Syllabus development (1 Viewer)

[me121]

wow.. so many problems with the draft syllabus..

---

What I don't understand is why the Board seems to like Graphics Calculators so much.. I mean they are crap, professional mathematicians don't use graphics calculators they use computers!

Here we are teaching Maths General how to graph on a graphics calculator where there are numerous (even free) graphing programs on computers.

If they want to introduce more technology (and I think they should) then they should teach some Matlab, Mathematica, Maple, or the like.. Not graphics calculators.

 

[Forbidden.]

wow.. so many problems with the draft syllabus..

---

What I don't understand is why the Board seems to like Graphics Calculators so much.. I mean they are crap, professional mathematicians don't use graphics calculators they use computers!

Here we are teaching Maths General how to graph on a graphics calculator where there are numerous (even free) graphing programs on computers.

If they want to introduce more technology (and I think they should) then they should teach some Matlab, Mathematica, Maple, or the like.. Not graphics calculators.

LOL but in the HSC exam I highly doubt you can use a computer to perform calculations.

 

[me121]

LOL but in the HSC exam I highly doubt you can use a computer to perform calculations.

if you only learnt maths to complete exam papers, then mathematicians would be out of a job.

they can still teach you even if they don't assess you.

and you don't need a computer if they don't make the numerical computations so hard that you can't do it with a normal scientific calculator.

if the reason they teach maths general how to use a graphics calculator is because they don't allow computers in the exam then there is something seriously wrong. the simple solution is just not allow them in the exam, its pointless assessing if people can graph things on a graphics calculator.. as even a monkey can do this.

 

[tywebb]

vinoth nandakumar has published the following comment on terry tao's website:

Opportunities to study mathematics/sciences at significant depth in high school are progressively being ‘dumbed down’ by organizations such as the Board of Studies and no longer give as thorough a coverage as would have been possible in prior years; if universities fail to deliver opportunities to young scientists to pursue their passions, this leaves the majority of students with no option but to look elsewhere for further education in mathematics. The day when Australia is not able, for any reason, to nurture interest in the sciences and contribute to the mathematical community will be a very sad day indeed.

 

[tywebb]

one thing that concerns me is that very strongly negative submissions and/or publications like bill pender's or vinoth nandakumar's create ammunition for the national agenda. whist they have not themselves been explicit advocates of this, their contributions could nevertheless be used by advocates of the national agenda to promulgate this.

it is most unfortunate that the nsw minister of education has been temporarily removed from his post at a time when we most need him to remain in his rightful position. i may write to the premier to have him immediately reinstated. one week before his demise he made a very important speech to english teachers wherein he made clear his government's position regarding the national agenda. this was in quite general terms and not restricted to the english syllabus, but extended to all syllabuses. we need this to be elucidated upon before december when the final maths syllabus will be released. we can't have a situation whereby schools are required to reprogram in 2009 for margaret bigelow's nsw syllabus for 2010 and then in 2010 be required to reprogram again for 2011 for barry mcgaw's national syllabus. this would be a totally unacceptable thing for nsw maths teachers.

furthermore the national agenda is a disgrace. it excludes teachers. previous attempts have not come to fruition. mcgaw is an imbecile. he advocated 4 unit be abolished (which i'm glad the carr government regected). he gave us the new hsc with general maths (which all maths teachers know is rubbish). he is consequently not held in high regard by maths teachers in nsw. so why would we entrust him with a calculus syllabus?

i reckon we should certainly raise issues with the board of studies, but NOT attack them as vociferously as bill pender or vinoth nandakumar.

 

[Forbidden.]

More real physics should be placed in the Mathematics syllabi such as Simple Harmonic motion currently in Extension 1 and Mechanics in Extension 2.
They've apparently taken out energy and momentum from what I've heard.

 

[buchanan]

one thing that concerns me is that very strongly negative submissions and/or publications like bill pender's or vinoth nandakumar's create ammunition for the national agenda. whist they have not themselves been explicit advocates of this, their contributions could nevertheless be used by advocates of the national agenda to promulgate this.

it is most unfortunate that the nsw minister of education has been temporarily removed from his post at a time when we most need him to remain in his rightful position. i may write to the premier to have him immediately reinstated. one week before his demise he made a very important speech to english teachers wherein he made clear his government's position regarding the national agenda. this was in quite general terms and not restricted to the english syllabus, but extended to all syllabuses. we need this to be elucidated upon before december when the final maths syllabus will be released. we can't have a situation whereby schools are required to reprogram in 2009 for margaret bigelow's nsw syllabus for 2010 and then in 2010 be required to reprogram again for 2011 for barry mcgaw's national syllabus. this would be a totally unacceptable thing for nsw maths teachers.

furthermore the national agenda is a disgrace. it excludes teachers. previous attempts have not come to fruition. mcgaw is an imbecile. he advocated 4 unit be abolished (which i'm glad the carr government regected). he gave us the new hsc with general maths (which all maths teachers know is rubbish). he is consequently not held in high regard by maths teachers in nsw. so why would we entrust him with a calculus syllabus?

i reckon we should certainly raise issues with the board of studies, but NOT attack them as vociferously as bill pender or vinoth nandakumar.

Well the speech you refer to is online at

http://news.ieu.asn.au/nc_engsympjun08_edminister2.doc

in which the Minister of Education said that he would reject the dismantling of the NSW curriculum if an alternative is in any way lesser than what the State currently has in place.

So when Margaret Bigelow and/or Barry McGaw present him with substandard syllabuses which are inferior to the ones we currently have (as eloquently and thoroughly demonstrated by <a href="http://community.boredofstudies.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=16657">Bill Pender's submission</a>) then one can expect that he (or his presumably temporary replacement, John Hatzistergos) will reject them. (Noting that the Minister must approve a final syllabus before it is distributed to schools.)

 

[AMorris]

I just read through the submission by Bill Pender and have read through the revised syllabus documents and I have to agree almost completely with him on the points he makes. The main problem is that the Board is pursuing a change for change sakes' position which is completely unnecessary in the field of mathematics where the basic mathematics required can't change. The current syllabuses in the 2-3-4 unit courses have worked exceptionally well for a number of decades and there is no need for change within them.

I think the downplaying of Geometry and to a lesser extent, Conics, is a terrible choice, especially for the promotion of differential equations and recurrence relations. Geometry is one of the few areas where the full rigour of a mathematical proof can be applied and losing this will mean that one of the fundamental ideas behind maths is lost.

The introduction of Statistics is also questionable from my perspective because the level of difficulty in statistics beyond the basics of the mean are beyond a high school student's ability. The teaching of the course then tends to become qualitative rather than quantitative and loses its rigour (because focussed on looking a frequency curves and recognising "positive skew"). Furthermore, its appearing in the 2 unit course and in neither extension courses is a big problem from my perspective because it means that an Extension student will not be required to learn the material and can then graduate without knowledge that a 2 unit student does have. I think this is one of the important aspects of the NSW extension courses in that they build on prior knowledge and incorporate it rather than discarding some knowledge in place of others.

Finally, the lack of the explicit directives on Harder 3u material in the 4u course (and similar for the 3u course) is disappointing. It is these questions that are the lifeblood of the 4u course and are what no other state possesses because they challenge and inspire the top students. Previous HSC questions (and the trials of some schools e.g. Grammar, Ruse, SBHS) have been about the irrationality of pi and e as well as working on the bulk of famous problems like the Basel problem and it is these that demonstrate how creative applications of mathematics can lead to beautiful results. It was disappointing for me last year that there were no questions like this on the 2007 4u paper and I hope that we have not seen the last of them.

- Anthony Morris

 

[me121]

Furthermore, its appearing in the 2 unit course and in neither extension courses is a big problem from my perspective because it means that an Extension student will not be required to learn the material and can then graduate without knowledge that a 2 unit student does have. I think this is one of the important aspects of the NSW extension courses in that they build on prior knowledge and incorporate it rather than discarding some knowledge in place of others.

Even if you are doing Ext 2 maths, you are still meant to attend the 2u classes.

But, I think that students doing Ext 2 maths should have to do the mathematics exam in the hsc, as well as the ext 1 and ext 2 exam.

 

[tacogym27101990]

But, I think that students doing Ext 2 maths should have to do the mathematics exam in the hsc, as well as the ext 1 and ext 2 exam.

call it 6 unit maths and im all for it

 

[me121]

call it 6 unit maths and im all for it

no. 4u. because that's all they are doing ext 2 is a 1 unit course. ext 1 is a 1 unit course, and mathematics is a 2u course. therefore 1+1+2=4. not 6.

 

[buchanan]

MANSW's submissions for the draft syllabuses:

http://www.mansw.nsw.edu.au/members/stage-6-review/MANSW-Advanced-Ext-1-Ext-2-response.pdf

http://www.mansw.nsw.edu.au/members/stage-6-review/MANSW-General-1-2-response.pdf

 

[buchanan]

I'm at the MANSW conference and the Board of Studies have just done a presentation for the 600 teachers at the conference.

The Board have read Bill Pender's submission and at first decided to not act on his advise to delay the release of the final syllabus. However, The Minister has told them to delay it. So it will be delayed after all.

Here are my notes from their presentation:

General:
- support for Gen. 1 and 2, as opposed to just 1 General course
- there is some concern for the level of difficulty of Gen. 1

Adv/Ext 1/Ext 2:
- support of rigour/stats/removal of conics/reducing harder Ext. 1 topics to just inequalities
- too much and too hard in Adv. Prelim.

Assessment:
- need to clarify technology
-MC: some support it/some reject it
-formula sheet to be provided?
-10 min reading time to be included - and writing IS allowed during this time.

More here:
http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/fourunit/mansw2008.pdf

 

[Forbidden.]

Trigonometric identities should be a good thing to put in a formula sheet.

 

[me121]

-10 min reading time to be included - and writing IS allowed during this time.

WTF? reading time where writing is allowed? even on the exam paper? so they are just extending my 10 mins?

I think 5 mins reading time is good. because you get a chance to look over and see which are the hard ones/easy ones and just get a feel for the paper. it also means that you can start thinking about the hard ones at the end without wasting exam time reading them at the start.

-----

So it appears the topics set theory and linear algebra (the two things from uni I think should be in high school) didn't make it..

 

[tommykins]

Adv/Ext 1/Ext 2:
- support of rigour/stats/removal of conics/reducing harder Ext. 1 topics to just inequalities
- too much and too hard in Adv. Prelim.

WHAT? Despite how much I hate harder 3unit, this is just getting ridiculous now, harder3u was able to measure the ability of a 4unit student with their 3unit knowledge and sometimes mathematical abstract/genius.
The removal of everyting but inequalities will probably lead to just rote-learn answers, which is lame.

Assessment:
- need to clarify technology
-MC: some support it/some reject it
-formula sheet to be provided?
-10 min reading time to be included - and writing IS allowed during this time.

Alright this pretty much sucks now, you might as welll tell them each step and what formula to use.

thank god i finish this year, don't think i'd like to do a maths exam with formula sheets :S

 

[buchanan]

WTF? reading time where writing is allowed? even on the exam paper? so they are just extending my 10 mins?

I was a bit perplexed by this when they said it. The usual thing in exams with reading time is that no writing is allowed during this time. It'll be hard for supervisors to manage if they allow writing during reading time.

 

[kony]

so why do they want to change the syllabus anyway?

the point of the HSC is to test a student's intelligence, endurance, time management, dedication, aptitude for hard work etc, not to teach them preparatory uni maths. I guess stats IS more useful than conics (which was a bit random at times), but why are they trying to revamp the entire ext2 course?

it was pretty good. there's been a bit of a legacy, and now it will be a thing of the past...

 

[buchanan]

I think it is a reaction by the philistines at the Board of Studies against the legacy of excellence of 4 unit maths.

 

[Timothy.Siu]

lucky it wont change my exams,
it seems stupid