This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Location Entry Codes As part of CIE’s continual commitment to maintaining best practice in assessment, CIE has begun to use different variants of some question papers for our most popular assessments with extremely large and widespread candidature, The question papers are closely related and the relationships between them have been thoroughly established using our assessment expertise. All versions of the paper give assessment of equal standard. The content assessed by the examination papers and the type of questions are unchanged. This change means that for this component there are now two variant Question Papers, Mark Schemes and Principal Examiner’s Reports where previously there was only one. For any individual country, it is intended that only one variant is used. This document contains both variants which will give all Centres access to even more past examination material than is usually the case. The diagram shows the relationship between the Question Papers, Mark Schemes and Principal Examiner’s Reports. Question Paper Mark Scheme Principal Examiner’s Report Introduction Introduction Introduction First variant Question Paper First variant Mark Scheme First variant Principal Examiner’s Report Second variant Question Paper Second variant Mark Scheme Second variant Principal Examiner’s Report Who can I contact for further information on these changes? Please direct any questions about this to CIE’s Customer Services team at: firstname.lastname@example.org 0580 Mathematics June 2008 1 © UCLES 2008 MATHEMATICS Paper 0580/11 Paper 1 (Core) General comments Overall the paper was tackled well by candidates. The higher marks gained this year indicate slightly easier questions but also better preparation by Centres of candidates for the examination. This year there were relatively few very low marks, enabling the vast majority to be awarded a grade showing some degree of competence in the subject. While in most scripts working was evident, there are still too many cases of questions with more than 1 mark where working was not seen. There is still a belief among some candidates that being allowed to use a calculator excuses them from producing any evidence as to how their answer has been obtained. In some questions, premature rounding caused a loss of marks, again due often to lack of working shown, with just a 2 significant figure answer evident, when 3 figures is the minimum requirement. Significant numbers of candidates still have no understanding of the difference between compound and simple interest. This topic was introduced to the syllabus in 2006. There was no significant evidence of lack of time. Comments on specific questions Question 1 This was generally very well answered but the common error on order of operations, usually producing an answer of 35, was often seen. Also careless use of the calculator resulted in 11 + 9.33… Answer : 13....
View Full Document
- Spring '08