Project Maths

caffrey

It just dawned on me...


They are doing a reverse spinal tap....

This one goes to 9!!!

mathsman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TommyDoyle

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

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

doc_17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.