The golden rule refers to interpreting statutes according to the wording of the statute but only to the extent that an absurdity does not occur.
The expressio one mentioned above (so unimportant that I can't remember it in full) means that stating one thing would be to the exclusion of all others. For example, if a legislation explicitly telephones, mobiles, TV and the internet but not radio, then the legislation would not be inclusive of radio. Bad example, but I think it illustrates the point clear enough.
The purposivst approach is interpreting the statue in the light of purpose of the legislation (which can be determined by looking through Hansard, etc). And just to finish it off, the literal approach is basically taking the dictionary definition of the words to create a meaning for the legislation.
I'd doubt that either of the terms would be needed within an exam question. They could be useful for a question about statutory interpretation, but then again, it's not likely that a question about statutory interpretation would be worth more than two marks - and thus it wouldn't be needed in such a question. But they could be useful somewhere just to show off... maybe in big a law-making by courts question.