7 Maths GCSE Questions

dirtychinchilla said:
To avoid having to write 4.6 or 2.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
Click to expand...

But you don't '...' after a digit means 'recurring', so you only need to write '2.3...' for 2 and a third.

AJK said:
Because you are applying a post-GCSE mentality to the question. GCSE Maths (and previous KS levels of course) teaches mixed numbers, so when presented with a question involving mixed numbers, requiring an answer using mixed numbers, the GCSE student will treat the question as mixed numbers. End of.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is that it's acceptable we teach kids things that won't be used in their future lives? Great system eh?

Why not, and I know this sounds mad, teach them the conventions used in the real world? Instead of confusing them with mixed numbers which are by definition are confusing and hence aren't used by anyone for that very reason.

AJK said:
As far as I recall, implied multiplication is only taught at GCSE in the context of lettered notation in algebra. So again, a GCSE student would not assume that multiplication is taking place here.
Click to expand...

So kids aren't taught that 5(2-3) means 2 minus 1 times 5? That isn't algebra but uses implied multiplication and I was taught that at school if memory serves me correctly.

AJK said:
I got A* at GCSE Maths, A at Double Maths A-Level and did a CS degree
Click to expand...

Here's a trumpet, make it your own and blow it my friend :D

hxhwrJQ.jpg.png
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
So what you are saying is that it's acceptable we teach kids things that won't be used in their future lives? Great system eh?
Click to expand...

What is the matter with you? A huge amount of primary and secondary school teaching "won't be used in their future lives" but is instead taught such that future material can build on it. Is this really that difficult to understand? Are you suggesting that 15 year old children, regardless of their ability, should all be given Maths degrees to do instead? (Or just not taught any Maths at all, if they "won't use it in their future lives"?)

Seriously, what are you getting at?

Why not, and I know this sounds mad, teach them the conventions used in the real world? Instead of confusing them with mixed numbers which are by definition are confusing and hence aren't used by anyone for that very reason.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, mixed numbers aren't confusing, is that really your argument?

So kids aren't taught that 5(2-3) means 2 minus 1 times 5? [sic] That isn't algebra but uses implied multiplication and I was taught that at school if memory serves me correctly.
Click to expand...

No, that uses brackets. Brackets are explicit. You would not see that written as 5 2-3. Although this is irrelevant since I'm not debating whether or not GCSE students are taught about algebra or brackets, I'm saying that they are taught what to do with mixed numbers.

Also, I like how your argument has degraded into posting silly pictures - good one. Let me rephrase for you since you clearly didn't understand my point: just because someone achieves a higher level of Maths qualification than GCSE does not suddenly invalidate the lower levels of learning as an important foundation for what came later.

I'm done having this stupid argument.
 
AJK said:
What is the matter with you? A huge amount of primary and secondary school teaching "won't be used in their future lives" but is instead taught such that future material can build on it. Is this really that difficult to understand? Are you suggesting that 15 year old children, regardless of their ability, should all be given Maths degrees to do instead? (Or just not taught any Maths at all, if they "won't use it in their future lives"?)
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I don't know of anyone that mixes conventions when writing maths equations so I believe that doing it is pointless.

It would be like making sentences with French and German words and claiming you are doing it to build a foundation for learning language. I believe teach them separately.

You don't need a maths degree to understand that 4.6 is 4 and 3 5ths and if GCSE student can't get their head around decimals then we might as well give up now.

Teach fractions and integers separately and don't mix them is all I'm saying.


AJK said:
Oh come on, mixed numbers aren't confusing, is that really your argument?
Click to expand...

The fact that I and quite a few other saw the BBC question as 4 times 3 over 5 shows that it is. Or at least it could be clearer.

AJK said:
No, that uses brackets. Brackets are explicit. You would not see that written as 5 2-3. Although this is irrelevant since I'm not debating whether or not GCSE students are taught about algebra or brackets, I'm saying that they are taught what to do with mixed numbers.
Click to expand...

You implied that the omittance of the multiplication sign was exclusive to algebra, all I'm saying is that is isn't.

AJK said:
just because someone achieves a higher level of Maths qualification than GCSE does not suddenly invalidate the lower levels of learning as an important foundation for what came later.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it did. I'm saying why not stick to conventions that are used in the real world rather than using outdated methods. I don't agree mixing number conventions is useful or that teaching them individually requires a degree level brain.
 
AJK said:
What is? That the material taught at GCSE isn't of the same level as the material taught at degree level? Honestly, I don't get it...
Click to expand...

That they're being taught notation and conventions that are never used in the real world. It's all very well saying they can build on it later, but they can't in this case. In this case, students are being led down a blind alley for no reason, which will potentially be confusing in later life.
 
SlyReaper said:
That they're being taught notation and conventions that are never used in the real world. It's all very well saying they can build on it later, but they can't in this case. In this case, students are being led down a blind alley for no reason, which will potentially be confusing in later life.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but are you really trying to claim that mixed fractions like those in the question are not used in the real world? ... they might not be used at higher levels of academic study but in the real world you are quite likely to see four and a third written as 4 1/3 rather than 4.3333333 or 4.33... or whatever.
 
They would be better written as top heavy fractions so 13/3 rather than 4 1/3. I'm quite surprised that people here thought they were supposed to be multiplied together, maybe you were just taught differently.
 
I'm enjoying this fractions argument. Here's my 2 cents.

The question IS ambiguous. Different notations are used in different areas, pure mathematicians would see that and think it meant 4*3/5, which is precisely how I read it at first.

In other areas of life, people would read that as a mixed fraction. As I said, it IS ambiguous and I think it could be clearer, as could the teaching of it I'm sure.

However, like words that are spelt the same but mean different things, it's about context and the context is clearly what they've been taught at this level. When they progress to A level it will be made clear.

Most importantly, from the point of view of this question, two things are true:

If you multiple, you don't get an answer that matches.

And MOST importantly, you don't need to read the question to get the answer to this one. It's all in the answer, question is irrelevant.
 
memyselfandi said:
I'm sorry but are you really trying to claim that mixed fractions like those in the question are not used in the real world? ... they might not be used at higher levels of academic study but in the real world you are quite likely to see four and a third written as 4 1/3 rather than 4.3333333 or 4.33... or whatever.
Click to expand...

Give me an example where someone would mix integers with fractions.

I only ever see fractions being used in isolation like "1/2 Price Sale". If something costs £4.33 it is written as such not 4 1/3p.

The only example in the real world you might see them mixed is in a very old recipe book but even then I'd say it was more likely they'd use "4 and a third"
 
memyselfandi said:
I'm sorry but are you really trying to claim that mixed fractions like those in the question are not used in the real world?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Maybe not never used (because you'll doubtless be able to rustle up a few obscure examples), but very rarely.
 
How about virtually every fruit and veg market in existence ... frequently walk past stalls with signs like 1 1/2kgs of Potatoes for £X. Or packets of screws which are frequently labelled as being 1 1/2" or 2 1/2" long ...

Not particularly obscure and exist in commonly in the real world ...
 
6/7, only got the triangle one wrong as I haven't touched any geometry for 12 years.

The rest were REALLY easy.
 
memyselfandi said:
How about virtually every fruit and veg market in existence ... frequently walk past stalls with signs like 1 1/2kgs of Potatoes for £X. Or packets of screws which are frequently labelled as being 1 1/2" or 2 1/2" long ...
Click to expand...

I worked in a hardware store back in 2001 and even back then the preference was millimetres, the only people who said stuff like 2 and 2 thirds who were people in their 70s and 80s.

As for you fruit and veg signs, do they really say 1 1/2 or do they say 1 & 1/2? Because market stalls in my area that still insist on imperial measure tend to stick an '&’ sign in to remove any ambiguity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom