The Evolution Of Teaching Maths

[dave50]

This is taken from a columnist in the Daily Express. I thought it was rather amusing but probably true to some degree.

Teaching maths in the 1950s: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for £100. His cost of production is four-fifths of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching maths in the 1980s: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for £100. His cost of production is £80. Did he make a profit? Teaching maths today: A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of £20. What do you think of this way of making a living?

Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers and if you feel like crying it’s OK).

[factor-fiction]

I think I mustn't have a sense of humour dave50 because I always want to give someone a current GCSE Maths paper - i think people would be surprised at how things have gone back to how they used to be, with wordy questions now, multi-step calculations needed- and none of the multiple choice questions we got

[dannyk13]

Does that mean no calculators and pupils needing to learn their x tables?

[factor-fiction]

We had log tables. And yes, there is a non-calculator paper

[dannyk13]

A step in the right direction then.

[jim360]

There's been a non-calculator paper for years. Decades, even. At least some of the stories about modern GCSE papers are exaggerations. A shame, because I can see that standards have changes and that modern papers are in some sense "easier". Part of this, though, is because the required skills are different. No-one needs to learn log tables or slide rules these days.

[Peter Pedant]

FF may have suffered complete sense of humour failure
but I thought it was OK

as a consumer of education ) OK on behalf of your children ) you are quite entitleed to say that there is somehting lacking and it needs to be improved

[factor-fiction]

> A step in the right direction then.


Actually, there has always been a non-calculator paper for as long as I can remember. However I would agree that knowledge of multiplication tables is sadly lacking

Here's one from the current exam format. It hasn't really changed much in 40 years

A water tank is a cylinder with radius 40 cm and depth 150 cm
It is filled at the rate of 0.2 litres per second.
1 litre = 1000 cm3
Does it take longer than 1 hour to fill the tank?
You must show your working.
[4 marks]

[factor-fiction]

My students would say the 1950 question was rather straightforward when compared with the following current AQA GCSE question:

Sophie sells birthday cards.
She adds 30% profit to the cost price.
She sells the cards for £2.34 each.
She wants to increase her profit to 40% of the cost price.
How much should she sell each card for?
[3 marks]

[New Judge]

GCSE question? That's mental arithmetic, factor !!! It's the sort of thing I did at primary school.

£2.34 is 130% of the cost price. So 10% of the cost price is 18p (£2.34 is conveniently divisible by 13). 100% of the cost price is therefore £1.80. 40% of £1.80 is 72p. New selling price (with 40% profit) is £2.52.

You would not have gained three marks for a question like that in my Maths 'O' Level paper. If that's a GCSE question no wonder they all come away with 25 A* passes !!!

[factor-fiction]

Okay.

[factor-fiction]

>You would not have gained three marks for a question like that in my Maths 'O' Level paper.

To comment on the number of marks given for a question you'd need to know the total number of marks in the exam, wouldn't you, NJ? You haven't asked me that

[jim360]

There seems to be three marks' worth of material there to me, NJ, in a typical paper. Although there's nothing particularly tricky to the question there remains a surprising amount of material.

[factor-fiction]

These things are always easy when you can do them, NewJudge, but as we see from posts on here asking how to calculate annual interest at 1.5% pa on £500, may people struggle.

One of the challenges of being a teacher is accepting that something like this that seems like simple arithmetic to you (who would no doubt achieve more than 25 A* grades) or me will seem like an extremely complex problem to most pupils.

Perhaps I should clarify that I wasn't claiming this was a particularly tough problem- I was just trying to show that current questions can be tougher than any of those in the amusing article.

[New Judge]

I probably did not make my point too well, factor.

The number of marks is immaterial. A problem such as this would not have formed part of my GCE 'O' Level exam (though it might have formed part of my "eleven plus"). It was that which I was really trying to point out. I know some people have difficulty with what others consider fairly simple arithmetic and all questions are easy if you know the answers or, in this case, can do the calculations.

However, when I sat my 'O' Levels somebody who could not perform these calculations would not have got near to even sitting the exam let alone passing it. This question is about the evolution of teaching. If this is a typical question from a typical paper for sixteen year olds then I'm afraid the expectations that schools have of their pupils have somewhat declined since I was at school.

[factor-fiction]

Maybe you'd enjoy the challenge of doing some mentoring with pupils, NJ.

[pixie373]

We were the 2nd year who did GCSEs, so only had O Level practice papers. Actually - very little difference in difficulty. They had easier and harder questions on both- and the only difference with my children doing them now- is that a few of the methods have changed. And yes - they still have to learn all the times tables before they finish primary school- they start them at preschool.

[jourdain2]

I have to support NJ - you cited the sort of problem we did at 11+ in the late '50s. We also had to be able to work in cwts., stones, lbs. and oz. and all the other Imperial measures - not only addition but multiplication etc..

I thought I was lousy at maths, but when invigilating GCSE papers I found that I could easily get a C grade pass - and that was without attempting things such as vectors, which seem to be particularly useless in everyday life.

There used to be a very good CSE Arithmetic paper, very practical maths such as areas, percentages etc. - but suddenly everyone had to be able to pass the same exam and Maths. took over from Arithmetic, really useful stuff.

[pixie373]

C is supposed to be the average for 15/16 year olds. I imagine the majority of adults would get an A.

[jourdain2]

OK Pixie, but I am someone, self-confessedly not a mathematician, untaught in modern maths, dredging up basics taught when I was very young and I can still get a decent pass at GCSE. I failed 'O' level first time and slogged like mad to get the lowest grade pass second-time-around, so I think that my observation is worthy of note.

[jim360]

The idea of splitting off "arithmetic" as a separate subject (which I think would be a return to how it used to be) is, I think, a good one. You could then have them taught in separate classes and the new maths course could focus more on what maths is actually about for those who are interested.