 Home
 Studying in New Zealand
 Qualifications and standards
 NCEA
 Māori & Pasifika

Providers and partners
 About education organisations
 NZQA's quality assurance system for tertiary education organisations
 Quick links to NZQF documents
 Approval, accreditation and registration
 Consistency of graduate outcomes
 Selfassessment
 External evaluation and review
 Assessment and moderation
 Development of assessment standards
 Submitting results and awarding qualifications
 The Education (Pastoral Care of International Students) Code of Practice
 Offshore use of qualifications and programmes
 Guidelines and forms
 About us
Assessment Report
Level 1 Mathematics and Statistics 2016
Standards 91027 91028 91031 91037
Part B: Report on Standards
MCAT 91027
While there was a wide variation in the levels of performance as would be expected, a higher level of algebraic process than usual was shown by many candidates. Questions that might have appeared to be from a higher level of the curriculum were elegantly solved using combinations of procedures from this L1 achievement standard and often involved year 9 and 10 mathematics. Candidates who were successful with this knew how to address problems by selecting a correct sequence of procedures. This was commendable. These candidates frequently performed better than some who had obviously been taught higher level mathematics such as logarithms and the quadratic formula but failed to follow the procedure through correctly. As a consequence of having some of this type of questions in this year’s 2017 MCAT paper teachers need to take care that they do not try to cram more higher level algebra into their programmes but instead look at the strategies involved, teach their students the basic procedures including how to apply them and to think through an appropriate sequence of procedures. There will not be questions in papers that can only be solved by the use of higher level knowledge. They may be able to use rules taught at higher levels but with sound knowledge and thinking the higher mathematics is not required.
Candidates who had basic concepts of the graphs of parabola and the relationship between the solutions of a quadratic equation were able to answer questions more confidently.
Where candidates knew the general shape of positive and negative parabolas they could indicate this which helped them in identifying the x values for which a quadratic expression would have positive and negative values.
It is important that the candidates have a clear understanding of what the variables represent in questions where they are given a description of the situation or are required to write their own equations.
Candidates must be reminded that this is an algebra standard and hence algebra must be used. This includes being able to generalise situations rather than simply giving numerical examples. It is unlikely that the candidate will gain any significant credit for this level of working.
Correct answers only will in general not be accepted. Guess and check is an acceptable method of solving exponential equations at this level but where there are common factors these should first be eliminated.
Numerical substitution was poorly done in often higher level of achievement papers. There was poor understanding demonstrated by many candidates in order of operations as well as in general number skills. To receive credit for substitution problems candidates are required to perform the numerical operations correctly.
Many candidates did not consider their answers in context eg left negative answers for measurement.
Candidates need to be encouraged to attempt all questions, even if they cannot complete everything as an attempt will often provide evidence for achievement from a question targeting a higher level of performance.
91028: Investigate relationships between tables, equations and graphs
Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:
 were able to write a linear equation.
 correctly plotted points from a table
 interpreted aspects of linear graphs
 sketched a parabola
 found the maximum of a parabola
 recognised an exponential graph.
Candidates who were assessed as Not Achieved commonly:
 could not write an equation
 could not interpret a graph
 could not distinguish between linear, quadratic and exponential graphs
 could not complete a table of values
 did not understand the symmetry of parabolas.
Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:
 used a graph to answer a question
 wrote the equation of a parabola
 sketched a parabola
 found the equation of an exponential graph
 used an equation to complete a table
 recognised the limitations of a situation
 distinguished between linear, quadratic and exponential relationships.
Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:
 correctly interpreted a situation in context
 translated graphs and recognised what shift was occurring
 constructed a formula and found the coordinates of turning points and intercepts
 recognised the symmetry of parabolas
 found the equation of a reflected exponential graph
 understood and answered an investigative question.
Standardspecific comments
Some candidates found the three questions with parabolas (1(b) and 2(a) in particular) relatively difficult.
91031: Apply geometric reasoning in solving problems
Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:
 calculated correctly lengths/ angles using Pythagoras Theorem and/or right angle trigonometry
 calculated angles using parallel line rules and/or circle geometry
 had incomplete or vague geometric reasoning that prevented them gaining a higher grade
 gave disorganised and illogical geometric reasons
 could use properties to find angles with reasons in one step questions
 understood the properties of right angle and isosceles triangles.
Candidates who were assessed as Not Achieved commonly:
 could not correctly use Pythagoras or Trigonometry to find angles and lengths
 could not use their calculator properly to find missing angles with trigonometry
 were confused over rules for angles (common incorrect rules were cointerior angles are equal; opposite angles in a quadrilateral are equal; tan/rad for 90^{o})
 did not read the questions correctly
 incorrectly applied rules to the wrong geometric situation.
Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:
 applied angle relationships that involved at least two steps in order to find missing angles.
 attempted proofs or generalisations omitting key steps or reasons
 selected and used clear geometric reasons with clear logical steps
 understood well at least two of the following areas of geometry (circle, parallel lines, and geometry
 related solutions to the context appropriately.
Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:
 applied trigonometry / Pythagoras to solve extended problems, involving many steps
 understood most properties of quadrilaterals, parallel lines, circles, and right angled triangles and selected appropriate methods in most situations
 performed complete geometric proofs involving several steps.
 used correct geometrical terminology
 concluded their proofs with a statement
 used a clear chain of thought involving multiple steps towards solution
 connected different concepts to solve problems.
Standardspecific comments
Those candidates who used sine and cosine rule to find solutions in 3) b) and 1)b commonly found greater success.
91037: Demonstate understanding of chance and data
Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:
 interpreted a time series graph in a basic fashion
 justified their decisions for predictions
 identified and described an unusual feature of a time series graph
 compared trends on a time series graph
 identified significant features from a box and whisker graph and a dot plot graph
 interpreted a suitable comparison, using distance between medians, between a pair of box and whisker graphs
 drew a line of best fit on a scatter graph
 interpreted basic comparisons between a pair of scatter graphs
 calculated simple probabilities from information provided in a twoway table.
Candidates who were assessed as Not Achieved commonly:
 did not provide sufficient detail when describing an unusual feature on a time series graph
 did not understand the correction interpretation of a statistical trend
 described outliers on box and whisker graphs that did not actually exist
 did not use distance between medians or overlap when making conclusions in the comparison between two box and whisker graphs
 were not able to calculate simple probabilities from a twoway table
 did not recognise that at this level responses such as “likely”, “not likely”, etc are not appropriate.
Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:
 identified and described multiple unusual features in a time series graph
 described multiple comparisons of trends of time series graphs
 produced valid comments from interpreting connections between a pair of time series graphs
 compared and explored in greater depth the appropriate interpretations between figures provided in a graphical manner
 produced multiple significant features and comparisons between a pair of box and whisker graphs
 interpreted a suitable comparison, using appropriate comments about the relative position of medians and boxes, between a pair of box and whisker graphs
 recognised that an appropriate model for a line of best fit need not be linear
 described the strength of the relationship between two variables by describing how points lie in relation to the line of best fit
 solved probability problems involving the use of the word “or”
 derived an appropriate integer value for an “expected value” probability problem.
Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly
 clearly identified and described a multitude of unusual features of a time series graph – peaks, troughs, as well as interpreting idiosyncrasies and correlations in the graph
 used abstract thinking in interpreting the connections between a pair of time series graphs in context
 interpreted graphs accurately to make appropriate judgements from the figures provided in a graphical manner, in context
 clearly described a multitude of significant features of a pair of box and whisker graphs – shape, symmetry, shift, overlap, measures of centre and spread
 used accurately, and interpreted fully, the “overall visible spread” when comparing two box and whisker graphs or were able to recognise and communicate effectively how sampling variability could affect the results, especially in marginal circumstances
 described the strength of the relationship between two variables by describing in detail how points lie in relation to the line of best fit, particularly as to how the strength of the relationship may vary between different parts of the graph
 solved probability problems involving the use of the word “and”.
Standardspecific comments
The majority of candidates wrote full and detailed responses.
Candidates were wellprepared for questions relating to the interpretation and analysis of box and whisker graphs and scatter graphs. However, some of the technical statistical words relating to interpretation of time series graphs were not fully understood. Candidates targeting the top grades must show a deeper understanding of “looking behind” the graphs and data in order to interpret their meaning in context. Also candidates need to recognise that there is a difference between the appropriateness of a line of best fit model and its strength they are different concepts.
Candidates were wellprepared for probability problems, which were also generally answered confidently.
Candidates utilising the DBM and OVS method need a thorough understanding of how and when it should be used and interpreted, especially when the decision is marginal.
Candidates must reinforce their ideas with statistical evidence provided in the question. Also they should look for several pieces of varying evidence to support their conclusions. Candidates also need to ensure that the specific directions in the question are actually addressed, such as: compare, describe, justify, give statistical evidence, comment on showing numerical working.