# It's time to banish the "reverse chain rule"

Watch
Announcements

Today in the Edexcel C4 exam students were presented with this integral

From what I've seen so far it seems that loads of students used the "revere chain rule" incorrectly to get

(or similar incorrect answers)

The Edexcel exam writers know full well when they wrote this paper that thousands of students were going to do this. So you could say the question is a good discriminator but the point is that

So it's time for teachers to ignore the textbooks and stop teaching the "reverse chain rule". Teach substitution first and then show some standard results after this if you like or let students work them out themselves.

EDIT: To be a bit clearer, I’m mainly talking about f(ax+b) integration which Edexcel calls “reverse chain rule”.

EDIT2: Having looked again, the new Edexcel textbook has improved this (but it still has major problems) so I’m being a bit too hard on them

From what I've seen so far it seems that loads of students used the "revere chain rule" incorrectly to get

(or similar incorrect answers)

The Edexcel exam writers know full well when they wrote this paper that thousands of students were going to do this. So you could say the question is a good discriminator but the point is that

**Edexcel have created this confusion in the first place**. Their C4 textbooks have a section on "reverse chain rule" before substitution is taught. They created this nonsense and it should be up to them to get rid of it but unbelievably the Edexcel textbook for the new spec also has a section on it!So it's time for teachers to ignore the textbooks and stop teaching the "reverse chain rule". Teach substitution first and then show some standard results after this if you like or let students work them out themselves.

EDIT: To be a bit clearer, I’m mainly talking about f(ax+b) integration which Edexcel calls “reverse chain rule”.

EDIT2: Having looked again, the new Edexcel textbook has improved this (but it still has major problems) so I’m being a bit too hard on them

16

reply

Report

#2

(Original post by

...the point is that

**Notnek**)...the point is that

**Edexcel have created this confusion in the first place**. Their C4 textbooks have a section on "reverse chain rule" before substitution is taught.
0

reply

Report

#3

(Original post by

This is new to me! What do they actually state in their textbooks?

**Gregorius**)This is new to me! What do they actually state in their textbooks?

2

reply

Report

#4

(Original post by

Don't know whether this is old spec or new spec textbooks, but here's the start and end of section:

**ghostwalker**)Don't know whether this is old spec or new spec textbooks, but here's the start and end of section:

0

reply

Report

#5

I tried for soo long with the reverse chain rule it just was not working when checking so I just expanded the brackets

1

reply

Report

#6

**ghostwalker**)

Don't know whether this is old spec or new spec textbooks, but here's the start and end of section:

Attachment 758522758526

1

reply

Report

#7

(Original post by

[Edexcel] created this nonsense and it should be up to them to get rid of it but unbelievably the Edexcel textbook for the new spec also has a section on it!

So it's time for teachers to ignore the textbooks and stop teaching the "reverse chain rule". Teach substitution first and then show some standard results after this if you like or let students work them out themselves.

**Notnek**)[Edexcel] created this nonsense and it should be up to them to get rid of it but unbelievably the Edexcel textbook for the new spec also has a section on it!

So it's time for teachers to ignore the textbooks and stop teaching the "reverse chain rule". Teach substitution first and then show some standard results after this if you like or let students work them out themselves.

But apparently PRSOM, so I can't even do that...

1

reply

Report

#9

(Original post by

So it's time for teachers to ignore the textbooks and stop teaching the "reverse chain rule". Teach substitution first and then show some standard results after this if you like or let students work them out themselves.

**Notnek**)So it's time for teachers to ignore the textbooks and stop teaching the "reverse chain rule". Teach substitution first and then show some standard results after this if you like or let students work them out themselves.

both know that in the real world, integration is an enormously hard problem, in the sense that if you were to write down some random combination of functions, the probability that an antiderivative does not exist is close to 100%, hence why pretty much every application of mathematics makes use of numerical methods for integration. I think it's this fact that the treatment of mathematics at school level doesn't really make clear to students, because everything is presented as a series of formulae/algorithms/rules (e.g. Power Rule, Product Rule, Chain Rule, etc.), and this leads students to believe that there's a rule/algorithm for everything. Indeed, in this state of mind, it becomes natural to believe that any arbitrary composition of functions can be antidifferentiated, just as any arbitrary composition of (differentiable) functions can be differentiated. This is then further compounded by the fact that students rarely ever get a chance to work on problems which are either extremely hard or impossible, such that they never get to see anything which challenges their mistaken view.

3

reply

Report

#11

(Original post by

I think it's this fact that the treatment of mathematics at school level doesn't really make clear to students, because everything is presented as a series of formulae/algorithms/rules (e.g. Power Rule, Product Rule, Chain Rule, etc.), and this leads students to believe that there's a rule/algorithm for everything. Indeed, in this state of mind, it becomes natural to believe that any arbitrary composition of functions can be antidifferentiated, just as any arbitrary composition of (differentiable) functions can be differentiated. .

**Prasiortle**)I think it's this fact that the treatment of mathematics at school level doesn't really make clear to students, because everything is presented as a series of formulae/algorithms/rules (e.g. Power Rule, Product Rule, Chain Rule, etc.), and this leads students to believe that there's a rule/algorithm for everything. Indeed, in this state of mind, it becomes natural to believe that any arbitrary composition of functions can be antidifferentiated, just as any arbitrary composition of (differentiable) functions can be differentiated. .

1

reply

Report

#12

(Original post by

Today in the Edexcel C4 exam students were presented with this integral

From what I've seen so far it seems that loads of students used the "revere chain rule" incorrectly to get

(or similar incorrect answers)

The Edexcel exam writers know full well when they wrote this paper that thousands of students were going to do this. So you could say the question is a good discriminator but the point is that

So it's time for teachers to ignore the textbooks and stop teaching the "reverse chain rule". Teach substitution first and then show some standard results after this if you like or let students work them out themselves.

**Notnek**)Today in the Edexcel C4 exam students were presented with this integral

From what I've seen so far it seems that loads of students used the "revere chain rule" incorrectly to get

(or similar incorrect answers)

The Edexcel exam writers know full well when they wrote this paper that thousands of students were going to do this. So you could say the question is a good discriminator but the point is that

**Edexcel have created this confusion in the first place**. Their C4 textbooks have a section on "reverse chain rule" before substitution is taught. They created this nonsense and it should be up to them to get rid of it but unbelievably the Edexcel textbook for the new spec also has a section on it!So it's time for teachers to ignore the textbooks and stop teaching the "reverse chain rule". Teach substitution first and then show some standard results after this if you like or let students work them out themselves.

0

reply

Report

#13

(Original post by

Not in the classrooms in many schools - you are wrong. No good teacher would teach A level like this or slavishly follow a textbook.

**Muttley79**)Not in the classrooms in many schools - you are wrong. No good teacher would teach A level like this or slavishly follow a textbook.

1

reply

Report

#14

Hang on, I don't get it. Aren't you supposed to be able to use all the different methods of integration anyway? Aren't you meant to have learnt all this by the time you do the exam? Putting a chapter on Reverse Chain Rule doesn't prevent people from learning integration by substitution, especially when it's specified in the textbook that it only works for linear functions. The textbook is not to blame, poor teaching/understanding is.

1

reply

Report

#15

Every integral in c4 can be checked with a silver calculator, so a lot of these mistakes could easily be avoided if there was a bit more emphasis on checking techniques. I know its a bit late now, but for anyone sitting the exam next year- get good at checking your work, you can confirm you're right in basically every integration question.

1

reply

Report

#16

I agree but it is also partly the teachers fault. Our teachers stated to us over and over that this method will only work if and only if the integral of the inside function is a constant. This should've been made clear by all teachers

0

reply

Report

#17

(Original post by

The majority of mathematics teachers are not "good teachers". If they were, we wouldn't be so far down the PISA rankings. As Notnek informed me of before, the majority of mathematics teachers in the UK don't even have a degree in mathematics.

**Prasiortle**)The majority of mathematics teachers are not "good teachers". If they were, we wouldn't be so far down the PISA rankings. As Notnek informed me of before, the majority of mathematics teachers in the UK don't even have a degree in mathematics.

We actually do well in problem solving questions

There is no-one in my department without a maths degree nor in many of the schools I know.

1

reply

Report

#18

(Original post by

That old chestnut! Have you actually ever looked at the PISA questions or how schools are selected? In some countries schools compete as to who is tested but in this country schools are chosen randomly. In one of the tests the worst performing school in our LA was selected ...

We actually do well in problem solving questions

There is no-one in my department without a maths degree nor in many of the schools I know.

**Muttley79**)That old chestnut! Have you actually ever looked at the PISA questions or how schools are selected? In some countries schools compete as to who is tested but in this country schools are chosen randomly. In one of the tests the worst performing school in our LA was selected ...

We actually do well in problem solving questions

There is no-one in my department without a maths degree nor in many of the schools I know.

You can quibble with the PISA methodology all you want but the fact is that even if you look at other metrics like our performance in the International Mathematical Olympiad, we're simply not that good at maths as a nation.

1

reply

Report

#19

(Original post by

See https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho...8#post78156532, where Notnek explicitly says "the majority of maths teachers do not have maths degrees".

You can quibble with the PISA methodology all you want but the fact is that even if you look at other metrics like our performance in the International Mathematical Olympiad, we're simply not that good at maths as a nation.

**Prasiortle**)See https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho...8#post78156532, where Notnek explicitly says "the majority of maths teachers do not have maths degrees".

You can quibble with the PISA methodology all you want but the fact is that even if you look at other metrics like our performance in the International Mathematical Olympiad, we're simply not that good at maths as a nation.

**at least**50% maths or they have to do a SKE.Many school don;t even interview someone without a maths degree to teach.

0

reply

Report

#20

(Original post by

The IMO is a tiny proportion of people who have to be at school who do the UKMT challenges! What a silly argument. I don;t know where Notnek got his data from but no-one can do a PGCE to teach Maths without a degree that is

**Muttley79**)The IMO is a tiny proportion of people who have to be at school who do the UKMT challenges! What a silly argument. I don;t know where Notnek got his data from but no-one can do a PGCE to teach Maths without a degree that is

**at least**50% maths or they have to do a SKE.Many school don;t even interview someone without a maths degree to teach.
0

reply

X

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top