Ext math bad judge of ability (1 Viewer)

[Zeech]

Both Extension 1 and 2 maths are such poor courses it pisses me off to no end. Neither of the courses are able to assess a students ability, intelect, or mahematical understanding. Both of the subjects ony show marks somewhat proportional to time and effort, if that.

3U, and especially 4U maths are nothing more than a memory test. I didnt do as well as others (around 85% for both) im sure for the sole reason that i have a poor memory, and found it difficult to retain the mothod needed to solve the questions.

If i got a yr4 kid with a good memory and told him stuff like "When they ask you to prove by induction demoivre's theorum, then just write this" and a hundred other similar things, then i could send him in an he would do great, despite the fact that he has absolutely no understanding of the maths involved. All he's have to do is remember.

There are many people that brag about extension courses, and many people see respect in one's ability to do 4U. But i think it's nothing.

It's just an overscaled memory test.(IMHO)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Sourie]

ps. you are dumb!

 

[spice girl]

pff...

Some people use their memories to get through high school maths, be it extension or not, and some people use their maths skills. Depends which one works out better for them. But if you think maths isn't a good indication of skill because u think it's all memorywork, it means you don't do science, which is CHRONICALLY WORSE, or you're upset people beat you because they bother to remember stuff.

HSC's is quite proportionally learning and part of learning is memory work. I don't like it either, but unfortunately it's not a talent quest.

 

[Sourie]

ps. stop whining fool.....there is no damn memorisation...you have to be bloody able to apply things, not just be like you who thinks they can just do those crappy questions form the text book and think your smart!!

mate...your not ok!!!

 

[Zeech]

man your fucked! You have to be able to aply things? Conceptually extension maths is not difficult. This is because there is little application of it. When aplied maths is used (physics), people are forced into understanding to be able to do the questions. It's dumbass wanabee's like YOU Sourie who go into a 4u maths test thinking they understand mathematical conceps, and just end up pulling out textbook responses. An understanding of maths and the manipulation of logic will only give you a modeate/low ability to perform in the extension courses. These courses only give an individual either a very small insight into the concepts that they are dealing with and then expect them to learn textbook methods(i.e complex No's) or they give you total understanding and the application is poor (i.e Conics).

i think Spice girl has it right that it's alot of memory work, and is unproportional to any true understanding involved (and therefore ability to manipulate that understanding [logic]). By starving the students of the application of the logic and feeding them the methods, they arent doing what in the best interest of the students.

p.s saying that is lame

ps. you are dumb!

p.p.s i do Physics and Chem, and imho hsc isnt a beat/get beaten situation

 

[spice girl]

Sourie,

You seem to enjoy saying how dumb other people are, and how dumb the BOS and the HSC is. Are you just trying to sound smart by saying that others are dumb?

If so, let me advise you that it's not working (on me, at least), and that people who get cheap thrills from stepping on other people's toes, aren't that smart, because sounding like a dick isn't the next best thing to sounding like a genius.

If you want to be (or sound) smart, try saying something helpful? Saying crap like: "you are dumb" isn't saying something substantial.

Sorry, I just have this intense hatred of people who think they know it all.

 

[macca202]

I didnt do as well as others (around 85% for both)

hold up, 85%? ahh thats good for both, way better than most, actually its ausome for 4U unit maths!!!!
unless you mean alligned mark, not raw, which sil makes thoses marks reasonable,.
I'l set up a 3Unit POLL to vote toyr estimated raw marks for 3 unit........ VOTE

 

[drolle]

have you seen year 4 maths students these days? you probably couldn't get them to remember the area of a rectangle, let alone a complex proof!

and I've never had any trouble 'getting' myself to remember things, it just goes in and comes out when I need it. It's not about how much you try to force yourself to learn or how much study you do (I've never more than a couple hours study per exam and I've done quite fine), the key is in your *attitude* to learning, you have to have a 24 hour a day commitment to allowing the knowledge to become an integral part of your thinking. For me this means having my head in the clouds a lot, but it's a lot of fun and extremely easy (in fact I refuse to do any learning that isn't fun for me)

also, remember the HSC is not the most important thing in life so if you didn't do well in an exam it's not the end of the world

 

[Weyoun]

I don't find either course an overdeveloped memory test at all... infact, it's quite the opposite. Spice Girl raised a valid point about science. Often, the theory used to describe a particular behavioural pattern is too complex to use in an exam situation, so we simply remember it - I respect that, it's why we have periodic tables of elements, standard integrals and standard potential lists. At least with maths no given proof is explicit - it can be proven from first principles at any time. I often forget the equation for Newton's method of approximation, but derive it in a few seconds easily because I knew where it came from. You'll find that the more you understand something, the less you have to resort to memorisation and the more you exploit logical syllogism. I approach physics and chemistry in the same way: lenz's law is merely an extension of faraday's law, instead with the conservation of energy being applied. In essense, it uses the same logic, and is thus the same theory.

 

[Zeech]

Yes that is right about science! I was meaning that i would expect more of that type of understanding and logic be able to be aplied to maths (particularly extension). Ive heard many smart people say that maths is the most logic of all languages. Shouldnt we be able to exploit this logic, and use it? For maths i have relied soley on this, but whats being proven, to me at least, is that logic is not required for good marks in extension. As you say about newtons method, I too use first principles in almost all of the questions i do (esp conic sections tangents etc) but there are some questions in the paper (and their respctive concepts) that just arent explained thurroughly with the course, and depent on furthur study (uni etc) to gain a total understanding. It is because of this, that people who do the memory style are able to gain more marks than those who rely on an understanding and syllogistic logic.

Drolle's "Attitude" seems a good idea to be taken in this context, but i think it's a bit lucky for you to have such a in/out memory system hapening

I supose that when it comes to the crunch, the corriculum, and specifically the extension syllabus's need to cater for all of the candature.

 

[BlackJack]

ahh... Sourie... always going to be Sourie...

I do agree that these exam's don't really give good gauge of students' abilities, but don't complain too much... BOS has no other way, economically, to assess the studnet's abilities. Despite everything, this one test must determine marks.
They couldn't ask everyone the questions people ask in UNSW Schools Maths competitions... Now THAT's testing logic and ingenuity. (neither of which I have much of)

I like figuring it out too. Like there is mostly just a^2 + b^2 >= 2ab in inequailites and the motor effect in physics. All's well with the world ...

But then you're listening to one who not interested in marks nor rank.

 

[Weyoun]

That raises another question - what is the primary outcome of the syllabus? To test our understanding of these concepts, or the ability to answer specific questions? Depending on the case, either method of approaching mathematics is acceptable. While I most certainly wish that there was a way assess only logical understanding, I don't think it is possible by using written examinations - they always play on our ability to answer specific questions which, while supposedly assessing our understanding of the concepts, also tests other abilities. I don't have an objection with the course, but rather the method of assessment. Surely there must be a better approach.

 

[Halba]

its about knowing how to apply certain things in different situations. As for memory i;m sure u knew all ure formulas so stop bitchin

A 3unit student (75%-80% estimate)

 

[spice girl]

There's a neat way and a dodgy way to use memory (in maths at least)

The neat way (IMHO) is to memorise (i rather the term "learn") the various methods to solve 3u and 4u problems. That way, you're not remembering any crap, so you're not wasting time in your studies, and since the syllabus specifies types of problems they can ask, you'll always be prepared. The thing is to learn how to do problems similar to ones you've done before.

The dodgy way is to cram. You don't learn anything, as Zeech said.

Anyway, why am I talking about how to study for the maths exam, when it's already over?

As for science, they're assessing how well we "communicate ideas". The way they set off into assessing that is to give us a whole shitload of complex ideas to "memorise", and ask us to regurgitate some of it in the exam. Seriously, if we write more in the science exams than in the english exams, there's something wrong with the system.

 

[Zeech]

As Blackjack said, I think that the method of assessment is the onlyway to economically create a rank. It would be unfeasable to carry out individual peer to peer examinations, and besides, any examination as such (oral etc) would be just as easy to memorise, and the results would vary from examiner to examiner even more so than current. A better way of assessing the students would be excellent, but would the cost of creating a better system, an assessment system targeted at recognising the students ability to think rather than what they can remember, justify it's result?

i dont think i could create such a system.

EDIT:
Spice girl: The method of learning the procedure to aproach a question is totally different to learning the textbook methods. When learning a procedure, a thurough understanding of maths is needed so that a student can deal with alterations in the question. Just learning textbook methods covers every variation that is plausable, without "learning" anything about the cconceptual or logic area of maths.

I would agree that the first is good, and in a way superior for the inetests of the student, but im not sure exactly how many students have taken that first aproach over the second.

 

[Weyoun]

SpiceGirl, That's exactly my beef with the science syllabus. Why should 'communication' of ideas be the primary assessment criterion? There is so much MORE to science than communication. Yes, I can acknowledge that scientists possess notoriously bad communication skills (myself included), but isn't that something that the english syllabus and the school system should address? This problem doesn't belong only to science.

I totally agree with you Zeech. If only scientists could create a method of assessing the individual brain structure of a student to determine their true capability and orrientation.... There would be no need for 'final exams', as progress could be continuously monitored. This method would also remove any potential for communication error and exam 'cheating', since it would give a direct and complete analysis of the way your mind works.

Ahh, I love physics

 

[BlackJack]

Originally posted by Weyoun
That raises another question - what is the primary outcome of the syllabus? To test our understanding of these concepts, or the ability to answer specific questions? Depending on the case, either method of approaching mathematics is acceptable.

I do think there's a better approach, and I have actually made a little hypothesis on how to implement a better assessment method... But it's too radical to use with the BOS... there's other concerns, from textbook manufacturers and stuff... many slammed the BOS for even coming up with the syllabus we're doing, and that's just adding content.
*To improve method of assessment: HSC, then make a completely new system based on relevance to world* (don't misinterpret this, Ive retained a new article on how they're trialling a new education sytem somewhere)
On the other hand, I honestly don't know how they could test our understandings of the concepts with a piece of paper. The paper's two-dimensional, while we're three, allegorically speaking...

 

[nakata]

the best students in school and those that get the best marks for the HSC are usually those that know the concepts, including formulas and stuff, and more importantly understand how they come into action, ie. understand not only what the concepts are, but also to apply them to different situations. It does however, require memorization for some things, even for forumlas, as it is impossible to understand how some forumals are derived (they too complicated). However, many students, say in physics, who are weak in the subject, like i am, tend to memorize certain slabs of information, even though i dont have any idea wats goin on, whereas, stronger physics students, who know the concepts, dont really need to remember slabs, they can basically 'explain' it in their own words. I think however, maths requires less memorisation of formulas and stuff, and more understanding on the applications of formulas. As it isnt really a writing task.

It all comes down to how well you understand the stuff in the syllabus. If you move towards memorising stuff, then it basically shows that you havent grasped the full understanding of wateva it is. And this basically goes for alot of students out there.

BUT, with our system of tests, memorising does prove to be effective, and will give you the marks, although it is harder then those who have actual understanding of the concepts.

 

[Zeech]

I dont thik so. imho, the people that do well at my school are brickwits that just memorise the work like some kind of card game. The people that, as you say, know the concepts, like myself and others in my class, are ususally the ones that get bogus marks (lower than what should be expected) despite out advanced understanding of the concepts, contexts, and situations involved. this is especially true for Ext maths, and physics. One kid in my class (who hapened to come first) had memorised what to do, and when i asked him to rearrange the formula to make x the subject, he was like "huh?". he had no understanding of "WHY" we were able to rearange the formula, and just knew that he could do it "Like this" as if he was redrawing a picture from his head.

Although this guy was in physics, he is a paradigm for others in my ext1 and 2 classes. Ask the no1 student in my ext2 maths class about the physical aplication of resisted motion and they'd be lost. Ask them how to write out the answer and they're 100%.

This type of visible lack of understanding is what makes me asume that memory is all that is needed to do well on the exam, and not the ability to understand and evaluate.

 

[Zeech]

I agree Bon. I think youve hit the nail on the head there man.