1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Edexcel foundation 9-1 question 27

Discussion in 'Mathematics' started by Elfrune, May 26, 2017.

  1. Elfrune

    Elfrune New commenter

    Advice, if I may. I will not quote the question directly or say what topic it is just yet - I am aware we need to wait 24 hours before the end of the exam before discussing. However - this question has riled me greatly - more so than any other question from any other year. I could teach it to my 10 year old son who would be able to do it easily. However, I did not teach this topic to my foundation class as Edexcel ruled it out in their specification. They mentioned the new syllabus addition to foundation content in their specification and then made the statement this particular style of question is not examined in the foundation paper. Am I wrong with my thoughts? Much appreciate the advice.
     
    smillsj likes this.
  2. DM

    DM New commenter

    It's on the Edexcel specification as G25 on Foundation and is also on the KS4 National Curriculum Programme of Study.
     
  3. Elfrune

    Elfrune New commenter

    smillsj likes this.
  4. laura2222

    laura2222 New commenter

    I didn't teach it either as it was not on the Edexcel Foundation scheme of work, in their teaching guidance pack or on any practice papers.
     
    Elfrune likes this.
  5. Bloomstar

    Bloomstar New commenter

    I taught it to foundation.

    It's on the Mathswatch website and in the MyMaths textbooks for Edexcel, I also double checked the specification a few weeks ago to check I hadn't missed anything and it was there.
     
  6. Elfrune

    Elfrune New commenter

    Was not in the textbooks we use - fully endorsed by Edexcel for the new specification.
     
    smillsj likes this.
  7. TES_Rosaline

    TES_Rosaline Administrator Staff Member

  8. pwc9000

    pwc9000 New commenter

    Yes.
    TES feeding the ridiculous modern phenomenon of over-reacting immediately post-exam.
    The papers were in line with expectations.
    The balance of Grade 7+ is not news! We have known this since the outset.
    And in response to this thread, one or two teachers coming unstuck because they rely on textbooks and awarding bodies to do the work for them rather than actually teach everything in the specification should not bring criticism of the exam paper.
     
    colinbillett likes this.
  9. Elfrune

    Elfrune New commenter

    I criticise one question only, as my school under my guidance purchased a significant amount of text books to teach the new curriculum effectively. When an exam board examines a subject they specifically deem as not in the foundation syllabus, it concerns me. I remain convinced examining a topic not covered by the textbook they endorse is unfair on students. Should they choose to include vector geometry, I will happily deliver content to students. When they examine a topic expressly excluded in their specification, however, this is very demoralising and unfair on students in the examination. My opinion. And I stick to it.
     
    smillsj likes this.
  10. pwc9000

    pwc9000 New commenter

    The spec includes addition and subtraction of vectors and diagrammatic representations of vectors. That was all the question was.
     
    colinbillett likes this.
  11. laura2222

    laura2222 New commenter

    [QUOTE
    And in response to this thread, one or two teachers coming unstuck because they rely on textbooks and awarding bodies to do the work for them rather than actually teach everything in the specification should not bring criticism of the exam paper.[/QUOTE]
    Pwc9000, you are just not a very nice or helpful person. I am not a lazy teacher and have done plenty of research into the new specification. I think it is reasonable to rely on exam board resources to clarify details of what is to be assessed on a new qualification. If you read their published teaching guidance this type of question was not included for the foundation tier, so they have contradicted themselves. All I am saying is that it is very poor communication from the exam board, if something is new then they should make it very clear what should be taught.
     
    evivyover and Elfrune like this.
  12. Elfrune

    Elfrune New commenter

    Pwc9000, you are just not a very nice or helpful person. I am not a lazy teacher and have done plenty of research into the new specification. I think it is reasonable to rely on exam board resources to clarify details of what is to be assessed on a new qualification. If you read their published teaching guidance this type of question was not included for the foundation tier, so they have contradicted themselves. All I am saying is that it is very poor communication from the exam board, if something is new then they should make it very clear what should be taught.[/QUOTE]
    Totally 100% agree, particularly in the light of this being a completely new specification where specimen and mock papers should reflect that actually examined, not to mention text books endorsed by the board. Oh - and the specification detailing new additions to the foundation tier should also reflect that actually new to the foundation tier and not be misleading at best, arguably wrong at worst, as previously mapped by me in this thread. Next stop - Edexcel to ask their opinions on this question I continue, irrespective of others thoughts detailed herein, to consider erronious to have included at foundation tier due to it being outside the specification in papers, text books and edexcel published documentation.
     
    smillsj likes this.
  13. pwc9000

    pwc9000 New commenter

    Everyone I have ever worked with has a rather different opinion of me, so that shot at me bounces off rather quickly

    What did you think "diagrammatic representations of vectors" in the spec meant??

    I would recommend contacting Graham at Edexcel with your feelings on this - I would expect you to get a fairly quick answer. Perhaps you could share his response with us.
     
    colinbillett likes this.
  14. Elfrune

    Elfrune New commenter

    Always been a fan of mr cumming - will do.
     
    smillsj likes this.
  15. laura2222

    laura2222 New commenter

    Firstly pcw9000, I said you were unkind and unhelpful as you implied that I was a lazy teacher beacause I used an edexcel document to help me teach a new topic. People don't come onto this site to be criticised or insulted which is what you did. Many people are finding the new gcse hard to get their head around and are using this sight for support. I thought diagrammatically meant on a square grid as that is what it said in the teaching guidance/schemes of work for foundation tier. This is what every other teacher in my department thought and what several other teachers in my authority thought. The higher tier objectives do include this type of question so considering it was mentioned there but not in Foundation I presumed that it would not be tested at Foundation. I appreciate that I have made a mistake but I don't think exdexcel are blameless in this as they have published incorrect guidance.
     
  16. coyote

    coyote New commenter

    While you are obviously entitled to your opinion, question setters take a different view, just as they do generally in public examinations. They don't consider what the textbooks cover, but instead stick to the specification. This shouldn't be a surprise as specifications can be finalised after textbooks are written. Maths teachers need to learn the lesson - read the specification and beware of over-reliance on any one textbook.
     
    colinbillett likes this.
  17. Elfrune

    Elfrune New commenter

    Rather rude - it is my students that learn the lesson - not me, and me relying on a document published by edexcel stating what type of vectors are in the exam at foundation level and which are not (which still exists - that new to foundation) alongside text books written for a brand new exam by edexcel suggests it is Pearson and not me to blame. After all - I do not think it will be just my school that fell for this inexaxtitude between specification and original published documentation pertaining to that new to the syllabus - I would envisage at least half schools did not pick up on this dischtomous opinion. I am employed to deliver mathematics to students to the best of my ability - not to learn lessons from an exam board. I am to furnish students with a love of mathematics, not to pour over new specifications and delight over how a brand new text book is written and what it leaves out of a specification. I do not have capacity in my role to spend days finding inexaxtitudes between exam board endorsed materials.
     
    smillsj likes this.
  18. munkster

    munkster New commenter

    OP with respect I think you might just need to put this down to experience. That isn't meant to be rude, quite the opposite in fact.

    I clearly don't know the figures but would imagine that most HoDs would work from a SoW that was derived from the specification as published by the exam board rather than work through a textbook either sequentially or otherwise and trust its treatment on a topic.

    I also think we might be giving publishers a bit more credit than might sometimes be warranted too. To think that all of these textbooks are 100% brand new material would be slightly naive IMHO. A good proportion of the content in these books are often rehashes of previous editions and publications, probably with a bunch of new material thrown in to bring things into line with the updated spec.

    And finally, I can't remember what publisher it was but when I raised it with their rep why "trial and improvement" was in their draft textbook rather than "iteration" they were at a loss. I would be cross if they'd published that textbook with that in and I'd blindly taught it but I don't think I could've blamed anyone more than myself if I'd not spotted that it wasn't the right skill according to the spec.
     
    colinbillett and coyote like this.
  19. coyote

    coyote New commenter

    Again, while you are of course entitled to your view, I respectfully disagree. I also find this sort of response to well-intentioned constructive criticism overly sensitive and not conducive to meaningful debate.
    It's a new specification. In my view maths teachers reading this thread need to learn the lesson that the most important document that we all need to read in such a situation is the actual source document. Not the guidance or a new textbook. Which is why I am carefully studying the new Edexcel A level specs at he moment.
     
    colinbillett likes this.
  20. Piranha

    Piranha Star commenter

    In the end, it is the specification that we need to follow. I was once caught out by not mentioning something that was not in an A-level textbook but appearted in some exams; fortunately it was in a mock so it did not affect their A-level grade. After that, I made a point of checking the specification to make sure I included everything. I actually found it quite helpful to project it in GCSE classes so the studnets could see what they were supposed to know.

    Yes, it is annoying that the text books are not 100% accurate, but that is how it goes. Rather than comparing the text books and specifications, it is easier just to check the specification against what is being taught. I am not that fast a reader, but it certainly did not take me days - just a few minutes on average for each lesson the first time I taught the specification and less time after that.
     

Share This Page