Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Newspaper of Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Vol 41 No. 4. March 20 1978

More maths

More maths

Last week we ran a critique of the Mathematics department and invited students and staff to comment. This contribution is from Professor Wilfred Malcolm, Chairman of the department.

I welcome the article by Peter Beach in the last issue analysing some of the developments taking place in mathematics courses. Along with other staff I gladly respond to your invitation to contribute to further discussion of these developments.

Mr. Beach rightly identifies the development of problem solving skills as one of the chief elements of a mathematics course. As he affirms such skills can only be fully grasped through personal experience. This being the case I am surprised the article makes no mention at all of the programmes of weekly excercises and projects that make up a substantial part of every mathematics course.

Over the last several years course evaluation returns (which, incidentally, do contain questions assessing basic strengths and weaknesses of courses, some questions being designed by students themselves) have shown that students value this part of the mathematics teaching programme above any other component. This is confirmed by the writer of the article on mathematics in the current student handbook who advises students that doing the weekly excercises provides the best return in the process of learning mathematics.

Mr. Beach finds it hard to fathom why the Keller Plan system has been extended I to include Math 115. If the outcome of the development in Math 205 has been successful, he argues, seemingly indicated by the decision to extend it, why is it not given much wider application? But why? The kind of progress we need in university teaching and learning is the development of a variety of methods, not the domination of one method imposed on everyone, teacher and student alike.

The advantage of extending the Keller Plan system to Math 115 (and, perhaps, next year to Math 116), is that an alternative course (Math 113/114) leading to the same second year courses, is available for those who find another style of teaching and learning more effective and congenial.

While it is, perhaps, true that the development of the Keller plan courses is the most dramatic of the changes made in mathematics courses in recent years there are, in fact, a range of other developments taking place in an endeavour to enable students to gain the mathematical skills they need. Some of these developments will, I believe, prove to be of equal significance to the Keller Plan innovations in the improvement of learning and teaching experiences in mathematics.

I support Mr. Beach's plea for students to 'become more actively involved with the changes around them'. But let no one think the problems encountered are capable of easy solution. Learning and teaching mathematics is a complex activity. Changes in administration and organisation of present courses may be needed and I, for one, am willing for this if such changes will lead to more effective programmes in mathematics.

But the major problems lie beyond the effects of incidental changes and require commitment to a long term strategy, if they are to be overcome in part at least. I have been long convinced that the importance of mathematical knowledge to the scientific and cultural life of our society calls for continuing reform in mathematics teaching in this university and elsewhere.

Wilfred Malcolm

Professor of Pure Mathematics and Chairman of Department

Blithe on Maths

As Course Supervisor for both the Maths courses mentioned in Peter Beach's constructive article (Salient, March 13) I would like to reply to some of his points.

First, the success of the Keller Plan in Math 205, as measured by both staff and student response, led us to consider teaching other Math courses by this method, and it has been introduced in Math l15 this year. However, it is not clear that this approach will work well in all Math courses. In particular where skills in solving substantial problems must be acquired, it may not be the best method. Another constraint is the very considerable amount of time needed to prepare a Keller Plan course.

I agree with Peter that the associated tutorials are very important. Last year in Math 205, two hour sessions were arranged in the hope that students would do a substantial amount of work for the course at them, working in groups. These sessions were poorly attended, partly because they had to be held in Fairlie Terrace. This year I have arranged one hour tutorials in a more convenient location. Attendance has increased, but is not yet as high as I would like. I hope this will improve over the next few weeks, and page 7 would welcome any suggestions as to how to persuade students to attend.

As for course content, we try to ensure that the student who completes 9 modules of the total 15 'just passing' the course has a good grasp of the basic techniques. They are, after all, required to pass the module tests at a level well above the usual 50%. This may require more than 'minimum effort' for some, but then many students who try to get through courses with maximum effort fail.

The later modules (especially the last three) do include additional material. Since students who reach this level have already secured a good grade, these modules are intended to extend and/or interest the better students.

Finally, with questionnaires. I have always found that the most useful answers are those to questions asking for comments on the best and worst aspects of the course, and for suggestions for improvements. Most changes to the course have come from consideration of these replies. However, I also hope that students will take up Peter's final challenge and that there will be further articles on teaching methods in Salient.

Thora Blithe,

Mathematics Dept.

My omission of reference to the weekly assignments (and projects in the statistics courses) was an oversight perhaps occasioned by the alarming rate at which the length of the article increased.

It doesn't seem to me however that the omission alters the substance of ray remarks, especially those regarding the examinations which are still the entire assessment criterion in all but the statistics courses. The question I was trying to pose was that of whether the "traditional" lecture-assignment-examination system was the most suitable for the purpose of teaching mathematics, and I sought to emphasise this point by contrasting this programme with the newsly developed "Keller Plan" courses to see how they matched up.

Regarding the questionnaire-based assessment programmes the point I was trying to make (and on rereading the article, find that I completely failed to make) was that the answers to questionnaires depend more on the questions themselves than they do on the situation they are trying to evaluate. To some extent the assessors anticipate their answers by the way they set the questions. As Ms. Blithe points out the most useful responses to questions like "What were the best and worst aspects of the course," but even here you tend to get responses which concentrate on the mechanical aspects. Be that as it may, it should be possible for comments through Salient to amplify what ever response was obtained through the questionnaires.

While two responses from the staff is good, it is to be hoped that by the next issue other students will have roused themselves sufficiently to redress my personal bias by adding their own comments.

Peter Beach

And Pols

On Friday the first test of the year was held for Pols 111. This test was to be based on two set texts: Major Ideologies and Government and Politics. The major part of the prescribed reading was from Major Ideologies. Unfortunately, this book was not on sale at the booksellers and photocopies of the relevant material had run out at the Pols Department.

As a student in Pols 111,1 felt rather concerned (bloody pissed off in fact) when I found out that the material which the test would be based on was not available and decided to approach the Department about it. Two of us went to see Dr. Cleveland, the lecturer in charge of the course, to find out what was being done for those students who might not have access to the necessary information. We were told that the shortage of Major Ideologies had been caused by the unexpectedly high enrolment and that those students who had missed out were coming to the Department and borrowing copies to photocopy themselves. In this way the problem was well under control.

My friend and I weren't quite convinced of this and asked that during the next lecture a count be taken of those students who did not have the access to the material needed in the test. Dr. Cleveland agreed to this and asked accordingly at the lecture. Approximately ¼ of the class did not have the material needed. With 850 odd students enrolled in Pols 111, this could mean that more than 200 students were forced to sit the test at a distinct disadvantage. We spoke to Dr. Cleveland and he agreed that if enough students felt they had suffered in the test because of a lack of access to the relevant material, the results would be scrapped.

So if your are a Pols 111 student and felt that you suffered because you were unable to get hold of enough of the necessary reading material, make sure you say so—it's the only chance you'll get.

Lamorna Rogers