Actually, there are a lot more sources being used than just CSSA. I have been looking at 2020 papers and there are plenty of school putting together trial papers by picking and choosing from several sources.
Maths In Focus Ext 1/2 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jojofelyx
- Start date
I've wondered whether the motivation for MiF was to replace the old Jones and Couchman books that had reasonable theory but nowhere near enough challenging questions. There clear is a market for a text at that level.
oh definitely, but i would assume CSSA is the most popular
black.mamba
Active Member
very late response but i found grammar harder than ruse but easier than high/nsb
Eagle Mum
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2020
- Messages
- 561
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
It’s a little cynical to study maths purely to maximise HSC/ATAR marks. I’m so glad I studied high level maths at high school. I get very little opportunity to use it directly in my profession, but understanding maths combined with understanding physical/natural mechanisms really enables much better understanding of a broad range of things. Whilst I also like the Cambridge textbooks best, I think the author of MIF takes pains to explain mathematics principles to the reader in a thorough way which I can see would bore/frustrate the much brighter than average students who are regulars in this forum.
Hmm good point, but I'm pretty sure 90% of students do courses to maximise their marks, the vast majority of the population doesn't really care about 'why' things are the way they are. They just need to know 'how' to do it and that's it.
MIF explains maths principles thoroughly?
Cambridge literally derives anything and everything. Does MIF do more?? No experience with MIF.
MiF does derive some formulae and explains things to a reasonable extent but still Cambridge > MiF by far
Eagle Mum
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2020
- Messages
- 561
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
I described the regulars in this forum as ‘much brighter than average’.
Eagle Mum
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2020
- Messages
- 561
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
No, I’m not saying MIF does more than Cambridge. I preferred Cambridge.
I last looked at both textbooks 6-7 years ago (when I was helping my eldest with maths) so not the current editions. From recollection, the Cambridge textbook was much smaller than MIF then (having said that, the latest Cambridge edition is a lot bigger and I haven’t seen the latest MIF edition). I liked Cambridge better because it was succinct but MIF did seem to be thorough with its explanations. For the reader who understands concepts quickly, Cambridge might be more efficient (my son only uses Cambridge) whereas MIF was a bit of a plod but perhaps this suits some students better - somebody else has previously suggested that the two books probably target different student audiences.
Last edited:
Eagle Mum
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2020
- Messages
- 561
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
Understanding ‘why’ often improves the ‘how’ and lays a good foundation for further knowledge, understanding & application. The better the foundation, the easier it will be to build upon.
Wait what the heck where’s that even from lol (that quote you attached)
I think he realised he was being an asshole and removed it.
I don't get why people want to have so many fakes in a website for kids who want to study lol, that's the peak of being useless, surely there is more to life than doing that.
Everwinter
Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2020
- Messages
- 49
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2021
Mif is probably thoroughly enough if you understand the topic, but it's not when you have not learned the topic and read it to preview before class. I tried to read both the Cambridge and the MiF before I learn complex number, the Cambridge textbook allows me to have a basic idea and MiF made me confused (I read MiF before Cambridge). You cannot say its thorough after you had already understood the content because the explanations make sense, but if you never saw complex number before, those explanations are not enough to make you understand everything.
So no, I don't think it's thorough by any means, it's not like syllabus that student does not have to understand before learning, because it's for the teacher to read, teach and explain. The textbook is for students to learn the concepts under the circumstance that they want to learn beforehand, or their teacher didn't do a good job.
So no, I don't think it's thorough by any means, it's not like syllabus that student does not have to understand before learning, because it's for the teacher to read, teach and explain. The textbook is for students to learn the concepts under the circumstance that they want to learn beforehand, or their teacher didn't do a good job.
Presentation of theory in textbooks is a matter of both content and style. It is common to find that two students with the same teacher disagree about whether the teacher is clear / understandable, for example. The teacher may be presenting at a level that suits one student but bores another, or confuses a third. The teacher may be presenting in a way that engages one student while another student's eyes glaze over. The teacher may choose to approach a topic from a basis where one student is strong but another is weak. The same issues arise with textbooks.
The Cambridge books (Advanced and MX1) are very strongly influenced by the style and approach of lead author Bill Pender. I found him to be an amazing educator but not everyone liked his approach and equally not all will find his explanations suitable. David Sadler, lead author of the Cambridge MX2 book, was (in my opinion and when I had each of them as a teacher) the stronger of the two in providing explanations for students who were struggling. Dr Pender was at his best with a strong / high-performing class who he could extend with challenging materials. Oddly, however, Mr Sadler was better at writing challenging exams. Looking back at SGS papers, those written by Mr Sadler always have challenging and interesting questions at the end, though neither wrote exams that were easy.
Given that the population of students here at BoS skews to the more able, I am not surprised that Cambridge books are preferred for both questions and theory. That does not mean that MiF can't be a better book for explanations for some students, though I agree that the questions in MiF don't cater well to more able students. MiF's style does not suit me but I would not have a concern if a student of mine preferred it as their reference for theory and understanding.
The Cambridge books (Advanced and MX1) are very strongly influenced by the style and approach of lead author Bill Pender. I found him to be an amazing educator but not everyone liked his approach and equally not all will find his explanations suitable. David Sadler, lead author of the Cambridge MX2 book, was (in my opinion and when I had each of them as a teacher) the stronger of the two in providing explanations for students who were struggling. Dr Pender was at his best with a strong / high-performing class who he could extend with challenging materials. Oddly, however, Mr Sadler was better at writing challenging exams. Looking back at SGS papers, those written by Mr Sadler always have challenging and interesting questions at the end, though neither wrote exams that were easy.
Given that the population of students here at BoS skews to the more able, I am not surprised that Cambridge books are preferred for both questions and theory. That does not mean that MiF can't be a better book for explanations for some students, though I agree that the questions in MiF don't cater well to more able students. MiF's style does not suit me but I would not have a concern if a student of mine preferred it as their reference for theory and understanding.