This paper is based on a review of the numerical abilities of students at Harper Adams Agricultural College. The research on which the paper is based was originally commissioned by the college's Academic Standards Committee in response to misgivings expressed by academic staff, and against a background of growing national concern over mathematical ability.
Most degree and HND students at the college have GCSE Mathematics at Grade C or above. Nevertheless, there are significant numbers of students who do not have a minimum of Grade C GCSE: 74 students entering HE courses in 1995 and 59 students in 1996. Although the evidence is scant, there is considerable doubt over the mathematical rigour of the qualifications accepted as an alternative to GCSE.
The National Curriculum for Mathematics and its relationship to GCSE Mathematics is reviewed in detail. This shows the importance of the streaming arrangements which are adopted by most GCSE boards and schools, whereby only students in the highest stream may study the full curriculum and attain the highest grades. This review is extended by analysis of a test taken by HND Agriculture students during their induction programme in 1995. Each of the 20 questions has been analysed as to its relationship to the National Curriculum and the number of students who got a correct answer.
A subsequent study of second-year land management students in connection with their module, Valuation I showed that the predominant GCSE grade held by students was grade C and that most students had been placed in the middle stream (of three) at school for the purposes of both teaching and assessment.
The students had clear doubts over their grasp of several key mathematical concepts required for valuation, but the subjective view of the module tutor was that the students ability with the key concepts was inversely proportional to their confidence. Work with this group of students did seem to support the view that key mathematical skills required in a module can be identified and explained to students at an early stage in the teaching programme, with later benefits as students begin to encounter those parts of the syllabus where these skills are used.
The study concluded that there is a need to promulgate information to lecturers on the nature of the GCSE Mathematics curriculum, to gather further data on the streaming of students for mathematics, and to provide learning support to students through module work programmes, module and course design and balancing programmes. Suitable screening methods to identify those students in need of balancing studies need to be devised, in respect of which further work is likely to be necessary, and we should be wary of too simplistic an approach to the way in which balancing programmes are designed.
We still know very little about the mathematical ability of those students who have not offered GCSE Mathematics as an entry qualification and further work could also be worthwhile here, particularly in view of the finding that lack of GCSE Mathematics was very significant in the failure and withdrawal of students during their first year. Finally, the results of this study suggest that it is worth considering the need for similar reviews of the earlier education of students in other key subject areas.
