Critique of Pure Mathematics Unit 2 Module 2 Examination

This assessment is one which I created to serve as an SBA component of the Unit
2 Pure Mathematics course. The syllabus is sectioned into three modules and this one
covers the Module 2 outline. The topics for this Module are Sequences, Series, Binomial
Theorem and Roots of Equations.
With respect to the first principle of assessment discussed, which is relating to
programme aims and learning outcomes, I initially thought that this assessment satisfied
many of the programme’s objectives. Before creating the assessment, I looked at each
specific objective given in the syllabus and I also looked at the degree of difficulty of the
questions given in the CAPE examinations. I also considered the amount of time needed
to attempt and complete all the questions. The level of difficulty was thought to be
comparable to the CAPE examinations, although student feedback after the examination
was that the questions were more difficult.
Upon closer inspection, this test, only tested objective 2 of the topic Sequences.
The number of objectives and learning outcomes in this topic was four. Objectives 4, 5,
6, 7 and 8 of the topic Series was assessed was well, however there were four specific
objectives not tested. Objectives 1 and 3 of the topic Binomial Theorem was tested and
objectives 2 and 4 were not, although 4 is the objective that would have been of greater
value to the assessment. Objectives 1, 2 and 5 of the topic Roots of Equations was tested
and objective 3, 4 and 6 were not. This inspection revealed that on average, only half of
the skills required by the examining body was assessed, which is not a fair indicator of
the competence of the learners.
The marking also was not evenly distributed, in that 50 out of 70 marks were
allocated to the topics sequences and series, whilst only 20 marks were allocated to
binomial theorem and roots of equations. A fair marking would have been to evenly
distribute the weighting to each question. The assessment can be also better aligned by
paying closer attention to the recommended mark and percentage distribution in the
syllabus. The use of Bloom’s taxonomy and the classification of learning objectives,
together with the syllabus’ marking instructions should be strongly adhered to.
The syllabus recommends the following for the creation and marking of SBAs:
Reasoning: Selection of appropriate strategy, evidence of clear reasoning,
explanation and/or logical argument. (3 – 5 marks)

Algorithmic Evidence of knowledge, ability to apply concepts and skills, and to

Knowledge: analyse a problem in a logical manner. (10 – 14 marks)
Conceptual Recall or selection of facts or principles; computational skill,
Knowledge: numerical accuracy, and acceptable tolerance limits in drawing
diagrams. (3 – 5 marks)
 With respect to the second principle discussed, useful feedback was given in a
timely manner. The papers were marked carefully, highlighting where in the question an
error was made and how many marks were lost. The class was given general feedback
with the final examination in mind. Popular student mistakes were identified and how the
marks were lost generally. The students were given the solutions to reference. More
positive feedback could have been to give individual feedback relevant to each student’s
needs. Each student could be pointed to materials that would help them brush up on their
weaker areas, and bridge gaps in their knowledge, instead of having them focus on the
overall upcoming final examination. Appointments to meet with students individually
after the session, to work on weaker areas and rectify misconceptions would have been a
better approach.
Whilst some aspects of this assessment and the feedback provided conforms to the
principles discussed, there is room for a lot of improvement here. At the end of the day,
teachers must consider what is best for the student’s future.