THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL OF TANZANIA

CANDIDATES’ ITEM RESPONSE ANALYSIS REPORT

FOR DIPLOMA IN SECONDARY EDUCATION
EXAMINATION (DSEE) 2021

MATHEMATICS
CANDIDATES’ ITEM RESPONSE ANALYSIS
REPORT FOR DIPLOMA IN SECONDARY
EDUCATION EXAMINATION (DSEE) 2021

740 MATHEMATICS
Published by:
The National Examinations Council of Tanzania,
P.O BOX 2624,
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

© National Examinations Council of Tanzania, 2021

All rights reserved.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD........................................................................................................................ iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
2.0 ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATES’ RESPONSES IN EACH QUESTION ................. 2
2.1 Section A: Short Answer Questions .................................................................. 2
2.1.1 Question 1: Differentiation ...................................................................... 2
2.1.2 Question 2: Coordinate Geometry II ........................................................ 4
2.1.3 Question 3: Probability ............................................................................ 6
2.1.4 Question 4: Probability ............................................................................ 9
2.1.5 Question 5: Similarity and Congruence ................................................. 12
2.1.6 Question 6: Planning and Preparation for Teaching Mathematics ......... 14
2.1.7 Question 7: Integration........................................................................... 16
2.1.8 Question 8: Coordinate Geometry II ...................................................... 19
2.1.9 Question 9: Analysis of Mathematics Curriculum Materials ................. 23
2.1.10 Question 10: Vectors .............................................................................. 25
2.2 Section B: Essay Questions on Academic Content .......................................... 28
2.2.1 Question 11: Algebra ............................................................................. 28
2.2.2 Question 12: Linear Programming ......................................................... 32
2.2.3 Question 13: Algebra ............................................................................. 36
2.3 Section C: Essay Questions on Pedagogy ........................................................ 42
2.3.1 Question 14: Planning and Preparation for Teaching Mathematics ....... 42
2.3.2 Question 15: Foundations of Mathematics ............................................ 46
2.3.3 Question16: Planning and Preparation for Teaching Mathematics ........ 50
3.0 THE ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATES PERFORMANCE PER TOPIC ................. 55
4.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 55
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 57

iii
 FOREWORD
The National Examinations Council of Tanzania is pleased to issue this report on
Candidates’ Item Response Analysis (CIRA) on the Diploma in Secondary
Education Examination (DSEE) 2021. This report has been prepared in order to
provide feedback to tutors, students, policy makers, educational administrators and
other educational stakeholders on the candidates’ performance in the subject.

The report in the Mathematics subject highlights the factors that made the candidates
perform well in the examination. The factors include; ability to interpret the demand
of the questions and to follow instructions as well as sufficient knowledge about the
concepts and principles related to the subject. The report indicates that some of the
candidates scored low marks because they failed to interpret the questions
requirement and they lacked sufficient knowledge and skills about the mathematical
concepts which were examined, making errors while performing mathematical
operations, failure to use basic formulae and applying incorrect formulae.

The feedback provided in this report is expected to enable the educational

stakeholders to take appropriate measures to improve teaching and learning in this
subject. This will eventually improve the candidates’ performance in the future
examinations.

Finally, the National Examinations Council of Tanzania would like to extend

sincere appreciation to everyone who participated in the preparation of this report.

Dkt. Charles E. Msonde

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides the candidates response in Mathematics for the
candidates who sat for the DSEE. It gives feedback to educational
stakeholder on the strengths and weakness of candidates’ performance. A
total of 429 candidates were registered in the 2021 DSEE in Mathematics
subject out of which 426 (99.3%) candidates sat for the Examination.

The paper had a total of sixteen (16) questions that were divided into three
sections; A, B and C. Section A consisted of 10 short answer questions
where candidates were required to answer all questions. Each correct
answer had 4 marks, making a total of 40 marks. Section B and C consisted
of three (3) essay questions each where candidates were required to answer
2 questions from each section. Each correct answer had 15 marks, making a
total of 60 marks.

The analysis on the performance for each question in section A had three
categories of marks as follows: 3 - 4 marks; high marks, 2 - 2.5 marks;
average marks and 0 - 1.5 marks; low marks. In sections B and C, the
performance analysis for each question was also categorised into three
groups of marks as follows: 10.5 - 15 marks; high marks, 6 - 10 marks;
average marks and 0 - 5.5 marks; low marks. Also the analysis of
performance was categorised in three groups. The groups are 70%–100%,
40%–69% and 0%–39% for good, average and weak performance
respectively.
The analysis of candidates’ responses in each question was done by using
data, figures and extract of sample of answers from the candidates. In the
figures of analysis on performance presented in this report, there are three
colours which are used to represent the performance as follows:
Good performance, Average performance and Weak performance.

1
2.0 ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATES’ RESPONSES IN EACH QUESTION
2.1 Section A: Short Answer Questions
2.1.1 Question 1: Differentiation
This question examined candidates’ ability to apply knowledge of
differentiation in determining the turning point of the given curve. The
question instructed candidates to find the turning point on the
curve y  x 2  2 x .

A total of 406 (95.3%) candidates attempted this question. 330 (81.3%)

candidates passed by scoring from 2 to 4 marks. Therefore, the general
performance of candidates in this question was good. Figure 1 shows
performance of the candidates.

Figure 1: The performance of candidates on question 1

The data reveals further that 295 (72.7%) candidates scored from 3 to 4
marks, 35 (8.6%) candidates scored from 2 to 2.5 marks, and 76 (18.7%)
candidates scored from 0 to 1.5 marks.

The candidates who scored full marks correctly applied the derivative
method. They realized that the abscissa of the turning point of a curve is
dy
obtained at  0 . Therefore, they determined the derivative of
dx
y  x 2  2 x and computed correctly the abscissa and the y-coordinate of the
turning point, as shown in Extract 1.1.

2
Some candidates applied the formula for calculating the turning point of the
 b 4ac  b2 
quadratic function y  ax 2  bx  c which is T  x, y    ,
4a 
.
 2a
These candidates replaced a, b and c in the formula with 2, -2 and 0
respectively and performed basic operations correctly to get
T  x, y   1,  1 . There were also some candidates who used the graphical
method to answer this question.

Extract 1.1: A sample of correct response to question 1.

On the other hand, a total of 76 (18.7%) candidates scored low marks. They
dy
failed to recall correctly the condition  0 that gives abscissa of the
dx
turning point. Also, there were candidates who used incorrect formula for
finding the turning point of the quadratic equation ax 2  bx  c  0. The
 b 4ac 
commonly observed incorrect formula was T  x, y    , 2  . Other
 2a b 
candidates worked out to find x-intercepts. They assumed y = 0, hence
developed an equation x 2  2 x  0 and solved it to get x  0 or x  2.
Then they replaced x in y  x 2  2 x with 0 and 2 to get y = 0. Therefore,
they wrote that the turning point is (0, 0) or (2, 0).

Other candidates established the value of the second derivative as x-

coordinate and substituted it in the given curve to find the y-coordinate. See
Extract 1.2.
3
 Extract 1.2: A sample of incorrect response to question 1.

In Extract 1.2, the candidate computed incorrectly the abscissa by finding

d2y
from y  x 2  2 x and resulted into an incorrect turning point.
dx
2.1.2 Question 2: Coordinate Geometry II
This question assessed candidates’ ability to derive an equation of a
parabola. In this question, the candidates were required to find the focus
and directrix of the parabola; y 2  4 y  12 x  16  0.

A total of 376 (83.3%) candidates attempted the question, whereby 230

(61.1%) candidates scored from 2 to 4 marks. Hence, the question was
averagely performed. Figure 2 is a summary of candidates’ performance in
this question.

Figure 2: The performance of candidates on question 2

4
The analysis of data shows that, 143 (38.0%) candidates scored from 3 to 4
marks, 87 (23.1%) candidates scored from 2 to 2.5 marks and 146 (38.8%)
candidates scored from 0 to 1.5.

The candidates who scored all 4 marks allotted to this question expressed
 y  2  12  x  1 . This
2
correctly the given equation in standard form;
indicates that they were competent on the concept of completing the square.
Then, they compared to the general standard equation  y  k   4a  x  h 
2

to get a  3, k  2 and h  1. By applying correctly the formulae for

Focus   a  h, k  and Directrix x  a  h, the candidates substituted
correctly the values and computed to get the required answer. Extract 2.1
shows the situation.

Extract 2.1: A sample of a correct response to question 2.

However, 146 (38.8%) candidates got low marks. It seemed that most of
them had inadequate knowledge of completing the square as they failed to

5
 write the given equation in standard form  y  k   4a  x  h  . As a result,
2

they got incorrect values of a, h and k. which led to incorrect answers for
focus and directrix. Extract 2.2 shows a response of a candidate who
interchanged the components of the translating factor by writing
 k , h  instead of  h, k  .

Extract 2.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 2.

2.1.3 Question 3: Probability

This question examined candidates’ ability to apply permutation to solve
real life problems. Candidates were asked to find the number of

6
arrangements that can be formed using the letters of the words (a)
EQUATION and (b) TUMBAKU.
The question was attempted by 377 (88.5%) candidates whereby 228
(60.5%) scored from 2 to 4 marks. Therefore, the general performance of
the candidates in this question was average. Figure 3 shows the percentage
of candidates who scored low, average and high marks.

Figure 3: The performance of candidates on question 3

Further analysis shows that 126 (33.4%) candidates scored from 3 to 4

marks, 102 (27.1%) candidates scored from 2 to 2.5 marks and 149 (39.5%)
candidates scored from 0 to 1.5 marks.
There were 111 (29.4%) candidates who answered the question correctly.
These candidates realized that the word EQUATION contains eight (8)
different letters. Therefore, they computed eight factorial (8!) correctly to
get 40,320 arrangements. Similarly, the candidates identified that letter U in
the word TUMBAKU is repeated. Therefore, they used the formula which
n!
is; number of arrangements  correctly and got a correct answer as
r!
shown in Extract 3.1.

7
 Extract 3.1: A sample of a correct response to question 3.

On the other hand, some candidates got zero. Many candidates used
inappropriate formula. In part (a) many candidates applied inappropriate
8! 8!
formula like; P0  to get 1 arrangement and P1 
8 8
to get 8
8  0! 8  1!
arrangements. Also, there were candidates who answered part (b) using the
n!
inappropriate formula S  as Extract 3.2 shows. This formula is
 n  r !r!
for finding the number of selections and not arrangements.

8
 Extract 3.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 3.

In Extract 3.2, the candidate computed the number of combinations instead

of permutations.

2.1.4 Question 4: Probability

This question aimed at assessing candidates’ ability to apply Poisson
Probability Distribution formula. The candidates were given the following
problem: “Suppose the items processed on a certain machine are found to
be 1% defective. Determine the probability of obtaining 4 defectives in a
random sample batch of 80 such items”.

A total of 280 (65.7%) candidates attempted this question, of which 3

(1.1%) candidates scored from 2 to 4 marks. Therefore, the general

9
performance of candidates in this question was weak. Figure 4 gives a
summary of candidates’ performance in this question.

Figure 4: The performance of candidates on question 4

Although the question was compulsory, it was skipped by 146 (34.3%)

candidates. Out of 280 candidates who attempted the question, 277 (98.9%)
scored from 0 to 1.5 marks. Furthermore, 1 (0.4%) candidate scored 2
marks and 2 (0.7%) scored 4 marks.

Moreover, 277 (98.9%) candidates obtained low marks. Most of these

applied inappropriate formulae. For instance, some candidates applied the
formula for calculating the number of combinations as they
80!
wrote 80C4   1,581,580, while other candidates computed
80  4 !4!
80!
. Majority took 4 and 80 as number of event and 80 sample spaces
4!
nE
respectively and applied inappropriate formulae P  E   which
n S
1
resulted into an incorrect answer , as shown in Extract 4.1. This
20
indicates that the candidates failed to realise that the data are appropriate to
Poison Distribution formula.

10
 Extract 4.1: A sample of an incorrect response to question 4.

In Extract 4.1, the candidate ignored the given probability of an item being
defective when answering a particular question.

Despite the weak performance, 2 (0.7%) candidates answered the question

correctly. These candidates applied the Poisson Probability Distribution
e   r
formula P( x  r )  and computed to get correct answer as shown in
r!
Extract 4.2. They made a correct substitution of the given information that
is   np, where n  80, p  1%  0.01 to get the correct solution.

11
 .

Extract 4.2: A sample of correct response to question 4.

In Extract 4.2, the candidate interpreted correctly all data and substituted
them into the correct formula.

2.1.5 Question 5: Similarity and Congruence

This question assessed candidates’ ability to use the congruence theorem
and identify the common or given lines in the figure. They were given the
following figure and were required to prove that XYZ is congruent to
XAZ .
X

A
Y
Z

A total of 417 (97.9%) out of 426 candidates attempted this question, 339
(81.3%) of the candidates passed by scoring from 2 to 4 marks. So, the
general performance of candidates was good. Figure 5 shows the
performance of candidates in this question.
12
 Figure 5: The performance of candidates on question 5

The analysis of data in this question indicates that 78 (18.7%) candidates

scored from 0 to 1.5 marks, 66 (15.8%) scored from 2 to 2.5 marks while
273 (65.5%) candidates scored from 3 to 4 marks.

The candidates who correctly answered this question by scoring full marks
applied the congruence theorems and identified the given conditions that
helped them to prove the required circumstances as revealed in Extract 5.1.

Extract 5.1: A sample of a correct response to question 5.

13
 On the other hand, there were 78 (18.7%) candidates who scored low marks
from 0 to 1.5. These candidates failed to remember and use properly the
congruence theorem.
Some candidates drew a triangle without naming its edges and assumed it to
be the final proof; others wrote the equations like YX  AX and
X ZY  X Z A  90 without stating the reason. Also there were candidates
0

who drew two separate triangles and assumed to have proved the condition
as shown in Extract 5.2.

Extract 5.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 5.

2.1.6 Question 6: Planning and Preparation for Teaching Mathematics

The question assessed candidates’ ability to apply knowledge of preparation
of a lesson plan. They were required to outline any four qualities of a well
stated specific objective in Mathematics lesson plan.

A total of 423 (99.3%) candidates attempted this question. 331 (78.3%)

candidates scored from 2 to 4 marks. Hence, the general performance of
candidates in this question was good. Figure 6 shows percentage of
candidates in this question.

14
 Figure 6: The performance of candidates on question 6

The analysis of data shows that, 92 (21.7%) of the candidates scored from 0
to 1.5 marks, 35 (8.3%) scored from 2 to 2.5 marks and 296 (70.0%) scored
3 to 4 marks.

The candidates who managed to get the correct answer had knowledge
about the qualities of a well stated specific objective in a lesson plan.
Extract 6.1 shows the response of a candidate.

Extract 6.1: A sample of correct response to question 6.

15
 On the other hand, the candidates who failed to respond correctly to this
question lacked knowledge about the requirement of the question see
Extract 6.2. Candidates in this group defined lesson plan and concluded
while, others mentioned parts of a lesson plan.

Extract 6.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 6.

2.1.7 Question 7: Integration

This question was intended to examine candidates’ ability to evaluate the
integrals of the hyperbolic function. The candidates were required to
evaluate  sinh 3 d  .

A total of 364 (85.4%) candidates attempted this question, whereby 191

(52.4%) candidates passed by scoring from 2 to 4 marks. This means that,
the general performance of candidates in this question was average. Figure
7 displays the performance of the candidates in question 7.

Figure 7: The performance of candidates on question 7

16
The analysis of data shows that 173 (47.5%) candidates scored from 0 to
1.5 marks, 34 (9.3%) candidates scored from 2 to 2.5 marks and 157
(43.1%) candidates scored from 3 to 4 marks.

The candidates who answered the question correctly expressed sinh3  as

sinh2  sinh  . Then, they applied identity cosh2   sinh2   1 to express
sinh 2  cosh2   1. Therefore,  sinh  d 
3
as they wrote as

 cosh  sinh d   sinh d . Under this form, the candidates applied the
2

standard integral for  sinh d  and the technique of function and its

derivative for  cosh  sinh d  ; and resulted to the required integral

2

1
cosh 3   cosh   c. Extract 7.1 shows one of the candidate’s correct
3
responses in question 7.

Extract 7.1: A sample of correct response to question 7.

17
On the other hand, 173 (47.5%) candidates got low marks. Some wrote
1
sinh 3    sinh 3  3sinh   . Many candidates used incorrect identity
4
cosh2   sinh2   1 instead of cosh2   sinh2   1. As a result, they

 1  cosh   sinh  d
2
ended up with incorrect expression instead of

 cosh   1 sinh  d . Also, there were candidates who applied definition

2

of sinh  . Most of these candidates failed to work out the exponential

expression produced because the approach involved tedious work on
exponents. This indicates that they lacked knowledge of exponents.

Other candidates straggled to express sinh3  in terms of sinh 3 however,

they failed to recall the correct triple angle formula. Most of them wrote
sinh 3  4sinh3   3sinh  instead of
sinh 3  4sinh   3sinh  . Moreover, few candidates changed the variable
3

by letting u  sinh  . Such candidates ended up with an expression

u3
containing both u and cosh  including  cos du . So they got a
complicated integral instead of solving it.

18
 Extract 7.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 7.

In Extract 7.2, the candidate assumed sinh  is equal to u and substituted

 sinh  d   u d
3 3
into the integral to become which cannot be
integrated.

2.1.8 Question 8: Coordinate Geometry II

This question assessed candidates’ knowledge about the application of the
general formula for ellipse. The candidates were required to find the
equation of an ellipse with foci  1,0 and directrices x  4 .

The question was attempted by 348 (81.7%) candidates. 218 (62.6%)

candidates scored from 0 to 1.5 marks. Hence, the general performance in

19
this question was weak. Figure 8 shows percentage of candidates who got
low, average and high marks.

Figure 8: The performance of the candidates on question 8

The analysis shows that, 218 (62.6%) candidates scored from 0 to 1.5
marks, 12 (3.4%) scored from 2 to 2.5 marks and 118 (33.9%) scored from
3 to 4 marks. The question was skipped by 78 (18.3%) candidates.

Out of 218 (62.6%) candidates who scored between 0 and 1.5 marks in this
question, 159 (45.7%) candidates scored zero. This failure was due to
inability to remember and use the general formula of the ellipse, foci and
directrices. There were candidates who drew the ellipse and wrote the
equation of a circle x 2  y 2  0 . These candidates failed to know the
difference between the ellipse and a circle.

Others were writing the general equation a 2  e2  2ae . They remembered

letters used when leaning the ellipse but failed to recall the general formula
used. Also, some of the candidates drew the ellipse, indicating the foci and
found the required equation by applying the distance formula as indicated in
extract 8.1.

20
 Extract 8.1: A sample of an incorrect response to question 8.

However, there were 117 (33.6%) candidates who managed to get the
correct answer; these were able to remember and use the general formula
for the ellipse, foci and directrices. They managed to show that the general
x2 y2
formula for the ellipse is given by   1 , whereby the
a 2 b2
foci is defined at point  ae ,0 and the directrices is given by the equation
a
x   . From this information, the candidates were able to compute and
e
get the correct answer, as shown in extract 8.2.
21
22
 Extract 8.2: A sample of a correct response to question 8.

2.1.9 Question 9: Analysis of Mathematics Curriculum Materials

This question assessed knowledge of professional curriculum materials. The
candidates were required to define the following terms as used in
Mathematics lesson:
(a) Mathematics logbook.
(b) Lesson plan.
(c) Scheme of work.

A total of 426 (100%) candidates attempted this question. There were 418
(98.1%) candidates who scored from 2 to 4 marks, indicating good
performance. Figure 9 is a summary of candidates’ performance in this
question.

23
 Figure 9: The performance of the candidates on question 9

There were 8 (1.9%) candidates who scored from 0 to 1.5 marks, 40 (9.4%)
who scored from 2 to 2.5 marks and 378 (88.7%) candidates who scored
from 3 to 4 marks.

Most of the candidates managed to answer this question correctly because

the terms that were given to define are applied in their day to day activities
at the college. Extract 9.1 is a sample answer of one of the candidates.

Extract 9.1: A sample of a correct response to question 9.

24
 On the other hand, 8 (1.9%) candidates failed to get it correctly due to
inability to define correctly the given terms. Extract 9.2 is a sample of a
response from a candidate who failed to provide the proper definitions of
the three terms.

Extract 9.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 9.

2.1.10 Question 10: Vectors

This question examined candidates’ ability to apply the cross product rule
in vectors to determine the area of the quadrilateral. The question required
the candidates to prove that the vector area of a quadrilateral ABCD with
1
diagonals AC and BD is given by AC  BD from the following figure;
2

D C

A B

The question was attempted by 307 (72.1%) candidates. The general

performance of the candidates in this question was weak, because there
were only 5 (1.6%) candidates who scored 2 marks. Figure 10 shows the
performance of candidates in this question.
25
 Figure 10: The candidates’ performance on question 10

The analysis of data shows that 302 (98.4%) candidates scored from 0 to 1
mark and 5 (1.6%) candidates scored 2 marks. There was no candidate who
scored from 2.5 to 4 marks in the entire group.

Most of these candidates failed to apply the cross product rule as used in
vectors. They were supposed to use the formula;
ABCD = (vector area of ABC ) + (vector area of ACD ), then apply the
1 1
cross product rule to get; Area of ABCD  ( AB  AC )  ( AC  AD).
2 2
1
Some of the candidates wrote A  AC  BD sin  and then directly got
2
1
A  AC BD sin  .
2

There were also some candidates who used wrong formula

1
Area   base  height and assumed the base to be AD so that the
2
1
required area is A  AD  h where h is the height. Other candidates
2
applied inappropriate knowledge of determinant by writing;
x1 y1 1
1
Area  x2 y2 1 , as shown in Extract 10.1.
2
x3 y3 1

26
 Extract 10.1: A sample of an incorrect response to question 10.

Meanwhile, there were 5 (1.6%) candidates who used the correct formula,
which is; Area of ABCD = (vector area of ABC ) + (vector area
1 1
of ACD ) and manipulated to get Area  ( AB  AC )  ( AC  AD).
2 2
However, they skipped some necessary steps. Therefore, they lost some
marks. Extract 10.2 shows a sample of response of one of these candidates.

Extract 10.2: A sample of response of average performance to question 10.

27
2.2 Section B: Essay Questions on Academic Content
2.2.1 Question 11: Algebra
The question assessed candidates’ knowledge on application of sum of
roots and product of roots in the problems involving roots of polynomial
functions. The question had parts (a) and (b). The candidates were given
that; “(a) The roots of a polynomial equation 2 x3  5x 2  7 x  8  0 are
 ,  and  ". Then candidates were required to find the equation whose
1 1 1
roots are: (i) , and and (ii)   1,   1 and  -1. (b) “The
  
roots of the equation x 2  2 px  q  0 differ by 2”, show that p 2  1  q .

The question was attempted by 359 (84.3%) candidates, 178 (49.6%)

candidates passed by scoring from 6 to 15 marks. Hence the general
performance was average. Figure 11 shows the performance of candidates
in this question.

Figure 11: The general performance of candidates on question 11

The analysis of data shows that 50.4% of the candidates scored from 0 to
5.5 marks, 32.6% scored from 6 to 10 marks and 17.0% of the candidates
scored from 10.5 to 15 marks.

In part (a) (i), the candidates were knowledgeable on how cubic equation is
formed from its roots, that
is;
28
x3  sum of roots  x 2  sum of products of pairs of roots x   product of roots   0.
These candidates realized that ,  and  being roots of
5 7
2 x3  5x 2  7 x  8  0 , therefore,      
,       and
2 2
  4 . Also, these candidates recognized that the equation whose roots
1 1 1
are , and could be simplified to get
  
     2      
  1 
x3    x   x   0. Thereafter, the
   2 
    
2
   
candidates performed appropriate substitutions and simplifications to get
5 7 1
x3  x 2  x   0 . These candidates also used the same knowledge and
8 32 16
skills to answer part (a) (ii), as Extract 11.1 shows. Similarly, in part (b),
candidates were knowledgeable on how the quadratic equation could be
formulated using its roots, that
is, x  sum of rootsx  product of roots  0 . These candidates formed the
2 2

equation by describing two roots which differ by 2 and applied knowledge of

sum and product of roots to verify that p 2  1  q as shown in Extract 11.1.

29
30
 Extract 11.1: A sample of a correct response to question 11.

On the other hand, the 181 (50.4%) candidates scored from 0 to 5.5 marks.
These candidates had inadequate knowledge about the application of the
general formula for roots of polynomial functions.
In part (a), the challenge was on how to express the coefficients of intended
sum and product of  ,  and  . This resulted from failure of candidates
to use knowledge of factors and multiples. Some candidates failed to write
the given equation in the standard form before doing comparison. Other
candidates failed to multiply three factors of part (a) (ii). In part (b), many
candidates failed to formulate an equation from statement “roots differ by
2”. As a result, they failed to produce correct equivalent equation
containing sum and product of  and  that could allow them to make
substitution of p and q for verification as shown in Extract 11.2.
31
 Extract 11.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 11.

2.2.2 Question 12: Linear Programming

This question assessed candidates’ ability to solve the linear programming
word problem and determine the optimal solution for the problem. The
candidates were given the following word problem: “There two types of
fertilizers F1 and F2. F1 consists of 10% nitrogen and 6% phosphoric acid
and F2 consists of 5% nitrogen and 10% phosphoric acid. After testing the
soil nutrient composition, a farmer found that she needs at least 14kg of
nitrogen and 14kg of phosphoric acid for her crop. If F1 costs 600 Tsh. per
kilogram (kg) and F2 costs 500 Tsh. per kilogram”. From this, the
candidates were required to: (a) determine how much of each type of
fertilizer should be used so that the nutrient requirements are met at
minimum cost; and (b) state the minimum cost.
The question was attempted by 357 (83.8%) candidates, of whom, 297
(83.2%) candidates scored from 6 to 15 marks. This means that the general
performance in this question was good. Figure 12 shows the percentage of
candidates who got low, average and high marks.

32
 Figure 12: The candidates’ performance on question 12

The data further show that 60 (16.8%) candidates scored from 0 to 5.5
marks, 257 (72.0%) from 6 to 10 marks and 40 (11.2%) candidates scored
from 10.5 to 15 marks.
As Figure 12 shows, 11.2 per cent, equivalent to 40 candidates obtained
high marks. They used x and y to represent number of fertilizer F1 and
fertilizer F2 respectively. This enabled them to rewrite the given word
problem into mathematical model, whereby the objective function is
Maximize: f x, y   600 x  500 y and the equivalent constraints
are 2 x  y  280 , 3x  5 y  700 , x  0 and y  0 .

These candidates used graphical method to determine feasible region and its
corner points as well as optimum point. Finally, they substituted the points
into objective function to optimize the problem, as shown in Extract 12.1.

33
34
 Extract 12.1: A sample of a correct response to question 12.

However, 60 (16.8%) candidates scored 0 to 5.5 marks. Some of these

candidates assigned variable to the incorrect quantities. They assumed x
represent Nitrogen and y represent Phosphoric acid instead of representing
F1 and F2 respectively. These candidates got incorrect constraints
0.1x  0.06 y  600 and 0.05x  0.1 y  500 as well as incorrect objective
function f ( x, y )  14 x  14 y. Others wrote incorrect constraints
2 x  y  280 and 3x  5 y  700. This indicates that they wrongly
interpreted the word “at least” as less than or equal instead of greater than
or equal.

35
 Further analysis shows that, there were candidates who failed to convert
percentage into fraction or decimals. This led to incorrect constraints
10 x  5 y  14 and 6 x  10 y  14. Moreover, majority of this group drew
incorrect graphs as they failed to use scale correctly. Extract 12.2 gives
more another mistake.

Extract 12.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 12.

In Extract 12.2, the candidates computed percentage of nitrogen and

phosphoric F1 and F2 and used the answer as coefficients of the
constraints.
2.2.3 Question 13: Algebra
The question was set to examine the ability of candidates to apply the
standard formula in sequence and series. They were required to:
36
(a) use standard results of r 2 n
n  12n  1 and  r  n n  1 ; to
6 2
find the sum of the first 50 terms of the series 2  6  ...   n 2  n  .

(b) prove that 2b2  9ac where a, b and c are real numbers, given that one
root of the quadratic equation ax 2  bx  c  0 is twice the other.

(c) find an equation with integral coefficients whose roots are the cubes of
the roots of the equation 2 x 2  5x  6  0.

The question was attempted by 129 (30.3%) candidates, of which, 74

(57.4%) scored from 6 to 15 marks. Therefore, the general performance of
candidates in this question was average. Figure 13 displays candidates’
performance in this question.

Figure 13: The candidates’ performance on question 13

The analysis of data shows that 297 (69.7%) candidates skipped this
question. About 55 (42.6%) candidates scored from 0 to 5.5 marks, 42
(32.6%) scored from 6 to 10 marks while 32 (24.8%) candidates scored
from 10.5 to 15 marks.

The candidates who scored 10.5 marks and above were able to use correctly
the sigma notation as well as standard result for summation of series of
natural numbers.
These candidates recognised that the series is defined for all natural
numbers greater than or equal to 2. Therefore, in order to get the sum of
37
first 50 terms, they substituted n  51 into
n n n
Sn   n  1 2n  1   n  1 or its simplified form Sn   n  1 n  1
6 2 2
and computed to get the correct answer S50  41,650.

In part (b), they used properly the rules of sum and product of roots in
quadratic equation to assign the values and substitute correctly. They
realized that if  is one root of ax 2  bx  c  0 the other root could be
2 . Using the knowledge of sum and product of roots of quadratic
b c
equation, they identified that; 3  and 2 2  . Then, they worked
a a
out to eliminate  by reducing the two equations into one equation
containing a , b and c and arranged it to obtain 2b2  9ac.

In part (c), the candidates were aware that the intended equation could be
x 2   3   3  x     0. Therefore, they computed correctly the
3

numerical value of  3   3 and   from    and 

3
then
substituted into the general form of the equation to get
8x 2  305x  216  0. Extract 13.1 shows an example of a correct response
of a candidate.

38
39
40
 Extract 13.1: A sample of a correct response to question 13.

The 42.6 per cent of the candidates who attempted this question scored low
marks because they were unable to use properly the rules of sum and
product of roots in quadratic equation. Some candidates substituted 50 into
the term n 2  n to get 50  50  50  2,450 in part (a). In part (b), some
candidates derived the part of equation ax 2  bx  c  0 to the equation
2b2  9ac after writing it as 2b2  9ac  0 that is; 2b2  9ac ax 2  bx  c .

41
 In part (c), most of the candidates interpreted wrongly the word cube. They
dealt with sums and product of cubic equation instead of quadratic one.
There were candidates who solved the equation 2 x 2  5x  6  0 to get the
roots. Some candidates applied the inappropriate formula of summation in
Arithmetic Progression instead of the standard formula for summing natural
numbers as shown in extract 13.2.

Extract 13.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 13.

2.3 Section C: Essay Questions on Pedagogy

2.3.1 Question 14: Planning and Preparation for Teaching Mathematics
This question examined candidates’ competence to plan and prepare to
teach the lesson. It required the candidates to explain the following
components of a lesson plan as used in the teaching and learning of
Mathematics:
(a) Preliminary information
(b) Objectives
42
(c) Lesson development
(d) Students’ and teachers’ evaluation.

The question was attempted by 402 (94.4%) candidates and among them,
395 (98.3%) candidates scored from 6 to 15 marks. Hence, the general
performance of candidates in this question was good. Figure 14 illustrates
performance of the candidates.

Figure 14: The performance of candidates on question 14

The analysis of data shows that 7 (1.7%) candidates scored from 0 to 5.5
mark, 207 (51.5%) scored from 6 to 10 marks and 188 (46.8%) scored from
10.5 to 15 marks.
Most of the candidates answered this question correctly because they were
familiar with planning and preparation for teaching in their day to day
activities. So, they were able to explain each component in detail because
they practice them in their daily life. Extract 14.1 reveals this situation.

43
44
 Extract 14.1: A sample of a correct response to question 14.

On the other hand, there were 7 (1.7%) candidates who got low marks. This
is due to lack of knowledge about planning and preparation to teach
Mathematics. Some of them were mentioning the components of a lesson
plan instead of explaining the given components as shown in extract 14.2.

45
 Extract 14.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 14.

2.3.2 Question 15: Foundations of Mathematics

This question assessed candidates’ ability to apply Maslow hierarchy of
needs. Candidates were required to explain how the understanding and
application of Maslow’s hierarch of needs can promote better learning of
Mathematics in schools.

The question was attempted by 76 (17.8%) out of 426 candidates, 68

(89.5%) candidates scored from 6 to 15 marks. This indicates that the
performance of candidates in this question was generally good. Figure 15
shows percentage of candidates who got low, average and high marks.

Figure 15: The performance of candidates on question 15

46
The analysis of data shows that 8 (10.5%) of the candidates who attempted
it scored from 0 to 5.5 marks, 35 (46.1%) scored from 6 to 10 marks and 33
(43.4%) scored from 10.5 to 15 marks
The candidates who provided satisfactory explanation in this question had
adequate knowledge about the physiological needs, safety belonging,
esteem need and self-actualization. Extract 15.1 is a sample of the response
of one of the candidates.

47
 Extract 15.1: A sample of a correct response to question 15.

On the other hand, 8 (10.5%) candidates scored low marks ranging from 0
to 5.5. Some of them defined different terms like motivation, cooperation,
security and love. This indicates that they failed to know the requirement of
the question as shown in Extract 15.2.

48
49
 Extract 15.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 15.

2.3.3 Question16: Planning and Preparation for Teaching Mathematics

The question examined the ability of candidates to remember and
demonstrate their expected daily role as teachers. They were required to
describe five methods of teaching Mathematics.
The question was attempted by 371 (87.1%) candidates, out these, 368
(99.0%) candidates passed by scoring from 6 to 15 marks. Therefore, the
general performance of candidates in this question was good. Figure 16
indicates the performance of the candidates in this question.

Figure 16: The performance of candidates on question 16

50
The analysis of data shows that 3 (0.9%) of the candidates who attempted it
scored from 0 to 5.5 mark, 54 (14.5%) scored from 6 to 10 marks while 314
(84.5%) scored from 10.5 to 15 marks.

The analysis of data shows that almost all candidates (99.0%) passed this
question by describing correctly the methods of teaching Mathematics. This
is because they always apply different methods while learning and teaching
the subject during teaching practice. Extract 16.1 shows the response of a
candidate who answered this question correctly.

51
 Extract 16.1: A sample of a correct response to question 16.

But, there were 3 (0.9%) candidates who scored from 2 to 5 marks due to
lack of knowledge about the concept of methods of teaching mathematics.
Some of them were explained bout the learning environments, procedures
for teaching mathematics and techniques of teaching mathematics instead of
describing about teaching methods as shown in Extract 16.2.

52
53
Extract 16.2: A sample of an incorrect response to question 16.

54
3.0 THE ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATES’ PERFORMANCE PER TOPIC
The analysis done on candidates’ performance per topic showed that six
topics out of 11 topics that were examined had good performance. These
topic are; Analysis of Mathematics Curriculum Materials (98.1%), Planning
and Preparations for Teaching Mathematics (91.9%), Foundations of
Mathematics (89.5%), Linear Programming (83.2%), Differentiation (81.3%)
and Similarity and Congruence (81.3%).

However, three topics had an average performance, namely; Algebra

(53.5%), Integration (52.4%) and Coordinate Geometry II (49.2%). Also, the
data show that the candidate had week performance in two topics which are
Vectors (1.6%) and Probability (30.8%). This weak performance was due to
candidates’ lack of skills and knowledge about the formula and technics
required for calculating the given questions from these two topics.

Further analysis shows that the performance in two (2) topics which are;
Analysis of Mathematics Curriculum Materials and Planning and
Preparations for Teaching Mathematics has been good for three consecutive
years. The questions which had good performance were Questions; 16
(99.0%), 14 (98.3%), 9 (98.1%), 15 (89.5%), 12 (83.2%), 1 (81.3%), 5
(81.3%), and question 6 (78.3%). Questions which had average performance
were 2 (61.1%), 13 (57.4%), 7 (52.4%) and 11 (49.6%). On the other hand,
the questions with weak performance were 8 (37.3%), 10 (1.6%), 4 (1.1%).
The candidates scored low marks because they failed to interpret the
questions’ requirement and lacked sufficient knowledge and skills about the
mathematical concepts which were examined; others made errors while
performing mathematical operations.

4.0 CONCLUSION
The general performance for 740-Mathematics subject in 2021 examination
has dropped by 3% compared to that of 2020 with an overall average of
64.8% while that of 2020 had an overall average score of 67.8%. The
performance on Probability topic has been poor for three consecutive years
from 2019 to 2021. In 2019, the performance was 31.9 per cent; in 2020, it
was 32.8 per cent while in 2021 the average performance was 30.8 per cent.
This problem could be attributed to the candidates’ failure to interpret the
questions and inadequate competence in applying the relevant formula in
probability topic.

55
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to improve the performance of prospective candidates, it is
recommended that:

(a) Tutors are advised to teach the students various techniques on how to
answer different questions and guide them on how to identify the
requirements of the questions.

(b) Students should be encouraged to read various recommended readings

including text books and reference books in order to acquire more
knowledge and skills in Mathematics.
(c) The students should be provided with project on designing in and out
of class activities that can motivate them to learn.

(d) Tutors should make a regular change of teaching and learning

strategies in various topics, for example, guide group discussion and
presentation, internet search, library search, pair reflection and others.

(e) Tutors should pay more attention on teaching probability with different
techniques in order to raise it performance.

56
 APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF THE CANDIDATES’ PERFORMANCE IN
MATHEMATICS SUBJECT

2020 2021

Average Performance

Average Performance
Performance in Each

Performance in Each
Question Number

Question Number
Per Topic (%)

Per Topic (%)

Question (%)
Question (%)

Remarks

Remarks
Topic
S/N

Analysis of 4 85.8
Mathematics 84.4 Good
1 9 98.1 98.1 Good
Curriculum 16 82.9
Materials
Planning and 6 78.3
Preparation for
2 15 98.7 98.7 Good 14 98.3 91.9 Good
Teaching
Mathematics 16 99.0

Foundations of
Mathematics 1 95.6 95.6 Good 15 89.5 89.5 Good
3

Linear 10 70.7
Programming 75.2 Good 12 83.2 83.2 Good
4 11 79.9

5 Differentiation 5 7.4 7.4 Weak 1 81.3 81.3 Good

6 Similarity and 6 62.3 62.3 Average 5 81.3 81.3 Good

Congruence
9 67.0 11 49.6
7 Algebra 63.4 Average 53.5 Average
13 59.8 13 57.4

57
 2020 2021

Average Performance

Average Performance
Performance in Each

Performance in Each
Question Number

Question Number
Per Topic (%)

Per Topic (%)

Question (%)
Question (%)

Remarks

Remarks
Topic
S/N

8 Integration - - - - 7 52.4 52.4 Average

Coordinate 2 61.1
9 Geometry II - - - - 49.2 Average
8 37.3

3 60.5
10 Probability 7 52.8 52.8 Average 30.8 Weak
4 1.1

11 Vector 3 70.1 70.1 Good 10 1.6 1.6 Weak

12 Hyperbolic 12 87.6 87.6 Good - - - -

Functions
13 Logic 2 85.5 85.5 Good - - - -

14 Assessment in 14 83.6 83.6 Good - - - -

Mathematics
Teaching the
15 Selected 8 14.2 14.2 Weak - - - -
Topics

58