22 Replies to “The VCE Maths Marking Guides Are Up”
It looks like VCAA didn’t exclude the endpoint (t=0) for question 2a in methods exam 2 for the derivative hybrid function.
I hope they accept if students like me decide to exclude t=0 as the left limit does not exist. I am not sure how this works in university mathematics, but I was always told to “exclude endpoints” for derivatives.
And in question 7c methods exam 1 it’s unclear whether they accepted either inclusive or exclusive (looking at the solid line).
Thanks, vce.m.s. As CG notes, these marking guides have intended answers, and it doesn’t preclude VCAA marking other answers correct. Both answers are notable, however. As I suggested during the secret business, I’m not surprised that 2a includes the endpoint, but I’m sure plenty of VCE students will be, and one would certainly hope that VCAA rewards the non-endpoint answer. 7c is notable because the graph seems deliberately ambiguous. Again, I would have guessed that VCAA expected the endpoints, but it feels as if maybe a non-endpoint graph would be permitted (as it should).
You seem to be confusing the marking guide with the assessor report. Looks like this is modelled from NSW so that information would be expected to be in the next report.
While these are certainly an improvement both in speed of publication and of content, saying that a question has two method marks does not make it any clearer where those marks are to be awarded. Do the examiners have some discretion here? I would assume not.
Thanks, RF. I think this may be a learning curve, not least for VCAA.
I’m also not sure to what extent it is reasonable to expect a full-blown grading scheme. I guess someone can look at whether NESA and/or QCAA does that and, if so, whether as part of the released marking guides or in the later examination reports.
NESA documentation is very, very different to VCAA documentation. They seem to have a much more criteria-based marking guide. Similar to the IBO with their “if you see X anywhere, award Y marks”.
My opinion remains though that 2024 has been a drastic improvement on 2023 as far as VCAA is concerned, even allowing for the numerous whoopsies.
Sadly cannot have a full blown grading scheme without a useable, functional, decent, clear, specific study design. NSW and QLD can do this because in their wisdom they have a syllabus rather than a vague Victorian study design.
One must wonder how long Victoria will hold on to the premise that teachers want vague study designs rather than syllabus which would give students and teachers the clarity and support they need rather than the current lunacy.
Thanks again, CG. If you cannot have a functioning grading scheme, it’s difficult to see how you can have a functioning exam.
I’ve never really understood Victoria’s study design thing, and it’s on my list to look at its origins. I guess it was borne from the idiotic teacher autonomy thing, and teachers like it, or at least liked it, not only because of the autonomy but also because of the lack of accountability. But reality kicks in when you have an external exam.
Clearly it has to go. The wonder is that this lunacy has been accepted for so long.
5b) Answers suggest that function h(t) is plotted on the t and h axis, which seems like nonsense unless f(x) is plotted on the x and f axis (which could be correct but I’ve never heard that claim in my 2 years of Methods and Spec)
(the t-axis stuff is technically correct, albeit extremely nasty, but I don’t think the h-axis stuff is correct)
Thanks, Jay. It’s questions like this that make me want to give up the blog. All I can think to reply is “Who gives a shit?” But, of course, students have every right to give a shit.
Perhaps transformations are normally done in x-y language, but I see no reason why “f-axis” or, in this case, “h-axis”, should be considered incorrect.
I think the real grading question is whether “y” and/or “x” will be permitted. My feeling is that they should be permitted (with a report note/warning that this is poor form), but it is the kind of anal nonsense that VCAA has adored in the past, and I fear that they will do it again this year. VCAA is improving, but my guess is that there are still plenty of nasty pedants around.
MM exam 1 Q 8d: regarding this question, do you think the following argument would have earned the two marks allocated to ‘Method’?
The cube root function has a point of symmetry at the origin. Hence the function g(x) has a point of symmetry at ( k, m ). Given that g(0) = 0, and from part (c), k = m^3. Hence (m^3, m) is a point of symmetry. Since point P is (0,0), (m^3,m) is the midpoint of PQ and so point Q is simply (2 m^3,2m); located at twice the distance from the origin. By symmetry, the gradients at P and Q must be equal.
Regarding Q5ci : determining an approximate C.I. with ‘exact’ endpoints seems like an oxymoron.
Hi Rob. Without checking your working for 8(d), it smells right, and nice, and I see no reason why VCAA would not award full marks for such a solution.
5(c)(i), yes it comes across as pretty funny, but I think it is fine.
My reading of that question (not to let VCAA off the hook, but maybe this was the intention) is that the 95% is the approximate and if we assume 1.96 (or 2 or whatever) standard deviations then you can calculate exact values.
For methods exam 1, I accidentally integrated from the wrong terminals (as I misunderstood which area was required) and found the wrong area, would this obtain me a “method” mark? Thanks
Hi, Kabz. I’m not the guy to respond, since I’ve never figured out what a “method mark” is. But, for those who know this stuff, can you indicate which question?
I would think “not” as the method mark is given for correct terminals and correct function inside. And as it’s consequential, you will lose the answer mark as well.
Hi Marty, for General Maths Exam 1, Q39, what you do think about D being the sole answer stated in the marking guide?
As a student (who used the CASIO classpad), I was one who believed that doing the Hungarian algorithmn twice would be wayyy too much work for a single mark question, and too conceptually complex in General Maths (with the peculiar non-square matrix), so I unfortunately, I went the simple method and chose B, which will be the sole mark that I likely will be losing on E1, which may decrease my raw study score by 1 🙁
Of course, I am deeply angered and disappointed with this conclusion, especially considering the wordiness and ambiguity presented here. My General Maths teacher also chose B as an answer, but also presented concern surrounding the wording and oddity of the question. Sharing the question with family members (who do not know about the Hungarian algorithmn), they chose B, so I feel that if this scenario was a “real-life” situation, natural intuition would lead to an answer, B, whereas if ” VCAA examination-style” intuition was used, D is an answer. Even inputting the question into ChatGPT, their initial answer was B as well, until I had to manipulate it into believing and explaining how it was D. However, I do understand that other students were able to use inspection for the second matrix to get an answer, D, and due to the ambiguity presented it is definitely a valid answer.
I feel this calls into question the integrity of this question, due to the ambiguity and better wording they could have used, such as “When a new allocation is made with Edgar…” (that would likely lead to more students having D as an answer, instead of the confusing, silly and unnecessary “take over” part); the potential unfair advantage that TI-Nspire users may have gained from using a UDF (faster Hungarian algorithmn computation and greater accuracy in doing the Hungarian algorithm); and just the pure difficulty of the question if the answer was D, considering that it is General Mathematics (I would say conceptually harder than all the specialist maths multiple choice this year).
Anyways, would the marking guide present the definitive and conclusive answers of how they marked the exams, or is the marking-guide just VCAA’s initial answers of the exam, without consideration of the performance of students?
Thanks, mad. Presumably you already know my opinion and simply want to vent. But, for the record, it seems likely (but not certain) that you have a right to vent.
It is still not 100% certain that only the one answer was accepted. VCAA is still coming to terms with this accountability thing and, although there are parts of the marking guides which, at best, one might describe as perfunctory, I’d give them a little leeway right now. Particularly given the leak screw-up and the subsequent media crusade.
But, it is 100% certain that both B and D should have been accepted as correct, and if this turns out to not be the case then you/everyone has every right to throw rocks at VCAA. The question is screwed, pure and simple. Which happens, albeit this one was quite a howler. The active issue is how VCAA has handled it.
I would say it is also 99% certain that at least some General teachers have queried the marking guide. I have not heard of any such queries or of VCAA responses, but it has to be going on.
Obviously VCAA has bigger issues right now, with private school twat parents planning on suing VCAA because poor little Montgomery-Blart was disadvantaged. Nonetheless, if it comes to it and you don’t get the Hungarian mark, you have every right to complain.
Letting you know that I sought out my Statement of Marks for gen e1 and I was not given a mark for providing ‘B’ as an answer to Q39.
Although my study score is still quite decent, I’m quite disappointed (and salty) that VCAA hasn’t acknowledged this question blunder (especially since it appears that MCQs have been invalidated/ multiple answers accepted in Chemistry and Economics).
It looks like VCAA didn’t exclude the endpoint (t=0) for question 2a in methods exam 2 for the derivative hybrid function.
I hope they accept if students like me decide to exclude t=0 as the left limit does not exist. I am not sure how this works in university mathematics, but I was always told to “exclude endpoints” for derivatives.
And in question 7c methods exam 1 it’s unclear whether they accepted either inclusive or exclusive (looking at the solid line).
Thanks, vce.m.s. As CG notes, these marking guides have intended answers, and it doesn’t preclude VCAA marking other answers correct. Both answers are notable, however. As I suggested during the secret business, I’m not surprised that 2a includes the endpoint, but I’m sure plenty of VCE students will be, and one would certainly hope that VCAA rewards the non-endpoint answer. 7c is notable because the graph seems deliberately ambiguous. Again, I would have guessed that VCAA expected the endpoints, but it feels as if maybe a non-endpoint graph would be permitted (as it should).
You seem to be confusing the marking guide with the assessor report. Looks like this is modelled from NSW so that information would be expected to be in the next report.
Thanks, CG. I was pondering that.
While these are certainly an improvement both in speed of publication and of content, saying that a question has two method marks does not make it any clearer where those marks are to be awarded. Do the examiners have some discretion here? I would assume not.
Still an interesting read, on the whole.
Thanks, RF. I think this may be a learning curve, not least for VCAA.
I’m also not sure to what extent it is reasonable to expect a full-blown grading scheme. I guess someone can look at whether NESA and/or QCAA does that and, if so, whether as part of the released marking guides or in the later examination reports.
NESA documentation is very, very different to VCAA documentation. They seem to have a much more criteria-based marking guide. Similar to the IBO with their “if you see X anywhere, award Y marks”.
My opinion remains though that 2024 has been a drastic improvement on 2023 as far as VCAA is concerned, even allowing for the numerous whoopsies.
It would be kinda nice if some reporter, any reporter, noted this. But of course Susie “just doing the job” O’Brien is otherwise occupied.
Sadly cannot have a full blown grading scheme without a useable, functional, decent, clear, specific study design. NSW and QLD can do this because in their wisdom they have a syllabus rather than a vague Victorian study design.
One must wonder how long Victoria will hold on to the premise that teachers want vague study designs rather than syllabus which would give students and teachers the clarity and support they need rather than the current lunacy.
Thanks again, CG. If you cannot have a functioning grading scheme, it’s difficult to see how you can have a functioning exam.
I’ve never really understood Victoria’s study design thing, and it’s on my list to look at its origins. I guess it was borne from the idiotic teacher autonomy thing, and teachers like it, or at least liked it, not only because of the autonomy but also because of the lack of accountability. But reality kicks in when you have an external exam.
Clearly it has to go. The wonder is that this lunacy has been accepted for so long.
Methods exam 1:
5b) Answers suggest that function h(t) is plotted on the t and h axis, which seems like nonsense unless f(x) is plotted on the x and f axis (which could be correct but I’ve never heard that claim in my 2 years of Methods and Spec)
(the t-axis stuff is technically correct, albeit extremely nasty, but I don’t think the h-axis stuff is correct)
Thanks, Jay. It’s questions like this that make me want to give up the blog. All I can think to reply is “Who gives a shit?” But, of course, students have every right to give a shit.
Perhaps transformations are normally done in x-y language, but I see no reason why “f-axis” or, in this case, “h-axis”, should be considered incorrect.
I think the real grading question is whether “y” and/or “x” will be permitted. My feeling is that they should be permitted (with a report note/warning that this is poor form), but it is the kind of anal nonsense that VCAA has adored in the past, and I fear that they will do it again this year. VCAA is improving, but my guess is that there are still plenty of nasty pedants around.
Hi Marty, thanks for the post.
MM exam 1 Q 8d: regarding this question, do you think the following argument would have earned the two marks allocated to ‘Method’?
The cube root function has a point of symmetry at the origin. Hence the function g(x) has a point of symmetry at ( k, m ). Given that g(0) = 0, and from part (c), k = m^3. Hence (m^3, m) is a point of symmetry. Since point P is (0,0), (m^3,m) is the midpoint of PQ and so point Q is simply (2 m^3,2m); located at twice the distance from the origin. By symmetry, the gradients at P and Q must be equal.
Regarding Q5ci : determining an approximate C.I. with ‘exact’ endpoints seems like an oxymoron.
Hi Rob. Without checking your working for 8(d), it smells right, and nice, and I see no reason why VCAA would not award full marks for such a solution.
5(c)(i), yes it comes across as pretty funny, but I think it is fine.
My reading of that question (not to let VCAA off the hook, but maybe this was the intention) is that the 95% is the approximate and if we assume 1.96 (or 2 or whatever) standard deviations then you can calculate exact values.
But yes, not exactly literature.
For methods exam 1, I accidentally integrated from the wrong terminals (as I misunderstood which area was required) and found the wrong area, would this obtain me a “method” mark? Thanks
Hi, Kabz. I’m not the guy to respond, since I’ve never figured out what a “method mark” is. But, for those who know this stuff, can you indicate which question?
I would think “not” as the method mark is given for correct terminals and correct function inside. And as it’s consequential, you will lose the answer mark as well.
Hi Marty, for General Maths Exam 1, Q39, what you do think about D being the sole answer stated in the marking guide?
As a student (who used the CASIO classpad), I was one who believed that doing the Hungarian algorithmn twice would be wayyy too much work for a single mark question, and too conceptually complex in General Maths (with the peculiar non-square matrix), so I unfortunately, I went the simple method and chose B, which will be the sole mark that I likely will be losing on E1, which may decrease my raw study score by 1 🙁
Of course, I am deeply angered and disappointed with this conclusion, especially considering the wordiness and ambiguity presented here. My General Maths teacher also chose B as an answer, but also presented concern surrounding the wording and oddity of the question. Sharing the question with family members (who do not know about the Hungarian algorithmn), they chose B, so I feel that if this scenario was a “real-life” situation, natural intuition would lead to an answer, B, whereas if ” VCAA examination-style” intuition was used, D is an answer. Even inputting the question into ChatGPT, their initial answer was B as well, until I had to manipulate it into believing and explaining how it was D. However, I do understand that other students were able to use inspection for the second matrix to get an answer, D, and due to the ambiguity presented it is definitely a valid answer.
I feel this calls into question the integrity of this question, due to the ambiguity and better wording they could have used, such as “When a new allocation is made with Edgar…” (that would likely lead to more students having D as an answer, instead of the confusing, silly and unnecessary “take over” part); the potential unfair advantage that TI-Nspire users may have gained from using a UDF (faster Hungarian algorithmn computation and greater accuracy in doing the Hungarian algorithm); and just the pure difficulty of the question if the answer was D, considering that it is General Mathematics (I would say conceptually harder than all the specialist maths multiple choice this year).
Anyways, would the marking guide present the definitive and conclusive answers of how they marked the exams, or is the marking-guide just VCAA’s initial answers of the exam, without consideration of the performance of students?
Thanks, mad. Presumably you already know my opinion and simply want to vent. But, for the record, it seems likely (but not certain) that you have a right to vent.
It is still not 100% certain that only the one answer was accepted. VCAA is still coming to terms with this accountability thing and, although there are parts of the marking guides which, at best, one might describe as perfunctory, I’d give them a little leeway right now. Particularly given the leak screw-up and the subsequent media crusade.
But, it is 100% certain that both B and D should have been accepted as correct, and if this turns out to not be the case then you/everyone has every right to throw rocks at VCAA. The question is screwed, pure and simple. Which happens, albeit this one was quite a howler. The active issue is how VCAA has handled it.
I would say it is also 99% certain that at least some General teachers have queried the marking guide. I have not heard of any such queries or of VCAA responses, but it has to be going on.
Obviously VCAA has bigger issues right now, with private school twat parents planning on suing VCAA because poor little Montgomery-Blart was disadvantaged. Nonetheless, if it comes to it and you don’t get the Hungarian mark, you have every right to complain.
Hi Marty,
Letting you know that I sought out my Statement of Marks for gen e1 and I was not given a mark for providing ‘B’ as an answer to Q39.
Although my study score is still quite decent, I’m quite disappointed (and salty) that VCAA hasn’t acknowledged this question blunder (especially since it appears that MCQs have been invalidated/ multiple answers accepted in Chemistry and Economics).
Do you think anything can be done about this?
Hi, mad. You can complain formally, although I don’t know the mechanism for doing so.
However, almost certainly you will be knocked back.
However however, *someone* should complain formally. This is really shitty of VCAA at a time when they should be working overtime to be not-shitty.
I really thought this kind of arrogant bullshit might have ended, and I am *seriously* pissed off that it seemingly has not.