (Level 1 looks at the most basic tasks and is considered to be below the minimum level needed to meet the mathematics demands of adult life and further education).

    What that says to me is that the students are coming out slightly better than the rest of the OECD countries at the most fundamental mathematical skills but there are much less students coming out at the more difficult levels of mathematical thinking and being. So it seems that the old course was managing to get across the required knowledge, so with some tweaking it would have been possible to increase those students at level 1 (basics as in above brackets) rather than a radical overhaul.

    6.7% of children managed to reach level 5 or level 6 (the most difficult tasks) compared to an OECD average of 12.7%. Thats where the problem lies - the students are not able to achieve the more difficult tasks.

    A big issue with curriculum design is the economy and how the schools produce students to meet the requirements within the economy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the drive at the moment is to make Ireland a knowledge based economy. This seemingly "dumbing down" of the paper to increase the numbers taking higher level is wrong when the knowledge doesn't match up. They can come out and say we've had an increase in taking HL (which I don't think has happened anyway) but the knowledge won't be as high a quality as before (not sure quality is the right word here though)

    TBH, I think PM has been pushed through much too quickly, with not enough consultation and research being the biggest one. It had the potential to be great, but I think its a knee jerk reaction to figures taking the HL paper and is doing a disservice to the students who are extremely mathematical. I always found when doing my exams, that of all the LC subjects, maths was the one that you could not learn off for - you needed to practise the questions and be able to manipulate the questions to do well in unless you had a great natural mathematical ability.

    Thats my impression of the things anyway, though I'm always wary of figures and how they can be influenced! I'm gonna be teaching it next year to first years, and I'll go in with an open mind anyway. Plenty of reading over the summer!!

    http://www.erc.ie/documents/pisa2009_mathematics_dec7_2010.pdf is the link to the report.


  • #176
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #177
    rebel girl 15
    Registered Users, Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 15,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭rebel girl 15


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Totally agree with you here - I think we're both on the same wavelength, you put it more eloquently than me, but its basically the same idea as I had above :D

    Advanced Maths would be a fantastic idea, I had originally looked at maybe bringing in PM as a gap between HL and OL maths, but bringing in a new subject would be ideal and much better. A proper course could be implemented for those people who want to do it, and I agree with the bonus point idea. If introducing that subject, the research should look at the content of the first year math courses in Irish universities, and maybe base it upon that to provide a route for the students into the mathematical courses in universities.


  • #178
    S.K23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭S.K23


    Hello, I'm a student who just sat the Project Maths Paper 1 today,
    Although I'm not think of going into a career in Mathematics I find it very interesting.
    However, the new course is terrible.
    The way its being taught in schools and the materials we have to study from.
    There was a project maths workshop held a while ago and it seemed that we were at an advantage as students in our school seemed to understand maths in general. Since the results will always follow the "bell shaped curve" we were relieved to find that we were as not as bad at adapting to the new course.

    I personally believe that there should have been much more preparation made before the course was released. The fact that we never leard how to apprach questions ( QUESTON 5 2011 L.C) make it extremely difficult. From what I've heard, we had the same differentiation and integration questions as the old course. Questions 1-4 I'm positive I got a +90%.
    What really frustrates me is that WE have been told that sample paper of 2011 will be very much similar to what our exam was going to be like.
    The only difference as I see it is question 5 and question 6.
    We all expected some sort of NET question to come up, or at least something to do with area, volume, etc.
    The fact that the teachers don't really know what the course actually consists of, it is very frustrating. They always say "WE ARE TOLD."

    I'm sorry if this is offending any of the Project teachers but your lives won't have much effect because of this. OURS WILL.
    We are treated like GUINEA PIGS.

    Question 5 is one that people who have the ability to think along those lines were able to answer correctly. Problem solving. Not necessarily maths. It was like one of those mensa quizzez, but what do I know about maths.

    How in your opinion do you think this particular question will be marked?

    We were never told that such a question was on the course. We don't expect to know whats coming up, obviously, but what I expect is that students should know whats ACTAULLY ON THE COURSE.


  • #179
    S.K23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭S.K23


    ALSO I would like your opinion of the fact that despite the fact that we dont have proper materials to prepare for our exams, extra points start next year.
    OR is this just LIFE?
    AN Irish one?


  • #180
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    S.K23 wrote: »
    ALSO I would like your opinion of the fact that despite the fact that we dont have proper materials to prepare for our exams, extra points start next year.
    OR is this just LIFE?
    AN Irish one?

    You're complaining about the opportunity of getting bonus points?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    This is strange. Alot of teachers and students apparently appear convinced the perceived higher difficulty of today's Higher Level Paper I was because they wanted to make Project Maths look good. Rubbish if ever I heard it, but a striking number of people seem to be holding that theory. :confused:

    Just had a gander at both papers now. Apart from Question 4 and 7c I don't see anything too difficult on the regular paper. Malty LC student would definitely have been thrown by question 4 as that was nearly always regarded as the easiest question by me at the time and coincidentally the topic I struggled at for ages in college. 7c is an odd one, on the one hand it's probably easier than normal but on the other hand it's actually a 'new' type of question. Anyways it was a 'c' question so I don't think it was too unfair.

    The project maths one I can't really comment too accurately on because I don't know the syllabus all that well. It looked fair enough. (I actually thought Q6 was brilliant and has probably sold me completely now on PM :o (Mainly because Malty LC would have struggled his ass through it.).)


Advertisement