1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. 2010 HSC Exam papers
5. 2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Food Technology

2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Food Technology

Contents

• Introduction
• Section II
• Section III

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Food Technology. It provides comments on candidate responses to the 2010 Higher School Certificate examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.

This document should be read along with the relevant syllabus, the 2010 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents which have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Food Technology.

General comments

Candidates need to be aware that the marks allocated to the question and the answer space (where this is provided on the examination paper) are guides to the length of the required response. A longer response will not in itself lead to higher marks. Writing in excess of the space allocated may reduce the time available for answering other questions.

Candidates need to be familiar with the Board’s Glossary of Key Words which contains terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how’ or ‘what’ may be asked or verbs that are not included in the glossary may be used such as ‘propose’ or ‘list’.

Candidates are advised that the revised Food Technology syllabus will be examined for the first time in 2011.

Section II

Part A

Question 21

1. Better responses correctly identified all four sectors of the Australian Food Industry and matched the four organisations to the appropriate sector. In poorer responses, candidates did not identify all four sectors correctly or used incorrect terminology to answer the question. Some responses referred to levels of operation rather than sectors. Some responses named the sectors incorrectly.
2. In better responses, candidates provided the characteristics and features of quality assurance activities carried out by their chosen organisation and distinguished between the quality assurance activity and the result of that activity for the organisation, naming the activity and the reason for it.
   
   Better responses often included the use of FIFO/LILO (first in first out), secret shoppers, ‘Made to Order’ procedures, stock rotation, consumer feedback or cleaning and storage procedures which are all characteristics of quality assurance.
   
   In poorer responses, candidates described only one quality assurance activity or sketched in general terms quality assurance activities. These responses included the inspection of products or making sure products were stored correctly. Little or no reference was made to the features of quality assurance or why it is carried out. Poorer responses did not clearly identify an organisation or answered using a sector of the Australian Food Industry or a piece of legislation.

Question 22

In better responses, candidates explained how gender issues influenced employment within the Australian Food Industry. They provided detailed examples of issues involved as well as the relationship to a specific form of employment, and the relevant sector of the Australian Food Industry. They may have included information on equal employment opportunity (EEO) and its influence on employment in the industry, as well as information on maternity leave and its influence on the employer and the employee.

In poorer responses, candidates often referred to one gender issue only and provided the characteristics and features of the gender issue and/or employment in the industry. These responses may have stated for example that ‘men are stronger so they can do more’ but did not relate it to a clear path of employment in the industry. Some weaker responses provided general information on gender issues or employment and included sweeping statements such as ‘that no one is discriminated against’.

Question 23

In better responses, candidates related the establishment of the production plant to environmental implications. These responses made reference to the impact of the building and operation of the production plant on both the environment and the residential area. Responses may have included, for example, deliveries that increase traffic flow affecting noise and air pollution and the impact on the residents or the environment, making a clear link between the two using examples such as illness, breathing problems, and difficulty driving in and out of the neighbourhood. Responses may also have made reference to the impact of waste disposal in a residential area leading to infestations, extra water and energy use, and emissions affecting the residents and the environment.

In weaker responses, candidates often provided a range of environmental impacts with no relationship to the inner city environment. These responses often failed to relate to the scenario in the question and made general reference to environmental factors associated with production plants.

Question 24

Better responses made evident the relationship between a range of internal factors and the success or failure of a food product in the marketplace. These responses clearly identified two or more of the internal factors.

These responses presented clear links between two or more of these internal factors (while some made connections for all four internal factors) and the success or failure of a product in the marketplace. Links between the individual factors and the purchasing behaviour of consumers were provided. Better responses incorporated appropriate terminology and thorough, relevant content to support why and/or how these factors impact on a product’s success and/or failure in the marketplace.

Responses in the mid-range often did not address all aspects of the question. These responses demonstrated an understanding of the internal factors by describing internal factors that impact on food product development. These responses attempted to provide some connection/s between the internal factors and the success or failure of a product – often considering the impact for the company of personnel expertise, production facilities and financial position on the manufacture of a product.

Some mid-range responses outlined the link between company image and the success or failure of a product in the marketplace, eg bad image/good image. Other responses in this range provided detailed characteristics and features of only one internal factor, rather than explaining two or more as required by the question, and established a relationship between this internal factor and the success or failure of a product in the marketplace.

Weaker responses generally only addressed one aspect of the question and information provided was presented in a very brief and simplified manner. Weaker responses either provided a basic outline of the internal factors which impact on food product development or presented general information on aspects related to internal factors, such as equipment, technology and staff. Some stated general reasons for the success or failure of a product in the marketplace such as product appeal or consumer demand.

Question 25

1. Better responses clearly outlined the difference between line extensions and me-too products.
   Weaker responses outlined only one of the two products or did not provide examples.
2. Better responses included reasons why a food manufacturer would choose to develop a line extension rather than a new-to-world product. In these responses, candidates clearly explained each reason. Weaker responses provided general information such as ‘line extensions are cheaper’ without any further explanation.

Question 26

1. In better responses, candidates recognised the key features of the marketing plan. Weaker responses did not make the link between a marketing plan and the marketing mix.
2. In better responses, candidates proposed more than one strategy for marketing the product shown and provided a clear supporting argument for each one. This was often achieved through using the marketing mix (promotion, price, placement and product) as the structure of their response, and giving specific marketing strategies for each. In better responses, candidates made strong links to the product shown by relating facts on the package illustrated to the target market and the strategies proposed.
   
   Weaker responses did not provide links to the product or reproduced the information shown in the illustration with little additional information. General reasons for the proposed strategies were given, such as ‘to make people buy it’. These responses reflected a lack of understanding of the terms ‘propose’ and ‘justify’. They often referred to features of the product shown such as ‘the product contains vitamins and minerals’, rather than proposing that this feature would be highlighted on a promotional campaign.

Question 27

1. In better responses, candidates clearly identified a food processing technique relevant to their chosen food product and provided some technical information or a general description about its application to the manufacture of the chosen product. Details of the process included a description of how or why it is applied, ingredients involved or specific equipment used.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates simply named a process, provided little information in their attempt to outline their named process or wrote in general terms about an unidentified process. Many candidates confused unit operations and functional properties with processing techniques.
2. In better responses, candidates identified and named equipment used in both a domestic and industrial setting for their specific product. They clearly articulated the similarities or gave differences in the settings and gave logical reasons for these. Some responses addressed differences of industrial equipment more globally, such as the use of stainless steel as a material as it is inert, durable, hygienic, easy to maintain and clean, meets legislative requirements, or the levels of automation and its benefits.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates referred mainly to the size difference of the equipment from domestic to industrial settings. Their discussion was limited to general terminology such as ‘a big machine’ and ‘larger quantities’.
3. In better responses, candidates explained how both storage and distribution systems differ in domestic and industrial settings for their specific food product, identifying a range of characteristics and features of the conditions required.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates identified differences predominantly in terms of size and expressed these ideas in general terms, for example storage in a domestic refrigerator or a large cool room and distribution via car or truck. Many candidates addressed this question from a Food Product Development perspective, so their choice of food product did not lend itself well to address the industrial setting and this limited their access to higher mark bands.

Question 28

1. In better responses, candidates clearly identified a range of functions of packaging and provided characteristics and features of each.
   
   Mid-range responses included characteristics and features of some functions of packaging or were limited to an outline of functions.
   
   Weaker responses were limited to an identification of the functions of packaging.
2. 1. In better responses, candidates included a range of suitable packaging materials that were appropriate to the named food product. In weaker responses, candidates did not identify a packaging material or identified an inappropriate one for the food product named.  Weaker responses also stated a style of pack for example ‘a jar’, rather than a packaging material.
   2. In better responses, candidates provided characteristics and features of a range of experiments that accurately tested the suitability of packaging materials. These responses reflected an understanding of experimental methods. Examples of suitable experiments included compression, vertical and horizontal impact, piercing and transportation trials.
      
      Mid-range responses sketched, in general terms, appropriate experiments to test the suitability of packaging materials. These responses lacked detail.
      
      Weaker responses were limited to an outline of one experiment or and outline of areas of experimentation without the detail of experimental method. These responses also demonstrated a limited relationship to the suitability of packaging materials and were at times experiments relating more to temperature in storage than packaging materials.  Some candidates in this range provided only general information on packaging.

Section III

Question 29 – Contemporary Food Issues

1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated knowledge of both cultural and social practices, and made the relationship between cultural and social practices and nutritional status very clear. These candidates provided a range of relevant examples such as ‘Some cultures don’t eat meat due to their beliefs therefore this may lead to anaemia due to a lack of iron’.
   
   Mid-range responses provided an outline of cultural and social practices with example(s). There was no link to nutritional status. Some of these responses grouped cultural and social practices together and focused on customs and traditions, which demonstrated an overlap of cultural and social practices.
   
   Weaker responses provided general information about cultural or social practices with no examples and no link to nutritional status.
2. In better responses, candidates clearly related how a range of community groups and government organisations can promote good health through diet. They provided a range of relevant examples of both community groups and government organisations involved in promoting good health through diet. These better responses explained how each community group and government organisation guide consumer choices and ultimately promote healthier choices by diet and positive health behaviours.
   
   Mid-range responses provided characteristics and features of community groups and government organisations with link/s to the promotion of good health through diet. There was often no clear distinction between community groups and government organisations.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates were only sketching in very general terms a community group or government organisation. There was no link to the promotion of good health. Many of the examples were identifying strategies either the community or government could implement to improve overall health.

Question 30 – Contemporary Food Issues – Nutrition

In better responses, candidates displayed an in-depth knowledge of nutritionally modified foods, active non-nutrients and dietary supplements. They used appropriate terminology and specific examples to support their response which was structured logically in three distinct sections to ensure that they addressed each area of the question. Better responses then provided several impacts between the examples given and the long-term dietary health of consumers, discussing clearly both positive and negative impacts.

Mid-range responses demonstrated some knowledge of nutritionally modified foods, active non-nutrients and dietary supplements, and their relationship to dietary health. Often the discussion of one area of the question was stronger than another, with information about nutritionally modified foods and dietary supplements being clearer and more cohesive than that of active non-nutrients. Most offered a range of examples for each category.  The specific impacts of nutritionally modified foods, active non-nutrients and dietary supplements on the health of Australians tended to be basic or generalised, and often focused only on the perceived positive benefits.

Poorer responses tended to provide limited detail, focus only on one area of the question, or be confused in their content. For example, candidates discussed general nutrition issues, ‘genetically modified foods’ rather than nutritionally modified foods, or limited their discussion to dietary supplements.  Many poorer responses were lacking in the discussion of active non-nutrients. Poorer responses may have defined terms and provided some examples but their discussion of the impact of these products on health was absent. Some may have made a very basic link about healthy eating to general health.

Question 31 – Contemporary Food Issues – Marketplace

1. In better responses, candidates made evident clear, ethical issues related to one marketplace trend. These responses demonstrated a clear relationship such as the trend for genetically modified foods and the potential to produce foods which may harm health or have harmful effects on the ecosystem in the future.
   
   Poorer responses did not provide enough detail on the ethical implications or the relationship related to the trend was not clear or evident. These responses had little understanding of the ethical implications or provided very general information on a marketplace trend only.
2. In better responses, candidates explained both the social and environmental implications of a marketplace trend, which was clearly identified. Better responses also included relevant examples. Clear relationships were evident between the trend and its social and environmental implications.
   
   Mid-range responses provided general examples and the characteristics of social and/or environmental implications of a marketplace trend. However, a clear relationship between the two was not always evident.
   
   Weaker responses provided no examples and provided only general information on social and/or environmental implications.

Question 32 – Contemporary Food Issues – Marketplace

Better responses explored a wide range of issues that created social injustice of food consumption in both developed and developing countries. They clearly explained how the issue affected food consumption. In the better responses, candidates provided relevant examples from both developed and developing countries.

Mid-range responses identified a limited range of issues of social justice and/or provided only characteristics and features of food consumption in both developed and developing countries. They provided examples but clear relationships between food consumption and issues of social justice were not evident. Weaker responses provided general information on food consumption in developed and/or developing countries and did not provide relevant examples.

20110103