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

LCHL Maths

Options
  • 28-05-2021 5:56pm
    #1
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭


    Interesting question up on one of the Facebook groups about students at the wrong level in maths and refusing to drop until the last minute. There are then knock on effects on their OL grades and their maths ability

    Are there many maths teachers here? It’s an interesting one. I think the LCHL course is in long enough now for a proper discussion

    My feelings
    1. The course is ridiculously long for a course encouraging in depth practise and with project maths context questions. I don’t know any school teaching it within 180hrs. Students and teachers are doing extra classes, arguing for extra classes on the timetables, giving whole chapters to be studied at home to cover it which is insane. The removal of choice has amplified this. While the old course was long almost all teachers left sections out.
    2. The bonus points in conjunction with 30% points have done massive damage. While they may ‘help’ keep the numbers up at LCHL the students at the bottom end are not grasping pretty much anything. Any of them who end up with any maths in their course in college will be worse off in my opinion than those who worked in OL all along and have a decent grounding as opposed to everything going over their heads
    3. Students dropping late has murdered any love they had for maths and students are demoralised, they have failed and failed and failed by the time they drop which is just awful. Students dropping late or being at the wrong level is also affecting the pace of classes which has knock on impacts on the rest of the class


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    JackTC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 127 ✭✭JackTC


    Not a Maths teacher but I did study Mathematics education years ago before deciding against teaching, although I still keep up to date with what's going on in the syllabus.

    They should have kept the old course as it was and not bothered with the bonus points. The a, b, c format of questions worked - students knew that if they found the part c's too difficult then they should drop down to pass.

    All this push to try and get students to do honours maths just hurts them in the long run. So many of my own subjects suffered because the maths took up so much of my time.


  • Options
    #3
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭noplacehere


    JackTC wrote: »
    Not a Maths teacher but I did study Mathematics education years ago before deciding against teaching, although I still keep up to date with what's going on in the syllabus.

    They should have kept the old course as it was and not bothered with the bonus points. The a, b, c format of questions worked - students knew that if they found the part c's too difficult then they should drop down to pass.

    All this push to try and get students to do honours maths just hurts them in the long run. So many of my own subjects suffered because the maths took up so much of my time.

    I would agree. Students who slog and slog and slog and still end up dropping at the last minute when they could have spent time on other subjects but ‘need’ the bonus points (which they were never going to get due to the length and breadth of the course)


  • Options
    #4
    Newbie20
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Newbie20


    noplacehere wrote: »
    Interesting question up on one of the Facebook groups about students at the wrong level in maths and refusing to drop until the last minute. There are then knock on effects on their OL grades and their maths ability

    Are there many maths teachers here? It’s an interesting one. I think the LCHL course is in long enough now for a proper discussion

    My feelings
    1. The course is ridiculously long for a course encouraging in depth practise and with project maths context questions. I don’t know any school teaching it within 180hrs. Students and teachers are doing extra classes, arguing for extra classes on the timetables, giving whole chapters to be studied at home to cover it which is insane. The removal of choice has amplified this. While the old course was long almost all teachers left sections out.
    2. The bonus points in conjunction with 30% points have done massive damage. While they may ‘help’ keep the numbers up at LCHL the students at the bottom end are not grasping pretty much anything. Any of them who end up with any maths in their course in college will be worse off in my opinion than those who worked in OL all along and have a decent grounding as opposed to everything going over their heads
    3. Students dropping late has murdered any love they had for maths and students are demoralised, they have failed and failed and failed by the time they drop which is just awful. Students dropping late or being at the wrong level is also affecting the pace of classes which has knock on impacts on the rest of the class

    I’d agree with all this. When Project Maths came in a number of years back I’d be sent to inservices and I’d come away with good ideas for the class. But sure I couldn’t use much of it anyway because of time constraints. The course is just too long and as you says that means that none of the topics can be dealt with in any great depth.

    The bonus points was a pure disaster and as you say, coupled with the 30% pass has made a bit of a farce of it. Students don’t take the advice to drop anymore because they are blinded by the bonus points. Eventually after the Mocks, they realise that you were right all along.


  • Options
    #5
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭noplacehere


    Newbie20 wrote: »
    I’d agree with all this. When Project Maths came in a number of years back I’d be sent to inservices and I’d come away with good ideas for the class. But sure I couldn’t use much of it anyway because of time constraints. The course is just too long and as you says that means that none of the topics can be dealt with in any great depth.

    The bonus points was a pure disaster and as you say, coupled with the 30% pass has made a bit of a farce of it. Students don’t take the advice to drop anymore because they are blinded by the bonus points. Eventually after the Mocks, they realise that you were right all along.

    Interestingly I was in a pilot school and we insisted the course was too long. We were told it was fine. Here we are years later and I don’t know anyone who thinks its a reasonable length

    I wonder can anything be done about it at this stage. It’s so bad for maths tbh I feel sad to see the light go out in so many kids eyes, there’s no time to love the subject it’s just power on as quickly as possible

    It would probably need parents and students yelling at the media too though or they just won’t bother making changes


  • Options
    #6
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    noplacehere wrote: »
    2. The bonus points in conjunction with 30% points have done massive damage. While they may ‘help’ keep the numbers up at LCHL the students at the bottom end are not grasping pretty much anything.
    The bonus points were a good idea, terribly implemented. They should always have been for C3 up (and now, H4 or H5, depending on which one they decide), not for scraping a pass. My understanding was that the bonus points were to encourage students who were able for higher level but didn’t think the extra effort was worth it (because they didn’t need HL for whatever course they wanted) to stick with it. Instead, by awarding the points for a pass, it’s done exactly what you’ve said: it’s encouraged students who are not able for it to stick with it hoping they’ll scrape a pass but inevitably failing (and a H7 is a fail - being awarded some points for it doesn’t change that).

    Of course awarding points for a H7 was an inevitable consequence of stupidly awarding the bonus points for scraping 40%. Someone obviously realised they we’re screwing students over but that they couldn’t raise the bonus points mark, so instead, they decided to reward students who didn’t fail that badly when they picked a level they’re not able for. The whole thing is a farce.

    The course itself isn’t terrible, but the old one was better. We’re supposedly trying to promote STEM but somehow, in their wisdom, the powers that be decided that dumbing down the maths on the maths course while massively ramping up the reading comprehension was the best way to do this. Again, they need to reverse this.

    If they really want to keep the reading comprehension in, make the parts (a) and (b) of the questions just on the maths, and let them do the reading comprehension in the part (c)s, because in my experience, the very wordy questions penalise the weaker students, who are quite capable of working the maths out but aren’t able to understand the questions. I appreciate that being able to see the maths in the question is the point of those, but surely, in a maths exam, the main aim should be test the students’ ability in maths, not in reading comprehension.

    End of part one (because I’m sure I have more to rant about, but I can’t think of it right now).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭noplacehere


    I just have to say I LOVE your last line because honestly I feel the same. I could keep ranting…. And have. I’m just frustrated and feel it’s really damaging the actual maths ability of our students


  • Options
    #8
    Hopontop
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭Hopontop


    JackTC wrote: »

    All this push to try and get students to do honours maths just hurts them in the long run. So many of my own subjects suffered because the maths took up so much of my time.

    I was going to complain about how in my school maths is put on a pedestal above the other subjects (It gets 6 x 40 mins class in both 5th & 6th year, compared to 4 classes then 5 classes for other subjects), this leads to students putting much more of their time and effort into Maths at the expense of the others. However if the course is as long as others are stating here then maybe it’s justified.


  • Options
    #9
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭noplacehere


    Hopontop wrote: »
    I was going to complain about how in my school maths is put on a pedestal above the other subjects (It gets 6 x 40 mins class in both 5th & 6th year, compared to 4 classes then 5 classes for other subjects), this leads to students putting much more of their time and effort into Maths at the expense of the others. However if the course is as long as others are stating here then maybe it’s justified.

    Honestly I teach music as well. Maths is completely ridiculous comparatively


  • Options
    #10
    Random sample
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭Random sample


    Not a maths teacher, but i have the same problem with Irish and higher level. Management push all students into higher level, even when they have a basic or no understanding of the language. They seem to think an understanding will seep in if they are surrounded by higher level students... it doesn’t, they just languish in the class and get frustrated because they are reminded constantly that they don’t understand what is happening.

    I can’t for the life of me figure out how this is better than sitting in an ordinary level class doing manageable work and achieving something.


  • Options
    #11
    derb12
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭derb12


    I fully agree with everything stated above.
    Further to all that, I have major concerns for our current 3rd years who will be in for a real shock, especially those who are heading straight into that course in a few months with even less maths (no concept of a proof, and little gaps like cones, IQR, DMS etc)
    At least they are all totally independent learners and brilliant researchers now (which was the point of CBAs apparently) so I’m sure it’ll all be fine!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭noplacehere


    derb12 wrote: »
    I fully agree with everything stated above.
    Further to all that, I have major concerns for our current 3rd years who will be in for a real shock, especially those who are heading straight into that course in a few months with even less maths (no concept of a proof, and little gaps like cones, IQR, DMS etc)
    At least they are all totally independent learners and brilliant researchers now (which was the point of CBAs apparently) so I’m sure it’ll all be fine!

    We are apparently need four classes of HL. Which is mental. Statistically we should have 2. That’s a big difference.

    And these kids have had a rough two years. Going into a subject and failing every single thing is not going to help them


  • Options
    #13
    JackTC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 127 ✭✭JackTC


    RealJohn wrote: »
    The bonus points were a good idea, terribly implemented. They should always have been for C3 up (and now, H4 or H5, depending on which one they decide), not for scraping a pass. My understanding was that the bonus points were to encourage students who were able for higher level but didn’t think the extra effort was worth it (because they didn’t need HL for whatever course they wanted) to stick with it. Instead, by awarding the points for a pass, it’s done exactly what you’ve said: it’s encouraged students who are not able for it to stick with it hoping they’ll scrape a pass but inevitably failing (and a H7 is a fail - being awarded some points for it doesn’t change that).

    Of course awarding points for a H7 was an inevitable consequence of stupidly awarding the bonus points for scraping 40%. Someone obviously realised they we’re screwing students over but that they couldn’t raise the bonus points mark, so instead, they decided to reward students who didn’t fail that badly when they picked a level they’re not able for. The whole thing is a farce.

    The course itself isn’t terrible, but the old one was better. We’re supposedly trying to promote STEM but somehow, in their wisdom, the powers that be decided that dumbing down the maths on the maths course while massively ramping up the reading comprehension was the best way to do this. Again, they need to reverse this.

    If they really want to keep the reading comprehension in, make the parts (a) and (b) of the questions just on the maths, and let them do the reading comprehension in the part (c)s, because in my experience, the very wordy questions penalise the weaker students, who are quite capable of working the maths out but aren’t able to understand the questions. I appreciate that being able to see the maths in the question is the point of those, but surely, in a maths exam, the main aim should be test the students’ ability in maths, not in reading comprehension.

    End of part one (because I’m sure I have more to rant about, but I can’t think of it right now).

    I don't agree that they've dumbed down the maths at all. They removed matrices and further calculus but they also added more on functions, geometry, financial maths, etc,...

    Like you said if they kept the a, b, c format and have the part c's be the comprehension. My old teacher used to say if you find the part c's impossible, it's a clear sign you should drop to pass.

    Dept. of education might feel that now students have access to great youtube channels (mathispower4u, patrickjmt) that the course needs to be tougher, but I'm not sure.


  • Options
    #14
    cmssjone
    Registered Users Posts: 355 ✭✭cmssjone


    I would echo much of what has been said regarding LCHL Maths. Our department had to lobby hard to get 6 classes a week and it still isn't enough - students are set chapters that they have to self study during the holidays if we are to complete the course and have some time (c. 1 week) for exam practice at the end.

    As stated above, the 25 bonus points have been an absolute disaster. Students, who should be nowhere near an honours class, stick around until the mocks, when they finally drop to OL, despite the evidence and communication from teachers stating that they should not be there. They would probably pick up these 25 extra points in their other subjects if they didn't take HL Maths.

    With regards to the Project Maths inservice, some of the ideas are very good but totally unrealistic. I remember sitting through an inservice where students were encouraged to "discover" the idea of differentiation. This would have taken a week if I had done as was shown with my students. In reality, I have 1 40 min lesson to get across this concept. When I stated this, they just shrugged and said that they were only trying to give the group some ideas - total waste of time!

    Whilst most of us would agree that project Maths is not as rigourous as the old course, many students also find it difficult to understand what they are being asked to do. In my experience, this has hugely hindered students with SEN, who would have excelled with the old course.

    It's all about optics with the department. More people are taking and passing HL Maths but they are manipulating the results with their front-loading mark schemes, and don't get me started that a pass is now 30%. Can you imagine a builder building 30% of a new house and then happily heading off saying that that's good enough!

    I'd better stop or I'll never get out of the house again...


  • Options
    #15
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    30% is not a pass. They get points for it, but it’s not a pass.


  • Options
    #16
    cmssjone
    Registered Users Posts: 355 ✭✭cmssjone


    RealJohn wrote: »
    30% is not a pass. They get points for it, but it’s not a pass.

    Not a pass as far as you or I are concerned but 30% = points, which is seen as a pass by those struggling and shouldn’t be doing it at HL.


  • Options
    #17
    am_zarathustra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭am_zarathustra


    I find aspects of the new course much more enjoyable to teach but for the depth they want and the difficultly of the language in the second half of the paper they should cut the course down. Right now there is too much breath for the depth they require and it's just feeding the grind mindset, the amount people are paying to keep average kids in HK is shocking.

    With HL I think aptitude, interest, perseverance and joy all mix to create a good student. You can be missing one, maybe two but the bonus points are encouraging all sorts of kids who definitely shouldn't be doing it to spend large amounts of time and possible parents money on it.


  • Options
    #18
    Jane98
    Registered Users Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Jane98


    I recall reading somewhere that the course was designed to be taught over 200 hours at senior cycle.
    I would love to see the department's workings on this. I wonder would a freedom of information request provide this?
    Also, given that so many experienced Maths teachers are having difficulty teaching the course within the given class allocations, I would love to hear if any of the regional or the National Maths Teachers Association has actually communicated this to the Department?


  • Options
    #19
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭noplacehere


    Jane98 wrote: »
    I recall reading somewhere that the course was designed to be taught over 200 hours at senior cycle.
    I would love to see the department's workings on this. I wonder would a freedom of information request provide this?
    Also, given that so many experienced Maths teachers are having difficulty teaching the course within the given class allocations, I would love to hear if any of the regional or the National Maths Teachers Association has actually communicated this to the Department?

    The published syllabus is for 180hrs.

    I know as a pilot school we complained about the length. I know we also brought it up in our inspections.

    I’m not sure if there’s been a centralised submission but honestly it’s beyond time. Get student testimony into the papers about how long it takes to study, get parents shouting about grinds etc. They’d back teachers on this one


  • Options
    #20
    am_zarathustra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭am_zarathustra


    180 hours but also use deconstructivist techniques to "discover" concepts.

    Every maths teacher I know complains about it constantly. There's nothing wrong with choice on the paper. There are small stand alones that could be removed like complex numbers if they want to depth of knowledge in calculus etc.


  • Options
    #21
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭noplacehere


    am_zarathustra wrote: »
    180 hours but also use deconstructivist techniques to "discover" concepts.

    Every maths teacher I know complains about it constantly. There's nothing wrong with choice on the paper. There are small stand alones that could be removed like complex numbers if they want to depth of knowledge in calculus etc.

    Exactly. It cannot be taught with discover methods. Even the junior cycle HL struggles with time on that. I don’t know anyone who has time for discover methods in LC


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    JackTC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 127 ✭✭JackTC


    The essentials unfolded really comes in handy - It makes the course seem much more short and manageable. I'm not a maths teacher but I give grinds and find it very handy to have.

    I highly recommend buying it - Easons have it for around €7


  • Options
    #23
    Treppen
    Registered Users Posts: 4,566 ✭✭✭Treppen


    am_zarathustra wrote: »
    180 hours but also use deconstructivist techniques to "discover" concepts.

    Every maths teacher I know complains about it constantly. There's nothing wrong with choice on the paper. There are small stand alones that could be removed like complex numbers if they want to depth of knowledge in calculus etc.

    I vaguely recall one of the main reasons why they got rid of choice was that everyone was just not bothering with probability part of the course.

    Is it safe to say that:
    1. Almost every school is putting on extra classes.
    2. Every teacher is under pressure to finish the course so no time for discovery approach.
    3. Numbers in HL have increased, but at the bottom end of ability.


  • Options
    #24
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭noplacehere


    Treppen wrote: »
    I vaguely recall one of the main reasons why they got rid of choice was that everyone was just not bothering with probability part of the course.

    Is it safe to say that:
    1. Almost every school is putting on extra classes.
    2. Every teacher is under pressure to finish the course so no time for discovery approach.
    3. Numbers in HL have increased, but at the bottom end of ability.

    I don't know any school not doing extra classes. Anecdotally it is also beginning to lead to reluctance to take on the HL class and definitely not two HL classes due to the extra "voluntary" work and pressure on the teacher


  • Options
    #25
    am_zarathustra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭am_zarathustra


    noplacehere wrote: »
    I don't know any school not doing extra classes. Anecdotally it is also beginning to lead to reluctance to take on the HL class and definitely not two HL classes due to the extra "voluntary" work and pressure on the teacher

    100%. The only kids in our building this week are the higher level maths students. I teach two LC subjects and there is no comparison in the level of work required or the depth of the coursework. HL maths is tough and I'm not sure that it's justifiable really, I would love to spend more time on stats and calculas etc. It would be of real benefit to students in those areas at 3rd level but just getting through the course is the main focus.


  • Options
    #26
    jam17032010
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭jam17032010


    Well, what did we think of paper 1? I thought with the choice this year that students would have loads of time in the exam but I felt the questions were that bit tougher and made it a longer paper than anticipated?

    Also, did anyone else feel that the paper was repetitive at times. Differentiating polynomials and solving quadratics came up a lot for example. I don't think it's a good sign of a paper to assess the same skills over and over. Why not mix it up a bit more? No financial maths for example?

    Edit: i was reading the rte.ie student diaries earlier and it was mentioned that: "The changes to the exam meant that Geography students could potentially leave out half of the course, answering just three questions from 24".

    That is staggering IMO. Fair play to the Geography students and more power to them, but we really hammer them in maths exams. With little choice and forcing them to cover every inch of a bloated course.


  • Options
    #27
    Treppen
    Registered Users Posts: 4,566 ✭✭✭Treppen


    jam17032010 wrote: »
    Well, what did we think of paper 1? I thought with the choice this year that students would have loads of time in the exam but I felt the questions were that bit tougher and made it a longer paper than anticipated?

    Also, did anyone else feel that the paper was repetitive at times. Differentiating polynomials and solving quadratics came up a lot for example. I don't think it's a good sign of a paper to assess the same skills over and over. Why not mix it up a bit more? No financial maths for example?

    Edit: i was reading the rte.ie student diaries earlier and it was mentioned that: "The changes to the exam meant that Geography students could potentially leave out half of the course, answering just three questions from 24".

    That is staggering IMO. Fair play to the Geography students and more power to them, but we really hammer them in maths exams. With little choice and forcing them to cover every inch of a bloated course.

    Maths is probably the easiest way to keep overall points down so I could see why it would be a bit tougher.


  • Options
    #28
    cmssjone
    Registered Users Posts: 355 ✭✭cmssjone


    jam17032010 wrote: »
    Well, what did we think of paper 1? I thought with the choice this year that students would have loads of time in the exam but I felt the questions were that bit tougher and made it a longer paper than anticipated?

    Also, did anyone else feel that the paper was repetitive at times. Differentiating polynomials and solving quadratics came up a lot for example. I don't think it's a good sign of a paper to assess the same skills over and over. Why not mix it up a bit more? No financial maths for example?

    I believe that the paper was fairly heavy on algebra and calculus as every student would/should have covered this. Q10 part (b) will be atrociously done as it will be too verbose for many students. Based on what I have seen on P1, I'm expecting to see a Trig heavy P2.


  • Options
    #29
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭noplacehere


    Algebra/calculus everywhere. And I have to agree, compared to the changes to the music practical (worth 50% of the exam) and the exam, some choice in maths really wasn’t comparable. I’d be super disappointed if financial maths was my forte with that paper


  • Options
    #30
    am_zarathustra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭am_zarathustra


    Financial maths is a tiny section, very little challenge either if you don't link it to S and S really. I generally find the kids who are very good at maths don't really enjoy it and the ones who are hoping to scrape H5/6 love it. I suppose it's back to the same problem then.

    Fair enough paper I thought, definitely a lean towards calculas the last couple of years. I'd agree with above, Q10 was the trickiest, I'll be interested to see the marking scheme on that given the language.

    Interesting to see paper 2 now. Trig looks a good bet for sure.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    noplacehere
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭noplacehere


    am_zarathustra wrote: »
    Financial maths is a tiny section, very little challenge either if you don't link it to S and S really. I generally find the kids who are very good at maths don't really enjoy it and the ones who are hoping to scrape H5/6 love it. I suppose it's back to the same problem then.

    Fair enough paper I thought, definitely a lean towards calculas the last couple of years. I'd agree with above, Q10 was the trickiest, I'll be interested to see the marking scheme on that given the language.

    Interesting to see paper 2 now. Trig looks a good bet for sure.

    That’s also fair, I’m probably being coloured by feeling that despite the choice the course still needed to be finished


Advertisement