Carole Vordeman just told me. Does she relise she's a puppet I wonder?
what are they rubbish at?
As was your English teacher apparently 🙂
teaching maths Ms Vordeman has better ideas about how to do it apprently.
As was your English teacher apparently
nope I am happy to take the responsibility for being shit at english myself!!
Fair enough 🙂
teaching maths Ms Vordeman has better ideas about how to do it apprently.
I'd be inclined t agree with her*. I'm happy to accept someone's opinion on how to do something if they're bloody good at it themselves and have years of qualifications & experience.
(*assuming it is actually her opinion and she's not just regurgitating propaganda for some group or other)
I'm happy to accept someone's opinion on how to do something if they're bloody good at it themselves and have years of qualifications & experience
I don't doubt Vorderman's good at sums but I didn't know she was a qualified and experienced teacher.
because simon scharma made such a good history teacher didnt he!!!
being good at something doesnt mean you know how to teach it
I'm happy to accept someone's opinion on how to do something if they're bloody good at it themselves and have years of qualifications & experience.
Well that's not really a description of Ms Vorderman. She has an Engineering degree (and not a very good one at that) and as far as I'm aware has never worked as a teacher.
That's not to say she isn't correct and that I don't think there is problem with the level of mathematics in this country.
While her powers of mental arithmetic were used to great effect on the popular programme Countdown, I feel she ought to stick to hawking funny butter and dodgy loans.
Didn't she get a third ?
just saw the news item again and apprently it was a report for the tories, so she does know she's a puppet I suppose. Nice timing re industrial action etc
I 'spect half the ishoo is 'rents being crap 'rents meself, they cayn't be bovvered.
But that's almost the exact opposite of what she actually said. Which was that the focus on none everyday maths in the current curriculum is to the detriment of day to day numeracy for many pupils. She deliberately refused to criticise teachers as they were only teaching what was put in front of then.
Still, don't let that stop you fueling the outrage bus...
As implied above, I'm not sure what qualifies her for this. She's no mathematician, she's not a teacher, has no experience in education management and has a couple of slightly off-colour endorsements to her name.
Her qualifications seem to consist of having a skill at mental arithmetic, and of being a media personality.
anagallis_arvensis - Member
because simon scharma made such a good history teacher didnt he!!!being good at something doesnt mean you know how to teach it
Not the same thing at all: Schama was a very good university teacher and an excellent academic historian before he sold his soul to television. Vorderman isn't in the same league.
She chaired a group that was reviewing Maths education in England and Wales and they have come up with some suggestions. She was obviously asked as a result of her celebrity and the fact that people conflate her mental arithmatic skill with Maths. It isn't some random statement that she's made and from what little I heard on the Today program this morning a lot of what she said makes sense.
Didn't she get a third
Don't need a good degree to then become a good teacher, or in fact a good anything.
Our best maths teacher at 6th form had a 3rd - whereas our main teacher had been a professional statistician and was useless.
Nice arse though.
But that's almost the exact opposite of what she actually said...
Surely you're not suggesting the media would quote someone out of context or use selective reporting ? That's outrageous.
two facts about teaching,
1. the person down the pub always knows how to teach better
2. the "good old days" of education were always better
She chaired a group that was reviewing Maths education in England and Wales and they have come up with some suggestions.
whilst being totally unqualified for it
Go on anagallis, go on TV and challenge her to a maths duel
teaching maths Ms Vordeman has better ideas about how to do it apprently.
She didn't actually say that, see what you've done there you've put 2 and 2 together and made 5..
why do we need a "celebrity" fronting everything nowadays? Does nothing have merit unless it has a A/B/Z-lister to present it?whilst being totally unqualified for it
What she actually said was that maths assessment needed changing, not the teaching. Basically, the working party want to change the examination system for the subject.
That's not too contentious, is it?
he interview she did on raidio this morning she stated 17% are doing fine at math the other 85% are struggling, think she might need to look closer to home B4 talking to the nation.........
I think the A level course is very good, as is the further A level course, they cover a wide range and go into a good amount of depth.
The GCSE is very basic, but it does prepare you enough for A level. The main problem with GCSE is that it's quite basic as everyone needs to be able to do it. If you made it harder, you could teach more, but why? It would only benefit those who aren't going to do the A level course, unless you increase the difficulty of that as well, which in turn will only benefit those who don't do a degree that involves a level of maths.
I don't think there's a massive problem with the structure at the moment, or the teaching (although I only have a relatively small sample of teachers to go on). What I think would help the most is smaller class sizes. 20-30 is too big for one teacher. To see the most improvements I think you need classes no bigger then 15. But that's easier said then done, of course.
Apparently 49.9% of school children are below average at maths. That is a national scandal...
Don't need a good degree to then become a good teacher, or in fact a good anything.
Yeah, but there are moves to make a 2:2 a basic requirement and some universities are becoming even more selective
What I think would help the most is smaller class sizes. 20-30 is too big for one teacher. To see the most improvements I think you need classes no bigger then 15.
That's not what the research evidence says.
Go on anagallis, go on TV and challenge her to a maths duel
And what would that prove about her ability to spout off and chair workig groups on teaching, I know more about teaching than her.
If anyone wants to actually read the report it is here: http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2011/08/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Vorderman%20maths%20report.ashx
CharlieMungus - Member
Don't need a good degree to then become a good teacher, or in fact a good anything.
Yeah, but there are moves to make a 2:2 a basic requirement and some universities are becoming even more selective
The students i teach who want to apply for PGCEs have been told they need 2:1s to get on the courses because either this is the grade set by the uni offering the course, or because competition is high enough universities can pick who they want.
Did anyone at your place bid for the ESRC innovative quantitative teaching call?
Yeah, but there are moves to make a 2:2 a basic requirement and some universities are becoming even more selective
mistake - it would be better to assess based on ability to teach and hold kids attention and respect.
ironically the head teacher interviewed on the bbc said teachers needed more training in primary school maths? WTF.. so you go through school until your 18 get a degree but cant manage primary school maths? what are we doing wrong. 2+2 = answers on a post card.
primary school teachers, well some of them anyway, do not have a fundamental understanding of all mathematics, this creates misconceptions which the children consider to be true, secondary maths teachers have to undo these misconceptions and reteach the maths, this is very difficult as they have to understand the maths themselves to a very deep level and identify the misconception which can be different in every child, before they even begin to teach new maths,
e.g. try explaining why "two minuses" is a "plus"
also you can become a maths teacher without a maths related degree and without an a-level in maths,
also you can become a maths teacher without a maths related degree and without an a-level in maths,
My maths teacher at GCSE only got a C in her GCSE maths, she was quite good though.
ironically the head teacher interviewed on the bbc said teachers needed more training in primary school maths? WTF.. so you go through school until your 18 get a degree but cant manage primary school maths? what are we doing wrong. 2+2 = answers on a post card.
I think it's more about how hard it is to teach something so basic, especially something you take so much for granted. You might think there just having a problem with multiplication, when in reality they've forgotten what number comes after eleven.
I've often thought maths could be taught much better, as could science. It's taught by sciency/mathy people with the assumption that if you don't get it, you're just not good at it.
However I firmly believe that MOST people would get it if it was taught in a way that made sense to them. Many people who think they don't have an aptitude for maths simply don't have an aptitude for maths [i]taught in the traditional way[/i].
Some of my mates at school were in the bottom sets. They'd not know what was going on in the lessons we did share, so afterwards I'd explain to them in a way that I knew they'd latch on to and they got it.
2+2 = answers on a post card
Well, that really very much depends on what you are adding doesn't it. Maths is just a model which attempts to explain the real world, it's not real and there are no truths.
So.. real numbers are not real?
And the imaginary plane should actually contain everything?
Maths is just a model which attempts to explain the real world
You seem to be confusing maths and physics.
Physics is just applied maths.
Maths is just a model which attempts to explain the real world
You seem to be confusing maths and physics.
I'm not, but now I'm wondering why you think I am
So.. real numbers are not real?
Well, they are just a representation, they are not a 'thing' in themselves
I'm not, but now I'm wondering why you think I am
Why do you think I'd think that? It's a pretty simple bit of text to parse, physics is an attempt to model the real world, maths isn't.
Why do you think I'd think that?
erm, because you said it seemed i was confusing the tow
physics is an attempt to model the real world, maths isn't
oh yes it is
Oh no it isn't. etc.
well, one and two don't exist in themselves, we use them to represent quantities which we see in the real (or theoretical) world. Mathematical 'truths' are not really true, as they don't always apply
You are contradicting yourself. 1+1=2 as a mathematical statement is axiomatically true (depending on your axioms). You are quite right that the numbers don't exist in themselves, but they are explicitly not an attempt to model anything real.
You are contradicting yourself.
where?
1+1=2 as a mathematical statement is axiomatically true
well, if you call it an axiom of course it has to be 'true' however it fails to represent what happens in the real world where adding one thing to another of the same does not always give you two of those things
but they are explicitly not an attempt to model anything real
Ok... what are we using them for then?
maths qualifications are just for getting into uni, got some pretty good ones and I don't think they've ever helped me get a job.
well, if you call it an axiom of course it has to be 'true' however it fails to represent what happens in the real world where adding one thing to another of the same does not always give you two of those things
Exactly, because it has nothing to do with the real world. It's a formal system.
Ok... what are we using them for then?
See previous comment regarding physics.
Exactly, because it has nothing to do with the real world. It's a formal system
Can we not use 1+1=2 in any way to help us in the real world?
Ok, so you think counting is physics?
Ok, so you think counting is physics?
No it's an example. Of course you can use mathematics for a multitide of different things, that doesn't make mathematics a model of the real world though.
Of course you can use mathematics for a multitide of different things, that doesn't make mathematics a model of the real world
though
I don't think that is what I said
So, it does have something to do with the real world?
I am only messing with you CM, I know you know your maths, and I agree with you anyway. I love the ambiguity of what numbers actually are. If there are three rocks in space, that is a definite physical property as distinct from another group of four rocks - but the concept of three has been invented by humans - hasn't it?
You are quite right that the numbers don't exist in themselves, but they are explicitly not an attempt to model anything real
They were conceived as an attempt to model something real (quantities of real objects) and I would suggest they still are a model of something real.
Maths is just a model which attempts to explain the real world
You'll have to translate this sentence then.
and I would suggest they still are a model of something real.
What are they a model of? Even if you consider the real numbers to be models of "real" things, maths is obviously far more than merely real numbers.
You'll have to translate this sentence then.
That is very different from saying it is a model of the real world. You might need to read it again.
What is being modelled? Well, for example then mean of a group of numbers attempts to represent / model those numbers.
Why don't you state what your position is? You maths has nothing to do with the real world. Numbers are an example or an existence proof of maths having an role in modelling the real world.
Which part of that do you disagree with? What is it you think?
You seem to be confusing maths and physics.
This.
Maths is just a model which attempts to explain the real world
This is the bit I disagree with. As a statement, it is simply incorrect. However, if you replace the word maths with physics, it would be a perfectly good statement.
As a very simple example, you can define all sorts of different geometries, all of which are mutually inconsistent with each other hence at most only one of them representing the real world. They would all be mathematically valid however.