Mathematical Studies

2 0 0 6

A S S E S S M E N T

Mathematics Learning Area

R E P O R T

MATHEMATICAL STUDIES
2006 ASSESSMENT REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
The examination is designed to assess primarily Learning Outcomes 1 to 5 (SSABSA,
curriculum statement, 2006) the five learning outcomes being that students should be able to:
1. use mathematics as a tool to analyse data and other information elicited from the study of
situations taken from social, scientific, economic, or historical contexts;
2. understand fundamental concepts, demonstrate mathematical skills, and apply routine
mathematical procedures;
3. think mathematically by posing questions, making and testing conjectures, and looking for
reasons that explain the results of the mathematics;
4. make informed and critical use of electronic technology to provide numerical results and
graphical representations, and to refine and extend mathematical knowledge;
5. communicate mathematically, and present mathematical information in a variety of ways.
The 2006 results suggest that the examination did not hinder students in demonstrating their
knowledge and skills as they pertain to the above outcomes. The mark distribution had a mean
of 60% with a skewed-left bell-like shape. The examination succeeded in differentiating
between individual students within the group who scored highly.
A number of questions required the students to make links between parts of the question if
they were to score highly. It is pleasing to see that many of the students unable to make the
links were able to complete the parts of the questions (including parts in the last few
questions) that might be described as meat and potatoes, hence showing that they can apply
routine mathematical procedures. It is equally pleasing to see a good number of students
displaying strong skills, as described by Learning Outcomes 1, 3, 4, and 5. To improve
student performance of the skills in these outcomes, their learning should include an
immersion into larger problems well before the exam swatting period.
Numerous questions supplied the students with graphical displays of functions. One potential
reason for this is that the student can check that their entry of data into the electronic
technology they are using. It is evident that some students do not use the supplied graphs in
this manner.
Success in this examination required students to be capable symbolic manipulators who show
all of their working. Students are instructed on the front cover of the exam that, Appropriate
steps of logic and correct answers are required for full marks. Many students could not be
awarded partial credit because they chose not to show all working. This was particularly true
in questions where the student was asked to show a result to be true. Many students also
found difficulty when the symbolic manipulation required them to deal with brackets and
negative signs.
It is pleasing to report that students generally paid attention to the sensible rounding of
numeric results provided by the electronic technology they used.
The curriculum statement calls for students to be discerning in their use of electronic
technology to solve questions in examinations. It is evident that many students are not
discerning. There was a desire by one group of students to first attempt a question using a by
head method and then, if stuck, revert to using electronic technology. This caused students to

waste a great deal of time in some cases. See question specific comments for more detail.

ASSESSMENT COMPONENT: EXAMINATION

Question 1
The majority of students scored very well in this question. However, some students were
unaware of the notation used for the determinant and some failed to integrate x .

Question 2
The majority of students also scored highly in this question. It did, however, distinguish
between those students who understood the process of matrix multiplication and those who
could simply compute using electronic technology.
In part a (i), most students chose to use electronic technology to compute the determinant.
Many students did not see, or chose to ignore, the conceptual link between part (b) and part
(c).
In answering part (d) some students did not demonstrate an understanding that C needed to be
pre-multiplied by A1 , attempting to compute CA1 . Some students, who did write down
A1C , ended by writing down matrices of the wrong shape.

Question 3
The majority of students displayed they were able to carry out the basic computations
associated with binomial probabilities. The notion of at least one did cause some students
difficulty.
Quite a few students used their electronic technology sensibly in part (b) using a trial and
error approach. A few employed an analytical technique in this part while the majority of
students failed to make much progress.
Very few students found success in part (c), being unable to provide a binomial assumption
that was not satisfied.

Question 4
Success in this question required that a student understood how a chord is able to approximate
the slope of a tangent at a point and the concept of the derivative function. More than a few
students chose to draw a tangent rather than a chord (as clearly requested) for part (a).
It was pleasing to see many good attempts to part (b). Many of the good attempts scored two
marks out of three as students failed to include a point of inflection on y = h ' ( x) at some point
( x , h ' ( x )) where a < x < f . There were, however, slightly more poor or null attempts than
good attempts.

Question 5
Part (b) of this question could be approached either by standardising or by using a trial and
error approach aided by the use of electronic technology. Many students did neither. While

most students were able to successfully compute the answer to part (c) (ii), relatively few
were able to use the number gained to provide a sensible answer to the question posed in part
(c) (ii).

Question 6
Many students were able to score three or four marks for this question. Some students found
difficulty in applying the necessary logarithm law to isolate 2a. Some students did not pay
attention to the requirement of an exact value for a and provided a decimal result.

Question 7
It was very pleasing that most students were able to compute the confidence interval required
in part (a) and also use it sensibly to provide a good answer to part (b).
Some students were unsure of the meaning of the width of a confidence interval given they
doubled 0.02 prior to substituting it into the required formula. Some students either did not
round, or rounded incorrectly, the value for n given by the formula.

Question 8
Parts (a) and (b) of this question required students to use electronic technology and to be able
to display their results neatly and accurately on paper. While the vast majority of students
were able to do this, too many failed to meet the requirements. Poorly drawn graphs with lack
of accuracy when plotting intercepts and the like were common. More than a few students
attempted part (b) using analytical methods, spending more time on that part than was
required. An exact result was not asked for in this part and so a decimal approximation as
given by the electronic technology was acceptable.
Part (c) was generally well done, the main error being incorrect use of brackets.
It was pleasing that most students started well in part (d). Many students arrived at the
appropriate quadratic, but then some struggled to solve the quadratic, not knowing how to
deal with the a. Few students added the fact that a>0 was the condition that proved there
were exactly two solutions.

Question 9
Most students answered part (a) well. However, some made computational errors.
It was clear that many students were able to see the pattern evident as a result of calculations
in part (a). However, most were unable to reason well enough to justify the answer they
provided to part (b). Students needed to say that 0.6 n tends to zero as n tends to positive
infinity.

Question 10
In part (c) (i) more than a few students failed to include the integral limits. In part (c) (ii) it
was disappointing to see both computational and rounding errors made. Students need to
know and be well practised in the most efficient way to compute definite integrals using their
electronic technology.

Part (c) (iii) required students to provide an interpretation of the value computed in part (c)
(ii). Many students understood that a difference was involved but most did not realise the
quantity involved was the total flow (amount) and not the flow rate.

Question 11
This question separated the cohort into three groups: those who did not put pen to paper, those
who could write down some equations but not use them in any way, and those who did all or
most of the question successfully.
In part (a), it was quite common for students to write down something like
A + B + C = A + 5.5 +3 = 4 + B + 3.5 and then not be able to proceed to a format that was of
use to them.
In part (b) (ii) it was surprising how many students could write down D + E = D + F but then
not conclude that E = F. Some students attempted this part using inverse logic; such an
approach was not awarded any marks.

Question 12
Many students performed very well in this question, ultimately being able to work with the
specific case of the tangent at x = 3, then being able to work with other cases, and ultimately
the general case.
Parts (b) and (c) required the student to work in an exact manner, giving the values of A, B,
and C as integers. This was ignored by some students who converted fractions to decimal
approximations at the first opportunity. Some students unfortunately chose to read the values
of the x and y intercepts of the tangent at x = 3 from the graph.
Responses to part (d) suggested that many students had not encountered a situation where
they were to make a conjecture of the type expected (that the area of triangle OEF was 9/k).
Some students made alternative (but correct) conjectures and were rewarded, but then
struggled to prove their conjecture as asked in part (d) (ii).
It was pleasing to see that about 20% of the students made excellent attempts at proving their
conjecture (with most being totally successful).

Question 13
This was the first year that a question involving a Z-test had been included. From the response
to part (a), it was clear that many students had been well taught and that the support materials
made available by SSABSA had been well utilised.
Some students performed a one-tailed test. Students should be made aware that this course
only includes two-tailed procedures. Some students were unaware that the null distribution for
a Z-test is the Z distribution N(0,1).
In part (b), most students calculated the required confidence interval correctly, but many were
unable to fully explain that the breeders claim was justified. Students needed to comment
that the 25 microns was greater than the upper limit of the confidence intervals upper limit.

Question 14
In part (a) there were numerous students who attempted to carry out the integration of g(x)
using an analytical method. In general, it seems that students need to become better at
deciding when, and when not to, use electronic technology to compute things for which they
think may also be approached analytically.
Part (c) was generally very well done, with poor use of brackets and negative signs causing
some students not to show what was required.
Part (d) was not done well, with many students not seeing the link between what was given in
part (c) and what was required in part (d). Of those who did see and use the link, some found
only f(k) instead of f(k) - f(0).
The requirement to interpret in part (e) was handled poorly by most students. Students who
reached a wrong answer in part (d) often gave an answer to part (e) that contradicted the
graph supplied. In such cases, students should check for consistency and comment on the lack
of consistency if present. The students who correctly reported that as k tended to positive
infinity, A(k) approached 2, rarely related this fact back to the graph as required.

Question 15
Most students scored well in this question, demonstrating good skills in relating matrix
calculations to a real-life context.
The calculation of the determinant in part (c) (ii) caused some students problems. Incorrect
use of brackets and the poor handling of fractions and symbols were common problems.
In part (c) (v) working with fractions again caused problems for some students. Many
students could not be awarded partial credit as they did not show the result of each row
operation clearly.
A pleasing number of students were able to successfully answer part (c) (vi).

Question 16
An efficient way to complete part (a) of this question was to use electronic technology. Many
students chose not to do this. The point of part (a) was for students to compute the derivatives
and, if they considered the values, realise that the rate of change of V(t) was decreasing post
t = 40.
Part (b) was not handled well by most students. It required students to take great care
algebraically. Given the students were required to show that, clearly showing the removal of
the common factor(s) was a critical step in the problem.
It was pleasing that many students indicated that the point of inflection was important in
answering part (c). However, despite the second derivative being given in part (b), relatively
few students determined that the inflection occurred 30 years after planting. Even fewer
identified the correct time period as beyond the 30-year mark.
Relatively few students attempted parts (d) and (e). However, it was very pleasing to see
numerous excellent solutions with a good number of students gaining full marks for this
question.

In part (e) some students indicated the solution required them to find the point of intersection
of two functions, but were unable to do this. This was a case where the use of electronic
technology offered an efficient way to proceed.

Chief Assessor
Mathematical Studies