This a release candidate for my review of MST124-26B. I will probably make some minor amendments over the next few days.
MST124 Essential Mathematics 1 is a compulsory module for several undergraduate qualification pathways, including Computer & Data Science, Economics & Mathematical Sciences, Physics, and Astronomy & Planetary Science. It’s optional for many more, including Computing & IT, Cyber Security and Natural Sciences, as well as the Combined STEM and Open degree. It’s presented twice a year, in October and February, so several hundred students take it each year from a variety of backgrounds, interests and destinations. Considering what it has been designed to do, MST124 does it very well and the staff working on the module have a wealth of experience of running a Level 1 maths course.
The module had considerable breath and covered a range of topics, but Unit 11 Taylor Polynomials, included when the module was first presented, was dropped to reduce the workload and was not covered or examined. The teaching materials for this unit were still provided however and could be worked through independently of the module. This was very useful (and recommended) for those intending to study maths or physical sciences at Level 2 and Level 3 where an appreciation of this topic is semi-expected. Some MST124 survivors from previous presentations, who had to do it back in the day, said that it wasn’t particularly well written anyway. I can’t be certain, but I think the fallow week, timetabled between Weeks 25 and 26, was introduced partly due to Unit 11 being withdrawn. This gave students time to get ahead in preparation for the revision period, or catch-up if they got behind.
All the units were taught well, but some were taught slightly better than others. The presentation of functions was a bit confusing in places, and Unit 3 Functions was amalgamated with a bit of set theory, inequalities, logarithms, exponentials and indices. It seemed to be a ‘ragbag’ of maths topics, and some tutors divided their tutorials into two to cope with the miscellaneous nature of it.
Few students would disagree that the most difficult part of the module was the calculus (Units 6, 7 and 8). The integration by parts topic of Unit 8 was particularly brutal, and even the tutors admitted this, although some were more candid about it than others. I got the impression that quite a few students withdrew during this part of the module when attempting to complete TMA03 because the numbers attending the tutorials declined.
Each TMA covered several units, and sometimes disparate ones at that, but TMA01 was the one exception because it only examined the algebra material in Unit 1. The thinking behind this was for your tutor to assess your mathematical ability at an early stage in the module so advice or support could be offered if required. It was not entirely uncommon for students to misjudge their mathematical starting point on their qualification. Some struggled and transferred to MU123 within the first few weeks after realising they were out of their depth when their first TMA was marked and returned.
Every OU student knows about the tutor lottery, and I was very lucky on this occasion. All four of my assignments were marked and returned very quickly, accurately and fairly with helpful comments. Having looked on social media, I realised this was not always the case, so your mileage will almost certainly vary.
Due to the adoption of the ‘cluster’ model, there were a few tutorial clashes, particularly towards the end of the Module when cluster tutorials were timetabled at the same time as the Module-wide ones. I don’t know how many clusters there were, but I was put in the “Yorks, NW, NE (7,8,9) Cluster Group”, which is a bit odd because I’m based in London. There didn’t seem much point to this way of organising the module and it made no sense. Navigating the Adobe Connect tutorial rooms could be confusing because each tutor had a named sub-room accessible by a pull-down menu and some tutors shared rooms with others. The cluster rooms were all shared, which made navigation a bit easier. Most of the tutorials were recorded, so it was possible to just watch and listen to the recordings without all the angst of not being in the wrong room at the wrong time. There were many tutorials to choose from, perhaps too many, and after a while I got to know which tutors suited my particular style of learning. None were truly dreadful and only a few were slightly below par.
There were several different forums designed to support students with different issues and as always with the OU there were too many and it was difficult to decide which forum to post in. The quality of the posts was variable as always, and I suspect that most students avoided them entirely, preferring Discord servers. Reddit, WhatsApp groups and the like. Many tutors posted their tutorial slides in the forums, and to be honest, this was one of the better uses for them.
Before the module officially opened there was a MST124 Revise & Refresh initiative, supported by tutorials in addition to downloadable material containing some exercises. Some of this was aimed at S111 Questions in Science students and attempted to bridge the gap between the mathematical content of that module and this one, but other parts were aimed at MST124 students in general. It was a good idea, and many benefited from it, particularly those who were apprehensive about the demands of MST124 and needed a confidence boost.
As well as the four TMAs, there were also four iCMAs which took the form of Moodle quizzes. There were occasional issues with these because some questions refused to load, citing an error, or else they were too finicky about the syntax of the typed response. Complaining to the so-called helpdesk was frustrating even when the tutors got involved. I don’t think the IT support staff could cope with the amount of work they are given, so issues were not always resolved quickly, or sometimes not at all. The iCMAs counted for very few marks, only 5% of the entire module score, so it didn’t really matter if there was the odd moody question here and there, it was just annoying.
One of the biggest complaints about the module was Maxima, a computer algebra system. Described on the Maxima website as ‘a free and open-source software for symbolic computation and mathematical computing’, its biggest attraction, from the point of view of the OU, was the word ‘free’. It was quite good at matrix arithmetic, very poor at calculus and mediocre at everything else. It was necessary to use it for all four TMAs, so couldn’t be avoided, and screenshots were required as evidence of its use. Its biggest issue was the less than intuitive input syntax and unhelpful error & warning messages.
The TMAs were surprisingly not immune from the modern touchy-feely contemplating-your-navel wellbeing malarky. Asking questions like ‘Reflecting on Unit 1 and looking forward to Unit 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 how do you feel about tackling the following …’ is all well and good, but answers for this attracted marks that went towards the module grade. Another example was ‘Reflect on how you approached your study for MST124, and if there is anything you might do differently for your next module’. These were easy marks to gain of course, but I can’t help thinking that these questions were only asked because it’s trendy to do so, not because they genuinely help students to succeed.
Good mathematical communication (GMC) was another concept that the module made a big thing of, and once again there were marks available for this as well, particularly at the start of the module. As the module progressed it seemed to be regarded as not being quite as important, but marks for it were still available.
The online end of module exam was more challenging that I expected, even though I fully prepared for it and did a lot of revision. The problem with remote exams is the potential for plagiarism and the misuse of GenAI. The module team came up with the wizard wheeze of introducing a difficult ‘part 3’ of the exam which was supposed to be AI resistant. This, coupled with having to photograph your rough working, combining it into a pdf file less than 50Mb and uploading it to the OU within an hour of finishing the exam, was designed to identify cheating. It’s an untested and unproven initiative, so I’m not sure how effective it will turn out to be. Of course, having invigilated exams in an exam hall, or making the module assessed only by coursework like MST121 Using Mathematics (1997-2013) used to be would be a much better solution than having to go through the present performance.
In terms of academic difficulty and workload, it is not easy for me to objectively comment on MST124. It was very roughly A level standard and sat between MU123 Discovering Mathematics (GCSE standard) and MST125 Essential Mathematics 2 (A level Further Maths standard). I studied A level mathematics and physics, albeit 45 years ago, so much of the material was familiar to me, but for those coming from MU123 or GCSE might find some of the concepts challenging at times. Although well taught, it was fast-paced with little time to fully get to grips with one unit before having to move on to the next one. I’m sure that some students put in a lot more than the recommended 8 - 10 hours per week study time to keep up with the demands of this module, particularly those without a mathematical bent.
Even though MST124 could be a bit of a beast at times, I can thoroughly recommend it and can honestly say it’s one of the more enjoyable modules that I’ve studied.