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 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 Maths 2010 Spec

Discussion in 'Mathematics' started by dunnm86, Feb 20, 2011.

  1. Having read the examiners report from the November series, I can see that there were a number of questions which students struggled to access. We have a cohort about to sit Unit 1 on March 1st... has anyone got any opinions on the nature of November's exam. Mine is that a significant number of quesitons did not resemble what was in the 'Edexcel/ Pearson' scheme of work. The Maths faculty have all expressed their confusion too!
    My hope is that the ambiguity in some questions will be adressed because centres will have communicated their concern with Edexcel. Does anyone know any more?
    Mike



     
  2. pencho

    pencho New commenter

    What exactly are you worried about? The Foundation November paper looked much more accessible than the AQA Unit 1 Equivalent. The higher slightly less so. I've decided to move to Edexcel this year (after years with AQA). Just hope we have made the right decision.

     
  3. DM

    DM New commenter

    The Edexcel Foundation grade boundaries were nice and low presumably to reflect the apparent 'difficulty' of the exam.
     
  4. googolplex

    googolplex Occasional commenter

    What ambiguity? If you followed all the pre-2010 statements/courses etc, you'd have been in no doubts as to the type of questions to expect - regarding AO2/AO3/QWC/FS. IMO, the paper was pleasantly unpredictable (which makes a bit of a change for this exam board), and which has to be what real 'problem solving' is about. It's the sort of thing I thought I was preparing the kids for. Whether edexcel can keep up this standard, of course, is another matter. I have no doubts they will eventually make the whole thing just as easy, dull and predictable as it was before in order to win over schools - good for our results, but does it really improve maths education in this country?
    As for schemes of work, 'never trust someone else's SOW' is a good rule of thumb. None of the publishing houses agrees on the non-stats content of Edexcel's syllabus for Unit 1 - which is hardly surprising, since they all slammed out their textbooks before the syllabus was even ratified by QCDA (many thanks for all those free copies, BTW). This could be something to do with the 'ambiguity' to which you refer. If you look at Edexcel's own Pearson books, Unit 2 should take twice as long to teach as Unit 1, since the textbook has twice as many pages - and yet it is only worth the same percentage in the final exam. We worked out that, in order to teach Edexcel's own SoW, we'd have needed to start at the beginning of Year 9. It's all highly inconsistent.
    I've reached the conclusion that the best place to start is Unit 2, teach all of that by March of Year 10, and then slam them through the additional Stats stuff for June. I can't see a great deal non-Stats stuff in Unit 1 which isn't covered in some shape or form in Unit 2. Just need to teach calculator methods alongside non-calculator methods.
    Finally, my advice is to ensure we don't throw out some of the good stuff from the strategy materials. The aim of each SoW must be to build on KS3, rather than to expect to reteach it all. Hence, have L4+,L5+,L6+,L7+,L8+ starting points in Schemes.
     

Share This Page