The VCAA is currently conducting a “review” of VCE mathematics. We’ve made our opinion clear, and we plan to post further in some detail. (We’ll update this post with links when and as seems appropriate.) We would also appreciate, however, as much input as possible from readers of (especially critics of) this blog.
This post is to permit and to encourage as much discussion as possible about the various structures the VCAA is considering. People are free to comment generally (but carefully) about the VCAA and the review process, but the intention here is to consider the details of the proposed structures and the arguments for and against them. We’re interested in anything and everything people have to say. Except for specific questions addressed to us, we’ll be pretty much hands-off in the comments section. The relevant links are
- the overview of the “review” (25/4 update: post here);
- a questionairre that can be submitted until May 10 (25/4 update: post here);
- a new background paper,
- a 2017 background paper;
- a 2014 background paper;
- a paper by Wolfram-CBM.
Please, go to it.
4 Replies to “Reviewing the VCAA Review – Open Discussion”
OK – I may as well get the ball rolling.
I have some reservations about Specialist Units 3&4 in A.2. Specifically the introduction of coding and algorithms.
I’m not against these as ideas, algorithms especially, but I feel that this is playing a bit too much to the stereotype of a Specialist Mathematics student and I cannot see it doing anything positive for enrolments.
Option B looks a *bit* like IB Mathematics and to a lesser extent the NSW model, both of which I feel are superior to VCE. The lack of detail is concerning at this stage, but I don’t mind the general idea, especially if the best parts of NSW and IB can be adopted.
Option C I have many reservations about. The idea of problem centred is fine in itself, but seeing a number of schools (and textbooks) try this approach in 7 to 10, the definition of problem-centred can itself be the centre of the problem…
Thanks, RF. I have my own thoughts (obviously), but I’ll keep them for separate posts.
I have had a brief look at the reference documents and the proposed structures, lots of words, and 3 things to choose from – a conservative option, a vague one and an extreme one.
Thanks, CJ. Have you responded to the questionnaire? It’s amusing to refer to Structure A (I presume) as being “conservative” although, in the context of the VCAA review, that is accurate.