Hi all. Yesterday there was a story circulating in the National press about the level of the maths education amongst students. The story is here (in Norwegian, haven't found an English summary): http://forbruker.no/jobbogstudier/studier/article1238172.ece The headline translates to "Students can't do kid's maths". A survey amongst 7215 freshman students (18-20-year olds) whose field of study *require* maths, have shown that the students on average solve less than 50% of problems taken from the "compulsary school" (15-16 years olds) curriculum. On NTNU -- The Norwegian University of Science and Technology -- the freshmen have three years of maths in addition to the "compulsary school." Nevertheless, in this survey, the NTNU students on average missed on 40% of the exercises. We have some interesting times ahead. Rune
Maths education status report
Started by ●March 3, 2006
Reply by ●March 3, 20062006-03-03
Rune Allnor wrote:> Hi all. > > Yesterday there was a story circulating in the National press about the > > level of the maths education amongst students. The story is here (in > Norwegian, haven't found an English summary): > > http://forbruker.no/jobbogstudier/studier/article1238172.ece > > The headline translates to "Students can't do kid's maths". A survey > amongst 7215 freshman students (18-20-year olds) whose field of study > *require* maths, have shown that the students on average solve less > than 50% of problems taken from the "compulsary school" (15-16 years > curriculum. On NTNU -- The Norwegian University of Science and > olds) Technology -- the freshmen have three years of maths in addition > to the "compulsary school." Nevertheless, in this survey, the NTNU > students on average missed on 40% of the exercises. > > We have some interesting times ahead. > > RuneWith only a little more effort, Norway can match the US. :-( Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●March 3, 20062006-03-03
Jerry Avins wrote:> Rune Allnor wrote: > > Hi all. > > > > Yesterday there was a story circulating in the National press about the > > > > level of the maths education amongst students. The story is here (in > > Norwegian, haven't found an English summary): > > > > http://forbruker.no/jobbogstudier/studier/article1238172.ece > > > > The headline translates to "Students can't do kid's maths". A survey > > amongst 7215 freshman students (18-20-year olds) whose field of study > > *require* maths, have shown that the students on average solve less > > than 50% of problems taken from the "compulsary school" (15-16 years > > curriculum. On NTNU -- The Norwegian University of Science and > > olds) Technology -- the freshmen have three years of maths in addition > > to the "compulsary school." Nevertheless, in this survey, the NTNU > > students on average missed on 40% of the exercises. > > > > We have some interesting times ahead. > > > > Rune > > With only a little more effort, Norway can match the US. :-(In the international PISA study conducted by the OECD in 2000, pupils 15 years of age of 32 different countries were tested in reading, mathematical and scientify literacy. Both Norway and the States performed around the average of all participant countries in all three subjects. They have surprisingly similar elite / risk group statistics as well - in general, it looks like the States had a slightly higher variance than Norway. In the maths department, about 23% of the pupils in the States performed on the lowest competence level, in contrast to about 19% of the pupils from Norway. In maths and science Korea, Japan and Finnland performed very well. In literature, the top three places are held by Finnland, Canada and New Zealand (in that order). Regards, Andor
Reply by ●March 3, 20062006-03-03
"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:1141383075.762503.152780@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Hi all. > > Yesterday there was a story circulating in the National press about the > > level of the maths education amongst students. The story is here (in > Norwegian, haven't found an English summary): > > http://forbruker.no/jobbogstudier/studier/article1238172.ece > > The headline translates to "Students can't do kid's maths". A survey > amongst 7215 freshman students (18-20-year olds) whose field of study > *require* maths, have shown that the students on average solve less > than > 50% of problems taken from the "compulsary school" (15-16 years olds) > curriculum. On NTNU -- The Norwegian University of Science and > Technology -- the freshmen have three years of maths in addition to > the "compulsary school." Nevertheless, in this survey, the NTNU > students > on average missed on 40% of the exercises. > > We have some interesting times ahead.Yeah - but it's hardly a big surprise is it? Why don't they compare the results with a similar age-range group who have also passed their school curriculum maths exams but are now working in areas where they use even less of the curriculum maths and are just as uninterested in the outcome of these pointless tests? Best of luck - Mike
Reply by ●March 6, 20062006-03-06
Mike Yarwood wrote:> "Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message > news:1141383075.762503.152780@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Hi all. > > > > Yesterday there was a story circulating in the National press about the > > > > level of the maths education amongst students. The story is here (in > > Norwegian, haven't found an English summary): > > > > http://forbruker.no/jobbogstudier/studier/article1238172.ece > > > > The headline translates to "Students can't do kid's maths". A survey > > amongst 7215 freshman students (18-20-year olds) whose field of study > > *require* maths, have shown that the students on average solve less > > than > > 50% of problems taken from the "compulsary school" (15-16 years olds) > > curriculum. On NTNU -- The Norwegian University of Science and > > Technology -- the freshmen have three years of maths in addition to > > the "compulsary school." Nevertheless, in this survey, the NTNU > > students > > on average missed on 40% of the exercises. > > > > We have some interesting times ahead. > Yeah - but it's hardly a big surprise is it? Why don't they compare the > results with a similar age-range group who have also passed their school > curriculum maths exams but are now working in areas where they use even less > of the curriculum maths and are just as uninterested in the outcome of > these pointless tests?At least what the NTNU is concerned, these tests are not pointless and a student who has no interest in maths should not be there. We are approaching a situation where, if these people were carpenters, they have seen a hammer demonstrated by a teacher, and some may have heard about a saw. Hardly the people one would like to be working on one's house, is it?> Best of luck - MikeRune
Reply by ●March 6, 20062006-03-06
Rune Allnor wrote:> Mike Yarwood wrote: > >>"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message >>news:1141383075.762503.152780@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >>>Hi all. >>> >>>Yesterday there was a story circulating in the National press about the >>> >>>level of the maths education amongst students. The story is here (in >>>Norwegian, haven't found an English summary): >>> >>>http://forbruker.no/jobbogstudier/studier/article1238172.ece >>> >>>The headline translates to "Students can't do kid's maths". A survey >>>amongst 7215 freshman students (18-20-year olds) whose field of study >>>*require* maths, have shown that the students on average solve less >>>than >>>50% of problems taken from the "compulsary school" (15-16 years olds) >>>curriculum. On NTNU -- The Norwegian University of Science and >>>Technology -- the freshmen have three years of maths in addition to >>>the "compulsary school." Nevertheless, in this survey, the NTNU >>>students >>>on average missed on 40% of the exercises. >>> >>>We have some interesting times ahead. >> >>Yeah - but it's hardly a big surprise is it? Why don't they compare the >>results with a similar age-range group who have also passed their school >>curriculum maths exams but are now working in areas where they use even less >>of the curriculum maths and are just as uninterested in the outcome of >>these pointless tests? > > > At least what the NTNU is concerned, these tests are not pointless > and a student who has no interest in maths should not be there. > We are approaching a situation where, if these people were carpenters, > they have seen a hammer demonstrated by a teacher, and some may > have heard about a saw. Hardly the people one would like to be working > on one's house, is it?http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html might be pertinent. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●March 7, 20062006-03-07
Jerry Avins wrote:> Rune Allnor wrote: > > Mike Yarwood wrote: > > > >>"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message > >>news:1141383075.762503.152780@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> > >>>Hi all. > >>> > >>>Yesterday there was a story circulating in the National press about the > >>> > >>>level of the maths education amongst students. The story is here (in > >>>Norwegian, haven't found an English summary): > >>> > >>>http://forbruker.no/jobbogstudier/studier/article1238172.ece > >>> > >>>The headline translates to "Students can't do kid's maths". A survey > >>>amongst 7215 freshman students (18-20-year olds) whose field of study > >>>*require* maths, have shown that the students on average solve less > >>>than > >>>50% of problems taken from the "compulsary school" (15-16 years olds) > >>>curriculum. On NTNU -- The Norwegian University of Science and > >>>Technology -- the freshmen have three years of maths in addition to > >>>the "compulsary school." Nevertheless, in this survey, the NTNU > >>>students > >>>on average missed on 40% of the exercises. > >>> > >>>We have some interesting times ahead. > >> > >>Yeah - but it's hardly a big surprise is it? Why don't they compare the > >>results with a similar age-range group who have also passed their school > >>curriculum maths exams but are now working in areas where they use even=less> >>of the curriculum maths and are just as uninterested in the outcome of > >>these pointless tests? > > > > > > At least what the NTNU is concerned, these tests are not pointless > > and a student who has no interest in maths should not be there. > > We are approaching a situation where, if these people were carpenters, > > they have seen a hammer demonstrated by a teacher, and some may > > have heard about a saw. Hardly the people one would like to be working > > on one's house, is it? > > http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html might be pertinent.Interesting. In ither posts, Finland was mentioned as consistently topping the ranks over school performance. Leaving aside the question whether such tests and rankings are relevant, there are some peculiarities with the Finnish system. At the face of it, Finland and Norway are about the same size. Before the North Sea oil bonanza of the 60s, the two countries had roughly the same economy: Some basic raw materials (fish, timber) for export, and some agriculture. The educational systems are statistically similar. The size and distributions of schools are similar, the classes are of similar size, the number of pupils per teacher about the same, the per capita budgets about the same. And still this vast difference in performance of the students. Why? For the last 20 or so years, the students to entered the Norweguian teacher's college (the college to educate future teachers) consistently were from the bottom segment of hihgh school graduates. "If your grades aren't good enough to anything else, you can always become a teacher." Norwegian teachers are expected to teach all and evertything. In Finland, teachers are university graduates with specilaizations in the subjects they teach. In Norway, such comments are highly frowned upon. The then prime minister Brundtland launched a logan in 1992 (timed with respect to the 1994 olympics) "Det er typisk norsk =E5 v=E6re god." I can't translate it as a catchphrase, but the gist is that "Norwegians excel in everything", based on citizenship rather than anything else. With this sort of "official" attitude, why would anyone care about investing lots of sweat and hard work in anything? What takes centuries to build, takes merely years to destroy.=20 Rune
Reply by ●March 7, 20062006-03-07
"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:1141721823.524672.306340@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... Jerry Avins wrote:> Rune Allnor wrote: > > Mike Yarwood wrote: > > > >>"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message > >>news:1141383075.762503.152780@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> > >>>Hi all. > >>> > >>>Yesterday there was a story circulating in the National press about the > >>> > >>>level of the maths education amongst students. The story is here (in > >>>Norwegian, haven't found an English summary): > >>> > >>>http://forbruker.no/jobbogstudier/studier/article1238172.ece > >>> > >>>The headline translates to "Students can't do kid's maths". A survey > >>>amongst 7215 freshman students (18-20-year olds) whose field of study > >>>*require* maths, have shown that the students on average solve less > >>>than > >>>50% of problems taken from the "compulsary school" (15-16 years olds) > >>>curriculum. On NTNU -- The Norwegian University of Science and > >>>Technology -- the freshmen have three years of maths in addition to > >>>the "compulsary school." Nevertheless, in this survey, the NTNU > >>>students > >>>on average missed on 40% of the exercises. > >>> > >>>We have some interesting times ahead. > >> > >>Yeah - but it's hardly a big surprise is it? Why don't they compare the > >>results with a similar age-range group who have also passed their school > >>curriculum maths exams but are now working in areas where they use even > >>less > >>of the curriculum maths and are just as uninterested in the outcome of > >>these pointless tests? > > > > > > At least what the NTNU is concerned, these tests are not pointless > > and a student who has no interest in maths should not be there. > > We are approaching a situation where, if these people were carpenters, > > they have seen a hammer demonstrated by a teacher, and some may > > have heard about a saw. Hardly the people one would like to be working > > on one's house, is it? > > http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html might be pertinent.Interesting. In ither posts, Finland was mentioned as consistently topping the ranks over school performance. Leaving aside the question whether such tests and rankings are relevant, there are some peculiarities with the Finnish system. At the face of it, Finland and Norway are about the same size. Before the North Sea oil bonanza of the 60s, the two countries had roughly the same economy: Some basic raw materials (fish, timber) for export, and some agriculture. The educational systems are statistically similar. The size and distributions of schools are similar, the classes are of similar size, the number of pupils per teacher about the same, the per capita budgets about the same. And still this vast difference in performance of the students. Why? For the last 20 or so years, the students to entered the Norweguian teacher's college (the college to educate future teachers) consistently were from the bottom segment of hihgh school graduates. "If your grades aren't good enough to anything else, you can always become a teacher." Norwegian teachers are expected to teach all and evertything. In Finland, teachers are university graduates with specilaizations in the subjects they teach. In Norway, such comments are highly frowned upon. The then prime minister Brundtland launched a logan in 1992 (timed with respect to the 1994 olympics) "Det er typisk norsk � v�re god." I can't translate it as a catchphrase, but the gist is that "Norwegians excel in everything", based on citizenship rather than anything else. With this sort of "official" attitude, why would anyone care about investing lots of sweat and hard work in anything? What takes centuries to build, takes merely years to destroy. Less than that really ( what happened to those >> thingies? - I can usually see them but they've gone ) it's quite astonishing how fast a working system can be 'reformed' to be so much less useful. If people actually start to believe that you can shove a broad maths curriculum at kids , expect them to work hard perfecting the art of answering questions on every part of that curriculum, in a specific way in a limited time so that they do well in their exams and then to retain that skill when they have gone on to work at a different set of problems, related to only a small subset of the skills they have already demonstrated some temporary command of and to be able to drag it all out again 'just like that', then they are moving into a fantasy world. I expect that the NTNU are not so arrogant that they believe that a facility with every single one of the things taught in school curriculum maths is an utter necessity for people in tertiary education in a field where some mathematical aptitude is an advantage, why would they think the tests are pointless? Presumably they now have loads of feedback on just how much of the school curriiculum is in daily use in each of the fields that participating students study, if the NTNU take into account the fact that most of these students don't need to remember all of the stuff that they use - they have the time to look it up if they need to, then they may eventually be able to make some tentative recommendations which, again eventually, may materially improve how school maths is taught. The students taking part in these tests must certainly feel that it was a waste of time if the only use is for the national news to shout about how much they've forgotten of the vitally important skill-set that some committee forced onto them some years before. Best of luck - Mike
Reply by ●March 10, 20062006-03-10
Mike Yarwood wrote:> "Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message > news:1141721823.524672.306340@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > > Jerry Avins wrote: > > Rune Allnor wrote: > > > Mike Yarwood wrote: > > > > > >>"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message > > >>news:1141383075.762503.152780@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > >> > > >>>Hi all. > > >>> > > >>>Yesterday there was a story circulating in the National press about =the> > >>> > > >>>level of the maths education amongst students. The story is here (in > > >>>Norwegian, haven't found an English summary): > > >>> > > >>>http://forbruker.no/jobbogstudier/studier/article1238172.ece > > >>> > > >>>The headline translates to "Students can't do kid's maths". A survey > > >>>amongst 7215 freshman students (18-20-year olds) whose field of study > > >>>*require* maths, have shown that the students on average solve less > > >>>than > > >>>50% of problems taken from the "compulsary school" (15-16 years olds) > > >>>curriculum. On NTNU -- The Norwegian University of Science and > > >>>Technology -- the freshmen have three years of maths in addition to > > >>>the "compulsary school." Nevertheless, in this survey, the NTNU > > >>>students > > >>>on average missed on 40% of the exercises. > > >>> > > >>>We have some interesting times ahead. > > >> > > >>Yeah - but it's hardly a big surprise is it? Why don't they compare =the> > >>results with a similar age-range group who have also passed their sch=ool> > >>curriculum maths exams but are now working in areas where they use ev=en> > >>less > > >>of the curriculum maths and are just as uninterested in the outcome =of> > >>these pointless tests? > > > > > > > > > At least what the NTNU is concerned, these tests are not pointless > > > and a student who has no interest in maths should not be there. > > > We are approaching a situation where, if these people were carpenters, > > > they have seen a hammer demonstrated by a teacher, and some may > > > have heard about a saw. Hardly the people one would like to be working > > > on one's house, is it? > > > > http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html might be pertinent. > > Interesting. > > In ither posts, Finland was mentioned as consistently topping the > ranks over school performance. Leaving aside the question whether > such tests and rankings are relevant, there are some peculiarities > with the Finnish system. > > At the face of it, Finland and Norway are about the same size. > Before the North Sea oil bonanza of the 60s, the two countries had > roughly the same economy: Some basic raw materials (fish, timber) > for export, and some agriculture. > > The educational systems are statistically similar. The size and > distributions of schools are similar, the classes are of similar size, > the number of pupils per teacher about the same, the per capita > budgets about the same. And still this vast difference in performance > of the students. > > Why? > > For the last 20 or so years, the students to entered the Norweguian > teacher's college (the college to educate future teachers) consistently > > were from the bottom segment of hihgh school graduates. "If your grades > aren't good enough to anything else, you can always become a teacher." > Norwegian teachers are expected to teach all and evertything. > > In Finland, teachers are university graduates with specilaizations > in the subjects they teach. > > In Norway, such comments are highly frowned upon. The then prime > minister Brundtland launched a logan in 1992 (timed with respect > to the 1994 olympics) "Det er typisk norsk =E5 v=E6re god." I can't > translate > it as a catchphrase, but the gist is that "Norwegians excel in > everything", > based on citizenship rather than anything else. With this sort of > "official" attitude, why would anyone care about investing lots of > sweat and hard work in anything? > > What takes centuries to build, takes merely years to destroy. > > Less than that really ( what happened to those >> thingies? - I can usual=ly> see them but they've gone ) it's quite astonishing how fast a working sys=tem> can be 'reformed' to be so much less useful. > If people actually start to believe that you can shove a broad maths > curriculum at kids , expect them to work hard perfecting the art of > answering questions on every part of that curriculum, in a specific way i=n a> limited time so that they do well in their exams and then to retain that > skill when they have gone on to work at a different set of problems, > related to only a small subset of the skills they have already demonstrat=ed> some temporary command of and to be able to drag it all out again 'just l=ike> that', then they are moving into a fantasy world.What is the alternative? In times gone by, professionals (they were called "craftsmen" in those days) formed guilds that were supposed to take care of the proffesional intergrity by taking up apprentices and teaching them more or less from person to person. That system is still in place, but only on the graduate level. For the masses, the class system is the one laternative that works. It is not perfect, some might say it isn't even good, but it works, parts of the time. At least in some instances.> I expect that the NTNU are not so arrogant that they believe that a > facility with every single one of the things taught in school curriculum > maths is an utter necessity for people in tertiary education in a field > where some mathematical aptitude is an advantage, why would they think the > tests are pointless?No one at NTNU think the tests are pointless. The tests demonstrate a trend that has been measured for some 20 years, that show a consistent deterioration of the maths skills. Again, the tests may not be good, let alone perfct, but they are what is available.> Presumably they now have loads of feedback on just how > much of the school curriiculum is in daily use in each of the fields that > participating students study, if the NTNU take into account the fact that > most of these students don't need to remember all of the stuff that they > use - they have the time to look it up if they need to, then they may > eventually be able to make some tentative recommendations which, again > eventually, may materially improve how school maths is taught.I look up the SVD, the various intergration and differentiation formulas and so on, I hardly ever need them. I compute percentages and fractions (at least gross guesstimates) only reluctantly with pen and paper, I prefer to do that in my head if I can. The calculator or the computer is only used when accurate numbers are needed. But I'm the mad scientist. I would settle for students being able to do basic percentages and fractions with pen and paper, and otherwise know how to do things. I used to teach a class where basic PDEs and Fourier analysis were required pre-requisites. It is no fun at all to start from scratch a level or two below where you are supposed to be.> The > students taking part in these tests must certainly feel that it was a was=te> of time if the only use is for the national news to shout about how much > they've forgotten of the vitally important skill-set that some committee > forced onto them some years before.I don't understand what you mean. I some times hear from students that they "only want to learn what is relevant to them". My reaction to that is that "you are wasting your time in class if you know what is relevant." Who knew 300 years ago that Fermat's first theorem should be an essential part of telecommunication coding theory? For my own part, knowledge from one field often acts as a stimulus for ideas or considerations in other fields. But again, I'm the mad scientist. Rune
Reply by ●March 10, 20062006-03-10
Rune Allnor wrote: ...> For my own part, knowledge from one field often acts as a stimulus for > ideas or considerations in other fields. > > But again, I'm the mad scientist.Scientist. Not mad. (Angry maybe.) Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
