This is our post for discussion of the 2022 NHT Mathematical Methods exams, which have now been posted, here and here. (See also our corresponding 2022 NHT Specialist exams post.) We’ve had a quick browse, and found plenty of irritants but no glaringly large errors. We don’t plan to look further or to post on the exams, except to follow up on whatever people find worthy of comment. Continue reading “Discussion of the 2022 NHT Methods Exams”
Tag: exams
WitCH 81: Pointed Criticism
This is another one courtesy of Mysterious Michael. We’re not quite sure whether it’s a WitCH, or a PoSWW, or one for the error list, or simply a roll-your-eyes-and-ignore. In any case, it’s a question from the notorious 2016 Methods Exam 2 (report here), and we’ve expanded slightly from MM’s stated concern. (We could’ve expanded to include the entire question, as a Road to Nowhere, but decided not to lose too much of MM’s original focus.)
Have fun.
How the Other Maths Lives
A few days ago, the Sydney Morning Herald had an article on “the hardest question” from this year’s NSW Extension 2 Exam. The question is worth 5 marks, which equates to 9 minutes of a 3 hour exam (accessible here). The question, and another question (6-ish minutes), which apparently came along for the ride, are posted below. Readers’ homework exercise is to Compare and Contrast. Continue reading “How the Other Maths Lives”
WitCH 74: Aargh!
This one comes from the 2021 Specialist Mathematics Exam 2 (not yet online). The general discussion on the exam is here, where some concerns on this question have been raised. It’s bad enough to be a WitCH, however, and so here we are.
WitCH 73: Independent Thinking
Here is an old Methods one for a change, from the 2011 Exam 2. The examination report gives the answer as E and indicates that 15% of students selected this answer.
WitCH 72: High Significance
Here is one more from the 2019 Specialist Exam 2, once again courtesy of student PURJ (who is vetting the exams much better than the exam vetters). It consists of the last four parts of Q6, the final question on the exam, concerning a machine that packages noodles. The answers from the examination report appear below the questions.
WitCH 71: Plane Wrong
Here is another from the 2019 Specialist Exam 2, also courtesy of student PURJ. Again, we’ll semi-update from the examination report once people have had a chance to ponder and to comment.
WitCH 70: Troubled Relations
This is not an old one. It is from the 2019 Specialist Exam 2 and comes courtesy of student PURJ, who previously contributed to the discussion here. PURJ noted one, glaring, issue with the question below and its grading, but we think there are other issues as well. As with our previous WitCH, we’ll semi-update with excerpts from the examination report once people have had a chance to ponder and to comment.
Discussion of the 2021 NHT Methods Exams
This is our post for discussion of the 2021 NHT Mathematical Methods exams (here and here). See also the accompanying 2021 NHT Specialist exams post, here. See also the relevant Witches: here, here and here.
UPDATE (08/10/21) The exam reports have reappeared, as PDFs, here and here. The exam 2 report has important updates, and important non-updates; see the comments in blue, below.
UPDATE (22/09/21) The exam reports are now out, here and here (VCAA-Word-Stupid). We’ve added a couple comments below, in green.
MitPY 8: Verification Code
It’s a long time since we’ve had a MitPY. But, the plague goes on (including the plague of right-wing Creightons).
This one comes from frequent commenter Red Five, and we apologise for the huge delay in posting. It is targeted at those familiar with and, more likely, struggling with Victoria’s VCE rituals:
VCAA uses some pretty strange words in exam questions, and the more exam papers I read, especially for Specialist Mathematics 34, the more I can’t get a firm idea of how they distinguish between the meanings of “show that“, “verify that” and “prove that“.
“Verify” seems to mean “by substitution”, “show that” seems to mean “given these very specific parameters” and “prove that” seems to be more general, but is it really this simple?