Message boards :
Politics :
Parents role in Education ?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 . . . 19 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
All those things are on the GCSE syllabus apart from Logs. Long division is done in primary (elementary) school and they have probably forgotten how to do it by the time they graduate. They use calculators now for practically everything. I didn't think it was an attack. I was merely stating the facts. Most of the questions should have been able to be answered by a GCSE level student apart from logs which they aren't taught. If logs are on the A level course (which is easy to check if you look at the AQA, EDEXCEL, OCR etc websites) then I wouldn't know as I've only taught math at GCSE level. Assuming they are taught at the A level (which would surprise me if they weren't), one would expect that any engineering etc to take math at A level. The only reason they would struggle at the questions is because they all use calculators these days. There is very little need to be able to do math without one so I am assuming this requirement is less important in GCSE. Saying that, there is a part of the exam where they are not allowed to use calculators. So if they are being taught the correct math to the correct standard then what other reason could there be for this failure? Could it be that now everyone regardless of ability does GCSEs now? Whereas in the 60s only the top 20% did 'O' level? I am just thinking out loud based on what I know of the GCSE math course from having taught it. A 'C' grade might be obtainable based on being able to use the math taught in certain situations. Something that a good proportion of the population can do. The brightest 20% however will be more able to apply what they have learnt to unfamiliar situations. So old 'O' Level students would of course do better in an exam of this nature because they had been pre-selected to do so. The old 'O' Level was all exam based so disadvantaged those who could do the math but performed badly in exam situations. Which may explain the discrepancy in the results here. A component of the current GCSE is course work based. To summarise: 1) Most of the content in the test is on the current GCSE and taught to the same standard. (only thing I couldn't see was logs) with less ('less', not 'no') stress on mental math which is deemed less important when everyone has a calculator on the phone. 2) O level used to be an 'elite' exam sat by those who could transfer their knowledge easily. 3) This would mean that 'O' level students would overall be likely to perform better because they have already been pre-selected based on their ability to to sit exams. That is my proposal based on my knowledge of curriculum theory, educational theory and educational practice. Reality Internet Personality |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30640 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
As a student in the California School System, I remember that we got the very basic stuff on logs in middle school. Of course back then we also had to learn how to use a slip stick. As you all should know a slip stick in a log device. As I got bumped into the high level math classes by high school I'm not sure what the other kids were getting, but we had to be able to calculate the log table integral calculus, never mind just use it. Standards have slipped and by an order of magnitude too. |
John Clark Send message Joined: 29 Sep 99 Posts: 16515 Credit: 4,418,829 RAC: 0 |
Remember O Levels and A levels and using one of these? I was slightly different and used one of these instead ... The Oatis King spiral slide rule was accurate to 4 decimal places (depending on the size of the calculation). It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Remember O Levels and A levels and using one of these? The grandfather of the calculator. Use a slide rule, or a table, and you are not using your own abilities for the entire problem. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
I feel you have missed a point or two here. The linked article was about 16 to 18 year olds applying for a fairly prodigious apprenticeship. That to me looks like those not wishing to go on through the "A" level system. As other firms and organisations also offer apprenticeships at this age. BAe, RR, McLaren and the Armed Forces are known personally to me in this area. All the technicians and engineers in these firms will use and therefore must know how to use logarithms. Therefore to me I cannot see why, just because we have calculators, that logarithms were dropped from pre-16's education. And I have also worked in places where all personal electronic devices are banned, including electrical powered watches. For the safety of the equipment and personnel, and for security. Try taking your phone into a company that chooses to keep things secret from it's competitors. In a lot of cases this is the preferred route rather than patents. Because with patents you have to tell the world what you know, and they also have a lifespan. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Good post Chris. IMV, I think the issue is "timescale". If I recall (correct me if I'm mistaken Es), Es made a point some time ago with regards the learning ability of kids - some can grasp immediately whle others require a bit more repetition. In the past, teaching was set to a specific timetable & if the class had reached that sooner than later, it was constantly repeated. This was an issue as many kids ended up bored & that in itself, caused further issues in that the bored ended up disrupting the rest of the class. Another issue in the past was sports. 2 full afternoons were dedicated to various sports with the sports teachers using those who disliked it to make up the numbers. In my case it was rugby. now that is a game I like watching but an 8 stone bag of bones playing it? 2 days a week my mates & I bunked off (truancy). That came to a stop when a particular teacher took us in hand & eventually he arranged for us to take his as well as other classes when sports days arrived. More recently I completed several courses of interest to me. The problem here was that (it semed to me) that there was a deadline to be met & the course was set at a fast pace, with the teacher being "upset" (not sure of the correct term to use here) with the schedule being delayed. I can see that teachers do have a hard time whichever way one looks at the problem, but I must say that politicians have got to get the hell out of Education. With the right teachers even unruly kids can be changed. Instead of doing sports, I ended up taking Music, Latin, Geography & German. I'm ashamed to say I cannot remember the names of the Geography & German teachers but the Music & Latin were Mr Hotham & Mr Martin (Hev might recall them) I owe my love of music to Mr Hotham, especially classical. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
The problem as I see it with the old system of 3 hour exams is that in most cases the students did get enough practice throughout their school career. It was something that suddenly appeared in their final year. It was a problem that seemed to go away at the Army College because you kept seeing them term upon term. Thats because as an electronics technical apprentice you could see in the three year period, three levels of Army education exams, min 5 subjects "O" levels "A" levels Military training exams, like Military Law, Tactics etc. Military trade exams, C & G exams National Cert/Diploma exams That totalled was about 60 exams of at least 2 hours each. I like the idea of course work, but why do I get the idea that sometimes the teachers may have too much input before the work has to be handed in finally. And how much can the marks awarded affected by the student/teacher relationship? I'm not sure I like group work especially when there can be a fairly large difference in the abilities of the students. I have seen where the better student has got frustrated because of the lack of understanding and lack of input from a weak student. I have trouble with module work where the exam for that module is taken immediately at the end of the module. The majority of students end up not remembering enough of the subject one year down the road when they start having to apply it. With the final year exam there was a good chance they had been forced to put it in long term memory. And don't get me going on multiple choice exams. Lets just put it this way, I have a long time friend who has a fairly recent partner who teaches a subject I have never studied. I sat one of the exams in their kitchen one Sunday morning and got 76%, enough for a "B" pass. |
Ex: "Socialist" Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 3433 Credit: 2,616,158 RAC: 2 |
I know people who run small businesses who wont employ anyone under 21, and are even wary of those under 30. And I don't blame them one bit! I can agree here. My peers and those younger than me seem to be largely unemployable (The reasons are many and it's an issue that goes far beyond education). I also remember how hard it was landing my first real jobs, due to my age. I haven't job-searched since I was 18 however and expect I'd have better luck now in my 30's. But it really is something, everyone talks about the economy and lack of jobs, yet we have some jobs at my company and have trouble finding proper help, I still have little job competition even today. And this is factory work I'm talking about here. Many young Americans do not possess the skills or motivation necessary for even simple math and some hard work. Where's that mean the future is heading? #resist |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30640 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Where's that mean the future is heading? Put me in front of the telly and send me my check, I'm entitled! |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
I feel you have missed a point or two here. The linked article was about 16 to 18 year olds applying for a fairly prodigious apprenticeship. That to me looks like those not wishing to go on through the "A" level system. I never put a value judgement in my post about what I thought of this, I just gave reasons for the discrepancy. I didn't miss a point, my point was that times have changed, the GCSE was designed (and constantly re-designed every. damn. year.) to be a one size fits all exam. You can't really compare it completely with the old 'O' level because the two were quite different. The questions were about standards. I am not sure if the standards are better or worse. I do know they are different and designed for different times. Your point is valid that there are instances that we must know how to work without a calculator. However, is that actually necessary for the general population? Such industry specific skills should maybe be taught as part of that apprenticeship now. Times change. Needs change. It's not the 1960s now. I am quite sure that when you studied science there was no part of the syllabus on digital technology. Well there is now. Reality Internet Personality |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
. As you probably should. These exams are aimed at 16 year olds. Right now I am doing a university level philosophy of education course. Most of my fellow students are in there early 20s. I feel at a huge advantage because I know stuff. Stuff I certainly didn't know when I was in my early 20s. Reality Internet Personality |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
I know people who run small businesses who wont employ anyone under 21, and are even wary of those under 30. And I don't blame them one bit! I understood that that no one wants to employ that generation because there is a lack of work ethic and a sense of entitlement. I've even had run ins here in Canada with students who don't understand why I get upset when they turn up late, wander in and out of class and try to use their phones in class. They actually seem genuinely surprised that I consider these behaviours extremely poor manners. These are 18 to 20 year olds who should know better. Reality Internet Personality |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Where's that mean the future is heading? Another problem which is mainly due to the Digital Age we live & that's easy access without understanding. Everything must work straight away, even the simplist things must work & when they don't, panic sets in without any thought of Why? Case in point: - My mobile rang at 21:27 last night. Their desktop kept rebooting & a fairly large print run had to be done for return to university today. It took 31 minutes to talk them through connecting a USB Printer Cable & using Add a Printer to their laptop. They still didn't get it right so received a call very early this morning with a request to come & fix it. Done that & gave them a nice invoice. This was a university law student & it's not the only case of this i've come across. This makes me despair. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
So how do you explain the differences in the strength of earthquakes like the one you have just had, without knowledge of Logs? At the moment over 80% of the school leaving population will not understand because they don't do "A" level maths. Or sound differences. And how will they know what the figures mean on a hifi amp, such as Frequency response, max noise level, channel separation all expressed in dB. Edit] Digital technology, well that was trade related, so 1962. So not a fair answer. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
So how do you explain the differences in the strength of earthquakes like the one you have just had, without knowledge of Logs? While arithmetic with log may not be part of GCSE, it may be that exponential rates of change are (like a graph of y = x^2). The principle is essentially the same. Knowing that dB uses a base 10 logarithmic scale as it's basis, is not helpful when trying to understand the details of the scale without additional information. An increase of 3 dB is not equal to an increase by a multiple of 1000 of anything, as dB is computed as 10xlog(power ratio), which makes an increase of 3 dB equivalent to about a doubling of the power ratio, which in itself is pretty meaningless without an understanding that IIRC the human ear has trouble discerning broad spectrum changes of less than 2dB. Conversely, the Richter scale is a straight base 10 logarithmic scale, so an increase of .3 is equivalent to about a doubling of the energy. What percentage of any given population finds such details useful in their day to day activity I have no idea. The good news is that it's all out there on the internet ready for anybody with an interest to look it up. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
So how do you explain the differences in the strength of earthquakes like the one you have just had, without knowledge of Logs? Those things are on the GCSE science syllabus if that helps, so they should be aware of the idea of a logarithmic scale, they just can't manipulate logs. Here, this TES article from 2009 might throw some more light on the matter: Myth: Standards rise is just exams getting easier * In 1959, around 9 per cent of 16-year-olds got five or more O-levels. In 2009, the proportion gaining five or more GCSEs was 70 per cent. I wonder if a lot of this debate is due to selective memory? For example, I remember that the music back in the 70s used to be way better than the crap they have in the charts today. I am sure most of you would agree! However, last summer we went on a 6 hours drive to visit relatives and mr99 had downloaded all the actual chart hits from the entire 1970s to listen to in our journey. "What a treat!" you might think, "finally, we can bathe our ears in some quality music performed in a much better time when music was clearly of a higher standard!" 6 hours of the most awful, awful soul destroying pap. Songs I had wilfully forgotten had ever been written and hope to never listen to again. I think we wore out the skip button on the car radio in between moments of WTF was that? There were a few songs of notable quality that you could probably name for me now, but I am sure like me, you've forgotten the reality of how awful most of the music was in the 70s. So the question is, are standards really any different and can one quick math test even hope to settle that question? Reality Internet Personality |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
A recent survey showed that most 55- to 65-year-olds lack the maths skills expected of a nine-year-old today. +1 |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30640 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
However, last summer we went on a 6 hours drive to visit relatives and mr99 had downloaded all the actual chart hits from the entire 1970s to listen to in our journey. "What a treat!" you might think, "finally, we can bathe our ears in some quality music performed in a much better time when music was clearly of a higher standard!" Disco Duck |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
Myths; In 1959, around 9 per cent of 16-year-olds got five or more O-levels. In 2009, the proportion gaining five or more GCSEs was 70 per cent. Unfair comparison, as most kids, at least 80%, went to secondary modern schools and left at 15, so never even got entered for exam. Plus as noted before, by several people, the examination system was different. How many would pass today if it was a single 3 hour exam and the results were normalised, as they were then. edit] A recent survey showed that most 55- to 65-year-olds lack the maths skills expected of a nine-year-old today. That could be down to methods and terminology. A complaint I recently saw for an over 50's maths module was they didn't understand the terminology. They did know how to do the problems when translated into their maths language. Think mean and average, etc. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
Those things are on the GCSE science syllabus if that helps, so they should be aware of the idea of a logarithmic scale, they just can't manipulate logs. So now they are teaching things in science before the students have gained the required maths. Does not look good from my perspective. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.