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

Maths: "too scary", "time-consuming".

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #33
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I had over 20 years of work between leaving school and going to university as a mature student, in various jobs. Based on that, I draw a clear line between the Maths that people need and the Maths that they don't, and that's Calculus. I did the basics at school (HLC level, though in South Africa rather than Ireland), and didn't hear a word about Calculus for the next 20 years. So I honestly can't blame people when they question why they're doing some of that Maths, when they aren't going in to Academia or a specialist discipline that requires it: it's just not necessary. I know that's not what a Maths lover wants to hear, but there it is.

    When I started an Engineering degree at UCD, the Engineering Maths courses made no assumptions of prior Calculus knowledge, which was a good thing in my case. There was one first year Physics course that did, however, much to the consternation of half the students. I think it was one of those cases in which they had the lecturers but no idea what to do with them, so put them in front of 500 first year students and see what happens ... :rolleyes:

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • #34
    doc_17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,399 ✭✭✭doc_17


    Anonymo wrote: »

    There are loads of engineers out of work right now that would make fantastic teachers - and who could emphasise real world applications of maths

    There are also plenty of good teachers out of work who could do the same. To be a good teacher I don't believe you have to have the Dip or to a great pure mathematician or an engineer. You just have to make it interesting, engaging, fun, understandable and teach the basics well.

    But as DonegalFella says anyone who gets a D3 in OL Maths should not be allowed to be a primary school teacher IMO. Those 8 years make or break them and when they come into 2nd level, if they cannot multiply/divide then how do you expect them to come to grips with algebra multiplication/division?

    Even from my own results last week some of the folks who got D1 or C3 would, I believe, have difficulty teaching children.


  • #35
    Chaotic_Forces
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭Chaotic_Forces


    doc_17 wrote: »
    There are also plenty of good teachers out of work who could do the same. To be a good teacher I don't believe you have to have the Dip or to a great pure mathematician or an engineer. You just have to make it interesting, engaging, fun, understandable and teach the basics well.

    But as DonegalFella says anyone who gets a D3 in OL Maths should not be allowed to be a primary school teacher IMO. Those 8 years make or break them and when they come into 2nd level, if they cannot multiply/divide then how do you expect them to come to grips with algebra multiplication/division?

    Even from my own results last week some of the folks who got D1 or C3 would, I believe, have difficulty teaching children.

    I think the most advanced thing you learn in primary (at least about 10 years ago) was X + 6 = 14, find the value of X.

    You could easily teach primary school with a B3 or even a C3 at ordinary level for the juniour cert.


  • #36
    Enkidu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    The unusual thing about the Leaving Cert is that although it may be dumbed down, it's the only second level course I know of that has group theory and the concept of isomorphisms on it. I think it would be good idea for more schools to concentrate on that as an option rather than further calculus.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #38
    Chaotic_Forces
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭Chaotic_Forces


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You'd be surprised at how many of us could fail the leaving cert maths but easily explain how to sovle various problems for the juniour cert classes. Most times I would easily be able to explain it for them.
    As for teaching kids, they're kids being taught; not adults being asked to question everything. I've never tried teaching anything to kids in juniour/senior infants. But when I was in primary school it wasn't that hard to explain the concept of a lot of things. Once they learn to just go with it for the basics, then you can get into the detail of things.

    You're really going overboard with it. Kids aren't idiots. I was able to do well in primary school. I would easily get 80% or more on every test for maths. Same with the juniour cert. But after that I took higher level maths for about 5/6 months in 3rd year and said "bollocks to this, I'm not learning this on top of everything else". That's the problem, even if you're good at maths, learning that much on top of everything else is the downfall of why people are failing, at least that's what I think and what happened to a lot of us in my school

    I would like to add that primary level maths (at least for how I remember it) was one of the easiest things I've learned. The reason being is the pacing of it is wonderfully done. Mind you, this was back in about 1994-2001. In secondary school it's basically "here you go, do this, either learn it or shut up and make way for the good students". I went to an all Irish school and the books we had were the "Gafa le Mata" ones. They were wonderfully paced, small but not too small. Look at the ones in secondary schools. The name escapes me now but they were about the size of the last damn harry potter book and packed with about 2 times as much content. Learning one of those a year for about 40 minutes a day, 200 minutes a week and there's what... 30ish weeks at the most in a school year? It's backwards.
    The first book was red, took us from 1-2 year to do it all. Which was nice. I think the second book was a nice dark blue which was for either 3rd year or just for higher level maths only. The point is it was just too damn much to learn. For higher level in leaving cert you had to learn 3 books and you're screwed if you skip 4th year...
    The problem isn't maths itself. It's maths in conjunction with other subjects, it's just too much.

    BTW, a lot of people in my school didn't understand math problems at all. There were often a lot of us just using the example and we said "we knew it". There were a lot of students that got a nice shock at the mocks and then tried hard to study. But it was too late. You can't learn how to do things in maths unless it's explained well.

    That's the thing with leaving cert maths, there isn't enough time. I'd say that pretty much everyone had to do grinds in higher level maths at our school or else got a lot of help from an elder brother or something that was amazing at maths. I think about... 2/3 people were actually okay on their own.


  • #39
    Anonymo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭Anonymo


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I'd agree with you to a large extent. However in many subjects people start secondary school anew. If someone has struggled up to the end of primary school with maths it should be possible to put them straight quite quickly. It's impossible I think to ensure primary school teachers are all good maths teachers but it should be at secondary. So I think the focus should be at that level now and especially focussed on those in first and second year.
    Another point I think you brought up was the growing divide between secondary and third level. This is certainly a worry. It's no good dropping the standards. I don't agree with an intermediate level exam at Leaving Cert since this reinforces the idea that maths is special. I'd instead advocate something like reducing the marks for the part (c). If nobody answers these they should be able to get a B1 if they get everything else correct. The part c should be there only to give the top people a challenge. Without this people would get an incorrect idea of their ability. I'm like a broken record about this so I'll try to change the tune. I don't agree with bonus points for maths either. There is a reason these were dropped in the 90s. I always find it strange the number of people that talk about how much work there is for LC maths. English or Irish surely takes at least as much if not more work. Perhaps a continuous assessment aspect to maths (of up to maybe 40%) might help with the idea that this would only add to the mark if it improves the average. Though I don't entirely agree with the modularisation of maths the new syllabus lends itself more easily to this. In such a way students would at least have a buffer heading into the exams.


  • #40
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #41
    SuperInfinity
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭SuperInfinity


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    We had a sub teacher at Junior Cert level that seemed to have a nervous breakdown and nearly a heart attack every time any type of mathematical problem no matter how simple came to her. She would totally flip out.

    She had so little grasp of mathematics that one student remarked as a joke: "hey, imagine that, the teacher teaching Owen something!", when in a surprising turn of events she corrected Owen on something rather than Owen correcting her which was the case for the vast majority of the time.

    I still remember with bemusement how she used to talk about "getting marks for putting down formulae" and even "getting marks for using the logbook, because some people mightn't be able to find things in the logbook".... and we were the top class in the school out of five!!! The only person who was going for a pass at junior cert maths was her. We often wondered how she ever got qualified to teach mathematics, she probably scraped through with a d3 at ordinary level because the examiner felt sorry for her or something.

    So if that's what they're allowing teach Junior cert higher level maths, I shudder to think what type of teachers they sometimes have at primary level.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Enkidu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    It's not just young children:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=physics-students-reveal-bias-for-ma-10-08-03
    It's part of a greater psychological trend. By the way, that article isn't too good, but the actual study can't be accessed publicly.


  • #43
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #44
    Enkidu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Sorry, it was silly of me to link to that article, since it does not contain some of the conclusions of the original paper. The original article has comments on studies done which show that female perceptions of role models like college professors has an effect on their grades. It also holds on the secondary level (high-school).
    Psychology of Women Quarterly, Volume 4, Issue 4, pages 558–572, June 1980
    Demography, Vol. 36, No. 2 (May, 1999), pp. 185-194
    Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 33, no. 1 (Winter 1998): 220-246

    There is an extensive literature on this, it is called the stereotyping effect.


  • #45
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #46
    Enkidu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    I'm in total agreement. I just want to point out how bad it actually is, even when somebody has a PhD the effect is there to a small degree. Imagine that somebody who has actually created new mathematics is susceptible to the effect and now imagine, as you say, somebody who has scraped a pass at OL maths.


  • #47
    Liveit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 264 ✭✭Liveit


    The reasons I did pass maths were(in order of importance)
    -teacher: just did the examples out of the book and onto the board. He was actually not too bad at explaining 1-to-1 but didn't have enough time to.
    -time: too time consuming and there was no real reward for all this extra time needed for it.
    -other subjects: they are a lot easier and handier.

    oh also we were taught the 'how to do it' but not 'why to do it' so when small variations occured with problems we were stumped.

    Now im back and probably repeating, Im going to teach it to myself I think with the help of the internet and books. Im hoping for an A if I put the work in during the year :D


  • #48
    SuperInfinity
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭SuperInfinity


    Liveit wrote: »
    The reasons I did pass maths were(in order of importance)
    -teacher: just did the examples out of the book and onto the board. He was actually not too bad at explaining 1-to-1 but didn't have enough time to.
    -time: too time consuming and there was no real reward for all this extra time needed for it.
    -other subjects: they are a lot easier and handier.

    oh also we were taught the 'how to do it' but not 'why to do it' so when small variations occured with problems we were stumped.

    Now im back and probably repeating, Im going to teach it to myself I think with the help of the internet and books. Im hoping for an A if I put the work in during the year :D

    Great stuff! The only bit of advice that's popping out at me now is not to bother with the internet, as for me it's just too distracting to be on the computer and working. There's also no point in having too many sources of what you're learning, sticking with one and going with it might be faster.

    I would also recommend Rapid Revision Maths: From Equations to Vectors from the start. It's more than a revision book, it actually shows and explains things better than the Text and Tests 4 and 5 books. Text and Tests have some very good questions, however they don't always explain things too well and skip steps sometimes.


  • #49
    Fremen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    Liveit wrote: »
    The reasons I did pass maths were(in order of importance)
    -teacher: just did the examples out of the book and onto the board. He was actually not too bad at explaining 1-to-1 but didn't have enough time to.
    -time: too time consuming and there was no real reward for all this extra time needed for it.
    -other subjects: they are a lot easier and handier.

    oh also we were taught the 'how to do it' but not 'why to do it' so when small variations occured with problems we were stumped.

    Now im back and probably repeating, Im going to teach it to myself I think with the help of the internet and books. Im hoping for an A if I put the work in during the year :D

    Best of luck. People swear by Khan academy these days.
    I would suggest not memorising derivations or techniques. Instead, look for the "trick" which makes the answer drop out and memorise that instead.


  • #50
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Tears in Rain wrote: »
    Reminds me of an old C.P. Snow quote:

    I found this quote by English novelist Ian McEwan this morning.
    "Shakespeare would have grasped wave functions, Donne would have understood complementarity and relative time. They would have been excited. What richness! They would have plundered this new science for their imagery. And they would have educated their audiences too. But you 'arts' people, you're not only ignorant of these magnificent things, you're rather proud of knowing nothing."


  • #51
    SuperInfinity
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭SuperInfinity


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    I found this quote by English novelist Ian McEwan this morning.
    "Shakespeare would have grasped wave functions, Donne would have understood complementarity and relative time. They would have been excited. What richness! They would have plundered this new science for their imagery. And they would have educated their audiences too. But you 'arts' people, you're not only ignorant of these magnificent things, you're rather proud of knowing nothing."

    I doubt Shakespeare or Donne would have. He has no basis for making claims like that.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    antiselfdual
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭antiselfdual


    There's no basis for claiming otherwise either. I'm sure Donne could have enjoyed making the leap from the legs of a compass to a pair of entangled particles.


  • #53
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    I wouldn't put it past Shakespeare to have pompously ridiculed Newton's
    discoveries, not saying anything about Shakespeare but we all know of
    that stereotype of the passionless scientist. I think the best example of
    this view is dismantled by Dawkins in Unweaving the Rainbow when talking
    about Keats. I think Keats claim is simply a product of naivety & youth :p
    With Donne if someone can find out what he thought of Copernicus,
    Kepler or his contemporaries Galileo & Descartes we could have a good
    idea of his views as opposed to speculating...
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    Great stuff! The only bit of advice that's popping out at me now is not to bother with the internet, as for me it's just too distracting to be on the computer and working. There's also no point in having too many sources of what you're learning, sticking with one and going with it might be faster.

    I would also recommend Rapid Revision Maths: From Equations to Vectors from the start. It's more than a revision book, it actually shows and explains things better than the Text and Tests 4 and 5 books. Text and Tests have some very good questions, however they don't always explain things too well and skip steps sometimes.

    I would argue that this could be a really big mistake, if you are trying to
    learn mathematics you'll soon find that the way it is explained is not
    uniform, a lot of authors do things differently. My point is that you could
    very easily get a book that doesn't motivate concepts properly, doesn't
    give proofs, doesn't give an intuitive proof & would rather some
    long-winded one, etc...

    The internet has been such an invaluable resource for me and there is so
    much material online, especially books from over 50 years ago, that
    give alternative takes on material that hasn't changed since back then.
    If something has you a bit confused I wouldn't rule out a glance at the
    net. Just don't expect to rush through it :pac: Seriously! :(

    @liveit, yeah I think khanacademy is great because he has always
    emphasized the tricks as opposed to memorizing some long-winded
    technique, I remember doing pass math in school & the book teaching us
    how to do chain rule calculations not having a clue! what it was that we
    were doing. I think you'll get a lot out of those videos :cool:

    Just my humble experience as a late-bloomer in ars mathematica :D


Advertisement