Project Maths doesn’t quite add up

The first Leaving Cert papers to test Project Maths failed to make the grade, says Brendan O’Sullivan

There was a lot of unhappiness expressed by teachers over the new-style Project Maths papers on Monday.

In terms of the ordinary level exam, I have heard repeated reference to the issues of language and time. Students found the language very difficult on ordinary level Paper 2 and not reflective of the sample paper.

Teachers are afraid the paper is very much geared against students whose first language is not English and those who have difficulties such as dyslexia. They referred to the paper as “English Paper 3”.

Students found it difficult to operate with the new layout. Unlike traditional papers, the questions now fall on a number of pages, requiring students to flick back and forth, which makes it difficult to maintain accuracy.

They now have to write into grids rather than the traditional answer books. They have reported finding these difficult to write on and feeling constrained when it comes to putting down their answer. This has contributed to a deterioration in the presentation of the students’ work, and it is not helping them present their work in a clear and logical fashion.

Certain questions did not include enough space for each of the answers. Teachers are particularly worried about the structure of the paper and wonder if it is inappropriate. A large proportion of the marks focused on just two application questions, which assess a narrow part of the curriculum.

At higher level, the balance in the allocation of marks again caused concern. Question 3 was far more difficult than questions 1 and 2, yet all three questions carried the same 25 marks. While question 8 was far more difficult than question 7, they are both worth 75 marks. Question 3 was on the topic of the circle, which was already examined in question 2: If a student was weak in the area of the circle then they were particularly punished for it.

There was no “scaffolding” in this particular question, which teachers felt was promised, to help students in getting started. Very many of them lost precious time with futile efforts in trying to come to grips with the question.

The question on the robotic arm seemed to be biased towards those that study Physics or Applied Maths.

There is also a negative report coming from the 24 pilot schools who are in phase 3 of Project Maths and where students sat a different Paper 1 to the rest of the country. Students at higher and ordinary level in the pilot schools were happier with Paper 2 (which was the same as the rest of the country) than with Paper 1.

At ordinary level, students found the language and timing a major difficulty. Teachers are worried that if you can’t get the first part of a context question, then you can’t do the remainder.

The higher level pilot school Paper 1 was described as being too long in terms of its content. Question 2 in particular was found to be very difficult, as students were very unfamiliar with the material. Question 8 accounted for a quarter of the paper, yet most students were only able to attempt the very first part successfully as it was far too demanding in terms of its content.

Over the past two years, teachers and students have been working on a course where there has been a degree of uncertainty over what to cover and whether or not it has been covered adequately. Our members have been trying out different resources, attempting new methodologies and working around the clock to achieve the goals of Project Maths.

They are happy to see an increase in the numbers sitting higher level maths but want their students to feel confident and comfortable when sitting the examination.

* Brendan O’Sullivan is national secretary of the Irish Mathematics Teachers Association, secretary of the IMTA Cork branch, and a teacher at Bruce College, Cork.