Mathematical Studies

2 0 0 4

A S S E S S M E N T

Mathematics Learning Area

R E P O R T

MATHEMATICAL STUDIES
2004 ASSESSMENT REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
This was the second examination that assessed student learning based on the Mathematical
Studies Curriculum Statement. The overall results differed little from those of 2003.
Students provided fully correct solutions for each of the fourteen questions.
Again, the examining team wrote an examination that provided an honest assessment of the
learning outcomes and content of this subject as directed by the curriculum statement.
The examination included questions that required students to:

use mathematics as a tool to analyse data and other information elicited from the study of
situations;

understand fundamental concepts, demonstrate mathematical skills, and apply routine

mathematical procedures;

look for reasons that explain results;

communicate mathematically.
It was evident many students were well rehearsed in the routine procedures included in this
course. It was also evident that many students found great difficulty in being able to do more than
they had rehearsed. Applying routine mathematical procedures is one (important) part of this
course, but not the only part see the learning outcomes in the curriculum statement.
As in 2003, where students were required to demonstrate a simple mathematical skill, their level
of communication was good. However, when the demonstration of a deeper understanding was
required, the quality of the responses fell dramatically.
Some students seem to have found contextual questions that are composed of connected parts
challenging. Such questions could be defined simply as problem-solving type questions.
It seems unlikely that the traditional teaching approach of type example followed by completion
of an exercise set, if the only approach used, will prepare students adequately to fulfil the
learning outcomes and address the key questions and key ideas of this course.
Too many students were unsure of when and where to use electronic technology. See specific
question comments for more detail.
While many excellent solutions were written, in general, the students ability to communicate the
logic used to arrive at an answer was not strong. To be awarded part marks for a question they
must write down the steps of mathematical logic they have employed to reach the answer.

ASSESSMENT COMPONENT 3: EXAMINATION

Question 1
Parts (a) and (b) were generally done well. Part (c), a very similar question to that from the 2003
examination, was handled less well. Too many students employed a variety of incorrect methods.
Some students attempted to integrate each part of the product.

Question 2
This question was done quite well. When indicating something on a graph (part (a)), students
must be sure to do so very clearly. The main error made by students was to not use values
provided in the table and take estimates from the graph.
40

It was disappointing that many students, despite having calculated estimates for

v(t)dt , were
20

unable to provide a correct meaning of this integral in terms of the motion of the car.

Question 3
Most students were able to compute the answer to part (a) correctly but quite a few students did
not then use this value in answering part (b). Clearly these students were looking at the parts of
this questions as unrelated.
In part (b) (ii), the phrase at least two caused problems for some students. Students should be
encouraged to write down their logic in such questions. If an incorrect answer is all that is written
down, then the student can be awarded no marks from the three marks allocated. If the student
writes down P(Y 2) = 1 P(Y 2) , then the marker can determine where the error in logic is
and award part marks accordingly.
If students have a form of electronic technology that allows a calculation, like that in part (b) (ii),
to be computed directly, then great care must be taken to ensure they compute it correctly.

Question 4
The large majority of students had rehearsed the routine process of first principles differentiation
very well. Those students who substituted 4 for x at the beginning of the process had a far easier
route to success. Common errors included:

3x + h
3(x + h)
instead of
;
x +h2
x +h2

starting with

placing the limit statement on the wrong side of the equal to sign;
removing the limit statement incorrectly;
algebraic manipulation of the fraction.

Question 5
Students wrote generally good solutions to this question. The algebraic nature of the determinant
caused problems for some students.
When applying one of the determinant algorithms, some students confused the symbol for the
determinant of a two by two matrix for brackets and then proceeded to find a two by two matrix
as an answer.
Most students saw the need to equate the determinant to zero in part (c), but struggled to make
sense of the result of this if they had arrived at unusual results in part (b). If students made errors
in part (b) they could still achieve full marks in part (c), but had to deal with the solutions to the
equation sensibly should they have not been real numbers. Most students seemed comfortable
using electronic technology to find the solutions to the equation they derived in part (b).

Question 6
Many students wrote very good solutions to this question.
Many students handled the implicit differentiation process well. The most common error here was
not using brackets when differentiating 2xy.
Some students wasted time by finding both tangents in part (b). Others were able to make the
appropriate substitution for y, but then could not proceed to simplify the equation to a simple
quadratic and find its solutions.

dy
to 1 to begin part (c). Some students
dx
2
did not know how to proceed after arriving at 3(y 1) = 2y . Some students arrived at
3y 2 4 y + 3 = 0 but failed to clearly state this equation had no real solutions. Using electronic

Many students were able to realise they had to equate

technology for this was appropriate, as was the use of the discriminant.
It should be noted that using a numerical method (solver on electronic technology) on the
2
equation 3(y 1) = 2y was not helpful.

Question 7
A pleasing number of excellent solutions were written to this question. However, too many poor
solutions were also offered.
This question required the students to apply some fundamental concepts and skills to a problem
they had not seen before an unrehearsed situation.
In part (a) the students had to clearly show the logic that explained how the traffic flow at each
intersection gave rise to the augmented matrix. Often, students simply reconstructed the equations
from the augmented matrix.
Most students coped well with the row operations expected in part (b). Some students made the
question more difficult by operating before substituting the values for a, b, and so on. Some

students lost marks because they used electronic technology to reduce the matrix to row echelon
form. The question clearly asked the student to use row operations and to show each step of the
working.
In part (c) (i) some students did not use the work they had done in part (b). Time could have been
saved if they had. Some students clearly had difficulties using parametric equations to represent
the infinite set of solutions to this system.
While many students answered part (c) (ii) correctly it was disappointing that many more students
did not. It was disappointing that more students did not simply look at the diagram and see that if
x1 = 0 then x 2 = a . Some students, who had answered part (c) (i) correctly, did not make the
simple connection that x1 = 0 and substitute accordingly or use the diagram as explained above.
Students should be encouraged to attempt the last parts of questions whether or not they had felt
they had been successful in the previous part.

Question 8
Again, many excellent solutions were written for this question.
In this sort of question students must be encouraged to write down each line of their working, so
points of error can be clearly found and the marker is able to award the marks that have been
earned.
The inclusion of a parameter (a in this case) did cause some students some concern.

Question 9
This question assessed students understanding of the relationship between a function and its
derivative, from a graphical perspective a fundamental concept.
In helping students to understand such concepts, the use of electronic technology is invaluable,
even though it is of no direct use in answering this question.
In general, student performance in this question highlighted the fact that even though most
students are competent at the application of routine processes, their understanding of the
fundamental concept examined here was not strong.

Question 10
This question was not handled well by many students.
The key questions and ideas from Subtopic 2.1: The Utility of Functional Models are the
foundation of this question.
One model listed is the quadratic model. The following comments are given in the curriculum
statement as supporting ideas of how to address this section of the curriculum statement.

For example, an algebraic model could be derived from assumptions or given properties,.

It is envisaged that this approach would work effectively for: quadratic models for the area of
(say) rectangles with fixed perimeters; .

Most students were able to answer part (a) correctly. While many good solutions (and some
exquisite ones) were written for part (b), many students lost their way after starting. The simplest
way to proceed was to use the fact that the triangle FDC had two lengths that formed two thirds of
a Pythagorean triad (3, 4, 5). A number of other approaches were possible and were used.
Even if unsuccessful in part (b), students were able to continue and still gain all marks that
followed. It was disappointing to see that many students could not apply the area of a triangle
formula to find the area of triangle DEF. The fact that AD was the height of this triangle was not
obvious to many.

Question 11
The routine parts of this question were generally done well.
Many students had difficulty in recognising the importance of the range 1015 grams to 1025
grams in answering part (b). Many did not recognise they had already done the necessary
calculations to answer Part (b) in Part ().
Part (c) (iii) was not handled well. Few students were able to see how their answers to part (c) (i)
and (ii) could be used in part (c).
Clearly students would benefit from more opportunities to solve problems that require the
application of routine process (like the calculation of a confidence interval) and some simple
logic.

Question 12
This question assessed student achievement in the following key questions/ideas from Subtopic
2.3: Introduction to the Definite Integral:

The definite integral as the unique number between the upper and lower sums, interpreted
both as an area and as distance travelled.

Areas that can be determined by geometric means, such as:

- linear functions or the circle areas under the graph of simple polynomial, rational,
exponential, or root functions ..

This was the most poorly done question in the examination. It was evident that students did not
understand that the definite integral could be interpreted as an area.
Many students attempted to integrate

9 x using some invented algorithm.

2

It was also evident that many students did not understand the phrase exact value. Many used
3

electronic technology to find a decimal approximation for

9 x dx
2

In part (c), many students had difficulty interpreting the meaning of the integral presented.
Few students saw how they were able to use the result presented in part (c) to complete part
(d) (i).
Of the students who made a good attempt at the final part, too many wrote incomplete solutions,
failing to explicitly state that the integral provided the value of an area. It was sufficient for a
student to draw a picture of a flattened circle with appropriate dimensions and state the integral
calculated the area of this figure. Knowledge of an ellipse was not assumed.

Question 13
Most students did very well in parts (a), (b) and (d) of this question.
In part (c), many students did not explain. For full marks students had to make clear that the
matrix C, when pre-multiplied by A gave the predicted numbers in each age group on day 1 and
2
then the matrix AC being pre-multiplied by A (resulting in A C ) gave the same for day 2.
In part (d) many students saw a need to include k in their answer. Clearly the cyclic nature
highlighted by the answers to parts (d) (i) and (ii) was missed by many students.
Many students were able to perform the algebraic manipulation required in part (e) (i) and (ii), but
relatively few were able to use the results in answering part (f). In part (e) (i), of those who found
MN, some did not then use the given result that MN=N and consequently stopped. Of those who
did use the given result, some then struggled to use the resulting equations to show the required
result.

Question 14
More than a few students did not attempt this question at all. This is a disturbing result given
many of the marks in this question were awarded to routine calculations.
Parts (a) and (b) were answered well by many students. However, some students use of notation
in part (b) was poor. Many stated that X = rather than (X 20 ) = .
Many students provided an incorrect answer to part (c). They seem to believe that, provided n is
30 or greater, the distribution of sample means will be approximately normal. This is not
generally true.
Most students coped well with part (d).
Many students who chose the correct option for part (e) were unable to explain why.
Part (f) of this question required students to have understood the question as a whole. This was
not done well by many students. Of those students who made a good attempt, many did not
realise that their answer to part (d) would have been of help in part (f) (ii) and re-calculated it.
Many also failed to show that 19 batteries were not enough.

Question 15
Too many students drew very poor graphs in part (a). No indication of scale, carelessly drawn
curves and a general lack of accuracy were among the problems.
It was common for students to take an algebraic approach to part (b) (i). This was unfortunate.
Electronic technology provided an efficient method to approach this task.
It was disappointing that many students were unable to recognise C = ab , t 0 as an
exponential function. Many students were unable to make the link that an exponential function
increases (at an increasing rate) as t increases and that such a model would be inappropriate to
model the cumulative number of sales of digital television.
t

Relatively few students were able to answer part (d) well. Few students used the fact that the
inflection point of a logistic function occurs at half the limiting value of the function and that the
data presented seemed to have the point of maximum rate of change at a percentage lower than
the limiting percentage (even if the limiting value was taken to be 90%).
Providing an interpretation of the point of inflection provided in part (d) (ii) was done poorly.

Chief Assessor
Mathematical Studies