Project Maths Marking Schem

aunt aggie

Simple enough question but I cant find it written down anywhere officially.

In a project maths exam, if a students gets an incorrect answer to part a and then carries this answer down to part b, where they use a fully correct method, are they entitled to full credit, high partial or low partial credit for part b?

It sounded simpler before I wrote it down.

I know how it worked in the old mark schemes but cannot find any reference to this in project maths exam papers. Any help would be appreciated.

Peregrine

I can't give you a definite answer but you do see notes like these after some questions in the marking schemes:

Accept candidate answer from this section if and when used in later sections.

Allow for full marks candidates incorrect angle from (b), with correct conclusion.

http://examinations.ie/archive/markingschemes/2013/LC003ALP030EV.pdf

aunt aggie

That first one is quite interesting.. so if they write the answer in the wrong box they might still get marks. I've mine terrified of going outside the box for fear they wont get the marks.

I was talking about similar allowances that used to be explicitly stated on the old maths marking schemes. Something along the lines Don't penalise incorrect answer carried through. This no longer appears to be written into the scheme.

Has anyone marked the Project Maths papers? Was this ever mentioned at the conferences?

theLuggage

I've corrected Project Maths and I can't remember it being treated differently (carrying through incorrect work), so it must have been the same. Penalise where appropriate and then treat as correct moving forward. It makes no sense to penalise candidates more than once for the same mistake.

aunt aggie

Thanks Luggage!! My main concern is that if its not explicitly written in the mark schemes will full marks always be awarded in every question? Just very vague

theLuggage

Not everything can be written into the scheme but the spirit of correcting is the same if that makes sense. Obviously oversimplifications would result in lower marks etc and every question is treated individually. But as I said the same spirit is there.

Magnate

As a current student I can say that it has definitely not always been the case that I have been awarded marks for using a previous wrong answer in the following section, but I'll be sure to bring it up with my teacher next time it happens.

theLuggage

Correcting state exams is not the same as correcting your own class tests Magnate. I for one correct my class tests that bit harder, it's just how I do it and I don't always follow that rule being discussed myself in my tests I must admit. Teachers can correct their own tests in the way they think is best.

mirrorwall14

theLuggage wrote: »

Correcting state exams is not the same as correcting your own class tests Magnate. I for one correct my class tests that bit harder, it's just how I do it and I don't always follow that rule being discussed myself in my tests I must admit. Teachers can correct their own tests in the way they think is best.

There was also the stipulation that it must not over simplify the next part.

For example if your question was to solve a circle/line simultaneously the marks are usually split up into solving the initial part then subbing back into the equation. There should be two answers and you should need to solve a quadratic. If your early work 'cancels' the x squared you end up with a way over simplified question. The marks going for the second half of the solution would be limited because you made a mistake that made it very simple to solve

aunt aggie

A colleague sent this onto me over the Christmas.. though I think its more a case that no teacher wants to be known as the easy marker. It also does nothing to prepare students for state exams if everyone's getting As and Bs in class tests. Magnate, you might actually do better in June because your teachers are stingy with marks.

theLuggage

That's hilarious! Maybe a sign of things to come if we end up assessing our own students for JC ;-)

qweerty

Prominent maths teacher Brendan Gildea said on Pat Kenny Show on Newstalk today that the marking scheme last year was adjusted twice in order to lower the fail rate from an initial 23% to 8%, and then 4%. Any truth to it?

RealJohn

Possibly?
Only the people involved in marking will know how many times the scheme was revised and they're not allowed to say so on a public forum like this.
Only the people involved high up will know what the failure rate was before and after the revisions and again, they wouldn't be allowed to discuss it publicly.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that that's true but nobody here can tell you.

qweerty

RealJohn wrote: »

Possibly?
Only the people involved in marking will know how many times the scheme was revised and they're not allowed to say so on a public forum like this.
Only the people involved high up will know what the failure rate was before and after the revisions and again, they wouldn't be allowed to discuss it publicly.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that that's true but nobody here can tell you.

Thanks. If nothing else, I'm sceptical of the 23% figure.

RealJohn

Just listened back to it there and I'd agree with basically all of what Brendan Gildea said, with the exception of questioning how he would know about the revisions and the figures for the reasons I've already mentioned. I think all maths teachers should listen to it and share it as widely as possible because we all know it's the truth but I rarely hear anyone say it.

It's from yesterday's Pat Kenny show on Newstalk and it's the second item (I think) in the first part of the show. The podcast is readily available.

2011abc

Had a quick look at JC Ordinary Level Maths paper , sweet baby Jesus but the dumbing down has reached crisis level.A bright 9/10 year old could pass it .Bizarrely its actually harder than Foundation in some questions .Have heard one or two reports of 'shenanigans 'in Project Maths marking in last year's JC OL paper alright to show what a success it was .'Pass' level adjusted to WELL below 40% ...

jam17032010

qweerty wrote: »

Thanks. If nothing else, I'm sceptical of the 23% figure.

I would certainly believe it. The generosity in marking Project maths is scandalous. There is a vast increase in students taking on the subject yet the fail rate hasn't increased? Ya right. Major cooking of books.

Too much money has been spent on this. It won't be allowed to fail.

evolving_doors

jam17032010 wrote: »

I would certainly believe it. The generosity in marking Project maths is scandalous. There is a vast increase in students taking on the subject yet the fail rate hasn't increased? Ya right. Major cooking of books.

Too much money has been spent on this. It won't be allowed to fail.

And yet again we'll have universities moaning about 'the standard of maths in 1st year is worrying'...

perhaps its time for universities to also step up and rethink what they 'lecture' in 1st year.

Before, you could have a top-set of about 15 students in honours to really get stuck in with. Now because of bonus points and dept. and inspectors pushing the ordinary A-grade students to try honours, you have a class of 25-30 honours. What happens to that top set, when you have students barely passing saying "I dont get it sir could you go through it all again!".

No doubt it's all teachers fault. Ill give it 10-15 more years of adjusting the grade curve before Intel or Google decides to have a quiet word... yet again.

aunt aggie

Gebgbegb wrote: »

And yet again we'll have universities moaning about 'the standard of maths in 1st year is worrying'...

perhaps its time for universities to also step up and rethink what they 'lecture' in 1st year.

They've been doing this for years!! I sat my own leaving cert ten years ago. I got a C in Higher Level and for the craic I did a Honours Maths course in 1st Year of Uni. I was very surprised at the standard of topics been taught. It was an obvious extension of HL but they went back over key topics as well, assuming students wouldn't remember. Came out of 1st Year with an 1.1 in Maths and I continued to get As in a lot of subjects in 2nd Year because they were at times ridiculously easy.

The real problem with the standard of Maths are changes to the primary school curriculum. Under the new curriculum Maths was initially only allocated 3 hours a week at primary and that was increased recently by a department circular because of concerns about numeracy skills. So this means students who are currently preparing for Junior Cert may not have the skills expected of them leaving primary school.

theLuggage

aunt aggie wrote: »

They've been doing this for years!! I sat my own leaving cert ten years ago. I got a C in Higher Level and for the craic I did a Honours Maths course in 1st Year of Uni. I was very surprised at the standard of topics been taught. It was an obvious extension of HL but they went back over key topics as well, assuming students wouldn't remember. Came out of 1st Year with an 1.1 in Maths and I continued to get As in a lot of subjects in 2nd Year because they were at times ridiculously easy.

The real problem with the standard of Maths are changes to the primary school curriculum. Under the new curriculum Maths was initially only allocated 3 hours a week at primary and that was increased recently by a department circular because of concerns about numeracy skills. So this means students who are currently preparing for Junior Cert may not have the skills expected of them leaving primary school.

Definitely agree with issues coming from primary level. The amount of basics they do not know. Fractions are usually a complete nightmare, integer and natural numbers aren't much better and that's before you go into the sign rules!! Number patterns is usually good and actually I do think that's a nice addition to JC level.

doc_17

The 2012 Q7 in Paper 1 HL was the funniest/worst I ever saw in terms of a marking scheme. The question was a 50 mark calculus one spilt up into a, b, c, d, e and f. The first two parts were basic and were awarded 15 marks each. Part c was worth 5 and d was worth 10. Such was the jigging of that particular arming scheme they only 5 marks left for the remaining two parts which were difficult enough.

The students obviously had serious difficulty with the rates of change elements of the question and a result couldn't progress into the question. So the scheme was adjusted accordingly.