Maths book for 2012/2013

Jane98

Calling all Maths teachers out there, I am wondering which Maths book you are planning to use with incoming 1st years and 5th years.

I am currently looking at using either Text & Tests or Active Maths but cannot decide on which. I wonder whether Text & Tests has enough Project Maths material and whether Active Maths has too much material.

Any thoughts welcome.

whiteandlight

As a former pilot school teacher when they came out it was active maths all the way. But if you are working with weaker students as I am now I would say anything but it!

There just isn't enough repetition in the exercises for students to get a handle on it. I know theyre going for project maths style questioning but for any weak student they need the first half of each exercise to be repetitive until they grasp the concept, then have project maths style questions for them.

There's also a couple of chapters where there is up to 10 pages of theory before you reach an exercise which is mental. Even if the exercise was just written questions on the theory so much the better but it is needed!

derb12

Not a pilot school teacher like last poster, but I would go for Active Maths all the way. I've used it with a 1st year mixed ability group and have had no problem completing the CIC part of the course this year. It is true that a few parts of the book have a lot of theory with all the exercises at the end, but the accompanying activity book/workbook filled those gaps with very well structured exercises. I've used it for 5th years also HL and OL and found it excellent.
The Texts + Tests and Concise maths books are just nowhere close to it for "project mathsyness".

whiteandlight

I'm not in a pilot school anymore now. I agree with the project maths style and for any higher level student I think it's great. However for the OL students particularly weaker students at Junior level I think it goes too far too fast in exercise even with the workbook (which I do think is excellent!)

Personally I'd like an active maths with just slightly more regular questions at the start of exercises but you can never have everything. That's probably partially because after two years without a book I don't like any of them in particular!

lestat21

Im using active maths and I find myself doing loads of photocopying... even sumthing like the volume and surface area of a cuboid. The active maths throws JC students into questions where they have to find the volume and surface area of cubes cuboids and nets. Its ridiculous to think that students will immediately grasp these concepts and apply appropriate formulas... I was using the first year CIC book with a JCHL group and they found it very tough going and I ended up doing loads of extra boardwork and photocopying.

I also look at the Concise Maths book when giving tests. I personally thnk this book is even worse for throwing students into complex wordy project maths style questions. Its brilliant for class tests bt I just cant imagine teaching from it..

MathsManiac

lestat21 wrote: »

...
The active maths throws JC students into questions where they have to find the volume and surface area of cubes cuboids and nets. Its ridiculous to think that students will immediately grasp these concepts and apply appropriate formulas... I was using the first year CIC book with a JCHL group and they found it very tough going and I ended up doing loads of extra boardwork and photocopying.
...

But, to be fair, these topics are well covered in primary school, so you're not starting from scratch. For example, students first encounter nets of cubes and cuboids in third and fourth class, where they trace them and cut them out and use them to construct the 3D shapes. They do more of this in 5th and 6th class, where they've to generate the nets themselves rather than tracing them, and also deconstruct 3D shapes into nets and explore and discuss; and they also use nets to calculate surface area. They'll also have done some exploratory work related to volume - filling a cuboid container with water to measure its capacity; filling a cuboid container with unit cubes, etc.

Unless you're suggesting that the primary curriculum hasn't been properly covered in the feeder primary schools...perish the thought!

whiteandlight

Actually we were specifically told in a pilot school inservice to assume no knowledge of the primary school curriculum and start fractions from scratch? Makes a bit of a farce of things tbh!

lestat21

I was told that my net didnt look lik a net... so maybe not every student was paying attention in primary school!! But I noted that about half the class had worked with Pi in primary school. They knew that it was circumference/diameter which was brilliant. I spent less time on this than I'd planned and students really liked circle formulas. Would that have been on the primary curriculum??

Actually we were specifically told in a pilot school inservice to assume no knowledge of the primary school curriculum and start fractions from scratch? Makes a bit of a farce of things tbh!

Is this why the CIC is impossible to complete in one year?? PMDT need to take their own advice and have a bit more common sense. They've loaded the new syllabus down with so much new material and they dont seem to understand how long it takes to cover this material in the classroom.

whiteandlight

lestat21 wrote: »

I was told that my net didnt look lik a net... so maybe not every student was paying attention in primary school!! But I noted that about half the class had worked with Pi in primary school. They knew that it was circumference/diameter which was brilliant. I spent less time on this than I'd planned and students really liked circle formulas. Would that have been on the primary curriculum??

I think this is a major part of the problem, some teachers bring students way further than the primary school maths curriculum, others barely seem to cover it. Both situations cause problems for us. If students have covered too much you find that incorrect methods may have been used-one I see regularly is algebra where students have learned old fashioned or plain wrong methods and have to relearn. If students have covered too little you run into huge problems with things like fractions etc slowing down the teaching of the secondary school curriculum and also boring the students who came from schools who had done it thoroughly!

lestat21

Musicmental85 wrote: »

I think this is a major part of the problem, some teachers bring students way further than the primary school maths curriculum, others barely seem to cover it. Both situations cause problems for us. If students have covered too much you find that incorrect methods may have been used-one I see regularly is algebra where students have learned old fashioned or plain wrong methods and have to relearn. If students have covered too little you run into huge problems with things like fractions etc slowing down the teaching of the secondary school curriculum and also boring the students who came from schools who had done it thoroughly!

But not a single student in my second year class had any concept of volume or surface area. They had never seen a net. So in this situation the primary school currculum wasnt covered but these same students had covered material that was only on the secondary school maths syllabus. Where is the sense in that???!!!

MathsManiac

lestat21 wrote: »

...
But I noted that about half the class had worked with Pi in primary school. They knew that it was circumference/diameter which was brilliant. I spent less time on this than I'd planned and students really liked circle formulas. Would that have been on the primary curriculum??
...

The following is on the syllabus for 6th class:

identify the properties of the circle

• relate the diameter of a circle to its circumference by measurement
• measure the circumference of a circle or object such as a rolling-pin or wheel e.g. use a piece of string

I think it's always worth at least knowing what's on the primary curriculum, even if you can't be sure it's been covered properly. Anyway, the fact that, a year later, they can't remember having done something doesn't mean they didn't do it! (This phenomenon is not confined to primary schools, in my experience!)

The primary curriculum for maths is here, by the way.

lestat21

Thanks mathsmaniac, its great to know what you can relate first year material to in the primary curriculum. I'm not saying that material isnt covered at primary level, it just seems that the focus isnt on material that is increasingly important with project maths. You'd think that changes would have been implemented at primary level first.

It was fun teaching volume as all students were drawing nets and constructing 3d shapes in class and for homework. So I am surprised that students didnt remember these exercises from primary level.

MathsManiac

I think that a lot of primary school teachers think that they have to back off on the practical/concrete activities towards the end of primary school, as they didn't see it as valuable preparation for what was to come at second level. This was always a mistaken view, in my opinion. I recall that, over ten years ago, when doing concrete activities with first years, using manipulatives, etc., they were making smart remarks about not having used any real objects in maths class since they were in thrid class.