Syllabus change? (1 Viewer)

[kow_dude]

There were syllabus changes for ALL SCIENCE subjects.
Has there been any syllabus changes for 3unit and 4unit maths? How long has it been the same/changed? Thanks...

 

[:: ck ::]

ummm i think the last change was sometime durin late 80's.. correct me if im wrong some1...

the only thing i know that has been "removed" from the 4 u syllabus is like matrices and euler's rule

 

[CM_Tutor]

Last MAJOR syllabus change for 2/3/4 unit was (I think) 1982. When the New HSC came in for the Sciences, and 2/3/4u were renamed, there were some trivial tinkering at the edges, but nothing that amounts to anything. You should be thankful - the Sciences are much worse for the changes - thank God that the destruction of the Maths syllabi were prevented.

General did get introduced with the New HSC, but that was just a minor re-write of the old Maths in Society, and Maths in Practice - or Choko Maths, as it was sometimes called - was removed.

 

[Calculon]

Originally posted by CM_Tutor
Last MAJOR syllabus change for 2/3/4 unit was (I think) 1982. When the New HSC came in for the Sciences, and 2/3/4u were renamed, there were some trivial tinkering at the edges, but nothing that amounts to anything. You should be thankful - the Sciences are much worse for the changes

I was talking to my physics teacher the other day and he said that "while much of the maths has been taken out of physics, it is just as good if not better for it". But then he's always telling us that 'maths is a tool' playing on the word tool.

 

[Zarathustra]

Originally posted by CM_Tutor
Last MAJOR syllabus change for 2/3/4 unit was (I think) 1982. When the New HSC came in for the Sciences, and 2/3/4u were renamed, there were some trivial tinkering at the edges, but nothing that amounts to anything. You should be thankful - the Sciences are much worse for the changes - thank God that the destruction of the Maths syllabi were prevented.

General did get introduced with the New HSC, but that was just a minor re-write of the old Maths in Society, and Maths in Practice - or Choko Maths, as it was sometimes called - was removed.

What was the rationale behind the syllabus change - if it was to make science more popular why not just have senior sciecnce? Were science 3/4U the most difficult science courses and why were they removed? Is the lack of a 4U science course the 'dumbing down' of science or is it actually the syllabi of bio, chem, phys & geology?

So Maths in Practice was easier than General :jaw: , I read an article about teachers dissuading students from General because it is too difficult
Choko Maths???? Is that racism from a PhD studnet

 

[CM_Tutor]

Calculon - there are some Science teachers who prefer the new syllabus - in my experience, the word 'rare' would be an appropriate description of them. Perhaps they think the new syllabus is more interesting - which could be argued - but I've never heard anyone try to argue that it provides a better preparation for future study. Oddly enough, there has been some research that shows that students coming into Uni study of Chemistry are more enthusiastic as a result of the new syllabus, but know less.

Zarathustra, 3/4u Science were easier than either 2u Chem or 2u Phys - they were intended (originally) as a simplified combined course, replacing some harder Chem and Phys with basic Bio and Geo, for those students that would struggle with the 2u courses, and also for people headed for a Uni course that really called for some understanding of Bio, Chem and Phys.

This was then exploited by certain schools - notably Sydney Grammar, Abbotsleigh and Queenwood - putting their most able students into these courses, and distorting the scaling system. IMO it was a good call to reomve these courses - they did not serve the purpose for which they were designed.

As for the changes to the Science syllabi, that was driven by modern educational theory, notably the desire for context based content taught in a spiral syllabus structure. This is fine (in theory), but not well executed in practice. Also, it has led to there being (IMO) so much contextual basis that it obscures a clear and coherent picture of the underlying theory. There is also too much content in the modern syllabi.

The reference to MIP as 'Choko Maths' is not a reference I made up, it was used fairly commonly by students in higher Maths courses. I was surprised by your reference to racism, until I realised the possible alternate interpretation. The Choko to which this comment refers is a vegetable. Since the vegetable is reputed to be pretty bland, the reference was to a flavourless vegetable, and was a comment on the relative ease of the content in the MIP syllabus. I did not intend any sort of racial comment, and I apologise to anyone who might have misunderstood.

 

[Zarathustra]

Sorry CM_tutor, I knew you wouldn't have meant anything by the 'Choko' comment - I just found it amusing. Ah yes - the Choko is a very boring vegetable but being a vegetarian I am loathe to admit it
The fact that the 3/4U Science courses were easier than phys/chem surprised me - considering the scaled means of the courses were much higher than phys and chem - but you cleared that matter up for me
What is the spiral syllabus structure - and why are there electives? Wouldn't it make more sense to have an 'ideal' course - are the 'electives' to suit the teacher's strengths or the student's (because all of my so called electives have been chosen by my teachers)???
So the main change to the syllabi has been contextualisation - they could have done that to Senior Science - and left the real sciences alone - the goal seems to have been getting more candidates rather than improving the courses.

 

[CM_Tutor]

Originally posted by Zarathustra
The fact that the 3/4U Science courses were easier than phys/chem surprised me - considering the scaled means of the courses were much higher than phys and chem - but you cleared that matter up for me

The mark distribution for 4u Science used to be essentially bimodal, so there was virtually no one located at / near the mean - there was a group above it, who scaled up, and a group below who scaled down. This sort of distortion was only possible with a candidature that can be roughly divided into two groups, which was what the inclusion of Abbotsleigh / SGS / etc. produced.

What is the spiral syllabus structure - and why are there electives? Wouldn't it make more sense to have an 'ideal' course - are the 'electives' to suit the teacher's strengths or the student's (because all of my so called electives have been chosen by my teachers)???

The theory of a spiral structure is that you divide the content up into a series of key areas - four (say), which can then be placed in the four quadrants. The syllabus then follows a spiral staircase pattern whose vertical axis passes through the origin. As the staircase passes over each quadrant, you do material from that key area, building upon the content from the last time the staircase passed over that quadrant. In theory, this aids learning. In practice, it risks fragmentation, which is (IMO) a serious problem in some parts of the new Science syllabi.

As for the inclusion of electives, I'm not sure of the rationale. If I were cynical, I might suggest that it gives students the illusion of choice, or that it allows teachers to teach to their strengths. As I'm not cynical, I'll just say I'm not sure.

So the main change to the syllabi has been contextualisation - they could have done that to Senior Science - and left the real sciences alone - the goal seems to have been getting more candidates rather than improving the courses.

The change to the New HSC was driven primarily by politics. It had little to do with improving education for students, IMO.