Home
HSC
HSC Exams
2010 HSC Exam papers
2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Information Processes and Technology

2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Information Processes and Technology

Introduction
Section II
Section III

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Information Processes and Technology. It contains 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 Information Processes and Technology.

General comments

Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may ask questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating the knowledge, understanding and skills they developed through studying the course.

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 some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how?’, ‘why?’ or ‘to what extent?’ may be asked or verbs may be used which are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.

Candidates need to remember that it is important that they make reference to the given stimulus material in their answers.

Section II

Question 21

Better responses contained a logical context diagram with all components essentially correctly labelled and related to the scenario. The diagrams drawn represented either the whole system or a major facet of the system.

Mid-range responses included some correct symbols used in a context diagram without any labelling of the data flows.

In weaker responses, candidates identified one external entity or process, or they correctly identified the symbols used in a context diagram.
In better responses, candidates identified a list of hardware and software directly related to the scenario.

In mid-range responses, candidates identified a list of hardware or a list of software which contained some relation to the scenario. Some identified hardware specific to the red light/speed camera system but provided non-scenario-specific software.

Weaker responses included generic lists of hardware or software that did not relate to the scenario.
In better responses, candidates identified the pilot conversion method and provided more than one feature of the conversion method in relation to the scenario.

In mid-range responses, candidates provided generic features of a pilot conversion with no relation to the scenario.

In weaker responses, candidates named the correct conversion method without providing any features or identified a generic feature of any conversion method. They sometimes confused pilot with parallel or phased conversion.
In better responses, candidates identified at least one relevant social or ethical issue and gave a description of the issue in relation to the use of the new cameras, mainly from the owner/driver’s perspective.

In mid-range responses, candidates provided a generic description with no relation to the scenario.

In weaker responses, candidates either identified a social or ethical issue or attempted to discuss an irrelevant or unrealistic issue.

Question 22

In better responses, candidates clearly described the difference between a thin and fat client, including information related to their use of a server, processing capabilities and hardware component.

In weaker responses, candidates identified feature(s) of either fat or thin client with limited knowledge of the differences between each.
1. Better responses included a well-structured data dictionary, including all necessary components including suitable field names, associated data types and field sizes suitable for the school payment system.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified minimal components of the data dictionary without relating it to the school payment system.
2. In better responses, candidates explained how messages are transmitted through the different levels of a communication system with reference to how packets of data are assembled, manipulated, and disassembled during each phase of the transmission process between the home and school computer.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates described how messages are transmitted with reference to the changes to packets of data during the transmission process without relationship to the given scenario.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified one or two features of the message transmission process without relating these to the manipulation of data packets.
3. In better responses, candidates explained how Cyclic Redundancy Check, Checksum or Parity Bit techniques could be used to ensure messages were sent and received accurately between the home and school computer as outlined in the online school payment scenario.
  Mid-range responses described how Cyclic Redundancy Check, Checksum or Parity Bit techniques could be used to ensure messages were sent and received accurately, but without relating to the scenario.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates only listed the name of a suitable error detection technique.

Question 23

In better responses, candidates identified a correct data entry technique used within the web form and successfully explained why the technique was appropriate.

In mid-range responses, candidates identified a technique used to reduce data entry errors but at times named it incorrectly.

In weaker responses, candidates correctly identified or made reference to a data entry technique and stated that it reduces data entry errors, which reworded the question. Some responses gave an incorrect reason for the data entry technique they identified.
In better responses, candidates identified the graphics used in the stimulus material and included an explanation for their use. Some students also discussed inclusivity, suggesting that graphics cater for a range of people such as those with reading difficulties and/or graphics are user-friendly and promote good design principles.

In mid-range responses, candidates identified that graphics increase the appeal of the online form and increase understanding.

In weaker responses, candidates identified feature(s) of the screen elements but did not necessarily relate to the stimulus material provided.
In better responses, candidates provided an appropriate screen design which was in context and included a graph, images, appropriate feedback to the user and labels.

In mid-range responses, candidates attempted the design of the screen by providing a suitable graph and an understanding of the context and a title.

Weaker responses identified one feature of the screen eg graph or table.
In better responses, candidates provided a clear description of the analysing processes and showed a good understanding of the outputted information. These responses included a clear description of some of analysing processes. These responses then described how this data was then transformed into information through the display of data in the form of a graph, ‘Carbon Footprint’ and feedback on how to reduce emissions.

In weaker responses, candidates identified an analysing process/es that took place or gave a poor description which showed very limited understanding of the analysing process.

Question 24

Better responses described one social issue and one ethical issue related to the downloading of digital books. Some described relevant issues but identified them incorrectly.

Mid-range responses addressed only social or ethical issues (not both), or provided limited description(s).

Weaker responses only identified one issue.
In better responses, candidates identified a number of feasibility issues and discussed them in relation to the scenario by elaborating as to how the feasibility issue applies to the scenario.

In mid-range responses, candidates provided descriptions of feasibility issues, often by stating a number of questions related to an issue. Some responses provided general and brief descriptions of technical, operational, economic and scheduling feasibilities without linking to the scenario.

In weaker responses, candidates identified feasibility issues, but did not discuss or describe them, nor link them to the scenario.
In better responses, candidates demonstrated a sound understanding of protocols by identifying protocols relevant to the scenario and explaining how each would be used by the system described in the scenario.

In mid-range responses, candidates identified some relevant protocols and explained how they would be used by the system.

In weaker responses, candidates identified relevant protocols, but did not describe their use correctly or did not attempt to describe them at all.Some responses described the processes in the online purchase of digital books from the experience of the customer/user.

Section III

A number of candidates attempted more than two questions. Candidates should be discouraged from attempting more than two questions, as the time they waste on the extra question/s could be better spent fully answering the two questions required.

Question 25 – Transaction processing systems

1. Many candidates appeared to have a limited understanding of RFID technology.
  
  Better responses demonstrated an understanding of an RFID tag or an RFID system.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates either did not demonstrate an understanding, or incorrectly related RFID tags to radio broadcasts.
2. In better responses, candidates described how transaction logs could be used in a transaction processing system.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates only provided a description of a transaction log without providing a use or purpose.
1. In better responses, candidates used an example of a real-time processing system to assist them in the identification of real-time processing characteristics.
  In weaker responses, candidates only provided a characteristic of real-time processing.
2. In better responses, candidates explained, through the inclusion of appropriate characteristics, why batch processing is a more appropriate solution for the processing of transactions. Through the use of examples, better responses demonstrated a deeper understanding of the appropriateness of batch processing.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates attempted to use appropriate characteristics of why batch processing is a more appropriate solution for the processing of transactions.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates only provided a feature of batch processing.
1. In better responses, candidates provided a substantially correct data flow diagram relevant to the problem.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided a data flow diagram indicating some relevance to the problem.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates provided an attempt indicating some understanding of a data flow diagram without any relevance to the problem.
2. In better responses, candidates provided a description indicating a clear understanding of both collecting and storing/retrieving in relation to the parking system. Candidates made explicit reference to how ‘collecting’, ‘storing’ and ‘retrieving’ occurred.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates demonstrated a limited understanding of the parking system by providing a description of collecting or storing/retrieving.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of collecting or storing/retrieving.
3. In better responses, candidates predicted a valid application and provided a clear description of how the technology in the scenario would be used with consideration of security and the changing nature of work.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates predicted an application and provided a limited description of how the technology in the scenario would be used with consideration of security and the changing nature of work.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified a new or existing system that used technology without considering security and the changing nature of work.

Question 26 – Decision support systems

1. In better responses, candidates provided a response showing understanding of a data warehouse.
2. In better responses, candidates described the characteristics of a semi-structured design support system. These responses contained detail about the characteristics and in many cases provided good examples of where a semi-structured design support system would be used.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified at least a feature of a semi-structured design support system although often lacking clarity and understanding of a semi-structured design support system.
1. In better responses, candidates identified an inference engine and provided an example of where it would be useful. In many cases, these examples provided a clear explanation of how it would be used.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates either identified an inference engine or provided a limited description of how it is used.
  
  In many weaker responses, candidates interpreted this question to be about ‘search engines’ rather than an ‘inference engine’.
2. In better responses, candidates clearly discussed how GDSS are used to support decision-making, with the inclusion of examples of how the various features of a GDSS can support decision-making.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided a description of how GDSS are used to support decision-making with some features identified although with limited detail.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates generally identified a feature/s of GDSS.
1. Better responses provided a clear explanation of how the data from reports could be used to assist a website manager. These responses also contained examples from the reports and linked this back to the scenario as well as providing good detail on how the website manager could use this web analysis tool.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates discussed how the data from the reports could be used by a website manager but lacked detail and clarity on how the web analysis tool could be beneficial for a website manager.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified feature/s of data from the reports but failed to address how it would be useful for a website manager.
2. In better responses, candidates provided a clear understanding of collecting and analysing in relation to the scenario. These responses also contained relevant examples illustrating what occurs within each of these processes as well as showing the relationship between these processes.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates demonstrated understanding of either collecting or analysing, with reference to the scenario.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of either analysing or collecting but failed to demonstrate understanding of the use of the web analysis tool.
3. Better responses provided a clear description of a future application while addressing issues surrounding the responsibility for decisions and performing data mining.
  
  Mid-range responses provided a limited description of an application that utilised the technology in the scenario with some consideration for responsibility for decisions and performing data mining.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates struggled to identify a future application and in many cases described the system in the scenario or an already existing system with some consideration for responsibility for decisions or performing data mining, or listed issues related to the scenario.

Question 27 – Automotive manufacturing systems

1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated an understanding of a direct user in an automated manufacturing environment.
2. Better responses provided a description of an RFID and a relevant scenario where an RFID tag could be used.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates only identified a feature of a RFID tag. Some confused a barcode with a RFID tag and incorrectly stated that RFID tags collected temperature and other environmental data.
1. In better responses, candidates identified one actuator and an appropriate system for which it could be used.
  In weaker responses, candidates either identified a feature of an actuator – for example, ‘an actuator performs a mechanical action’ or a system where actuators could be used – for example, ‘an actuator is used in a robotic arm for welding’.
2. Better responses provided a clear description of the collecting, processing and displaying processes represented by the block diagram.
  
  Mid-range responses described the processes represented by the block diagram although many did not describe the controller clearly.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates only identified a feature of a process represented by the diagram. Some candidates described the diagram and not the processes represented by the diagram.
1. In better responses, candidates provided a clear explanation of why the system was machine- or human-centred.
  
  Mid-range responses provided a description of the relationship between human and machine-centred systems.
  
  Weaker responses identified a feature of either a human- or machine-centred system.
2. In better responses, candidates provided a clear description of collecting and displaying in the robotic systems. These responses included a description of both the camera and the commands from the doctor’s joystick as the collecting process. Projections on the monitor together with display through movement of the actuators were described as the display process.
  
  Mid-range responses provided a description of collecting and displaying. These responses included the camera and monitor only.
  
  Weaker responses provided a description of collecting or displaying only, with minimal reference or understanding of the robotic system.
3. In better responses, candidates predicted a valid application and provided a description of how the technology could be used in the application. A description of job flexibility and changing skill was provided.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates generally predicted an application with a limited description of how the technology could be used in the scenario and a limited description of job flexibility and changing skill.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates provided a description of the existing system with a limited description of either job flexibility or changing skills. They also showed a limited understanding by providing generalised information on robotic technology.

Question 28 – Multimedia systems

1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated an understanding of interactivity within multimedia systems by providing a clear definition which was often accompanied by a relevant example or by stating that buttons or hyperlinks may be used to interact with multimedia.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates provided weak definitions and often did not accurately articulate what interactivity was. Many of these responses simply stated that interactivity was to interact with the system. Some candidates confused interactivity with the mere existence of multiple media types.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates simply listed some aspects of multimedia (which did not address the question asked).
2. In better responses, candidates provided characteristics of both linear and non-linear storyboards and often used correct supporting diagrams of each type of storyboard to clarify the response.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates confused linear storyboards as only going in a forward direction. Many responses indicated incorrectly that non-linear storyboards are totally random.
  
  Many weaker responses simply stated that the linear storyboards were straight and that non-linear storyboards were the opposite to linear storyboards.
1. In better responses, candidates identified characteristics of multimedia file types and also specified what compression did to the files. Some also referred to the characteristics of the html files that allowed the embedding of the video files.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates often simply listed one or two video file types and failed to refer to the characteristics of that file type.
2. In better responses, candidates provided clear descriptions. They did not just describe the situation of where the animations could be used but also gave features of how path-based and cell-based animations both worked. They showed how they would be suitable to the situation that the candidates described. Responses that fully described a separate situation for each of the animation techniques were treated the same way as those that provided a single situation in which both animation techniques could be used.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates gave weaker descriptions which often included a poor description of only the situation rather than also adding features of the animation techniques. Some mid-range responses only gave details of the animation techniques without stating any situation to which they would be suited (which missed the point of the question). Other mid-range responses included enough detail in their description to show some understanding but had mixed up some aspects of each of the animation techniques.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates simply identified a situation in which the animation techniques may be used without providing any descriptive detail. Many poorer responses incorrectly treated the path-based and cell-based animation techniques as being the same thing as they both created animations. Some of these responses attempted to describe something about one or both of the animation techniques without mention of a situation and displayed substantial confusion in their understanding of animation techniques. Often weaker responses simply identified a feature of an animation or of an animation technique.
1. In better responses, candidates provided explanations that linked the size of files and/or the multitude of files required for a multimedia system with the need for compression. These responses also clearly stated that compression resulted in smaller file sizes. These responses linked the smaller file sizes with better system efficiency in the storage of the files as well as increased system performance so that there was an improvement in response times within the system.
  
  Mid-range responses provided descriptions rather than explanations of file compression within the game. Some of these responses only described data compression without relating it to the storing of files on the system. Other mid-range responses only described the need for the storage of files in the system without specifying how data compression results in smaller files.
  
  Weaker responses simply identified a feature of data compression or of multimedia files in general.
2. In better responses, candidates described the collecting process. They also displayed a clear understanding of how the collecting processes were linked to the displaying process by describing how the collecting process resulted in data that needed to be processed in some way before the displaying process could happen.
  
  Mid-range responses provided descriptions that indicated a more limited understanding of the two processes within the game. These responses often did not link the two processes in any way. Many of these responses listed the data that was being collected by the system and listed the data that was being displayed without any description. Very few responses identified collecting data from the game disc and displaying that data too, as most focused on data collection from the balance board.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of the collecting or displaying processes without any attempt at a description. Many poorer responses just copied the relevant parts of the stimulus material word for word.
  
  Candidates are reminded that they need to demonstrate their own understanding by adding additional information that fits the scenario.
3. In better responses, candidates predicted a valid future application of the technology, clearly described how the technology in the scenario would be used and included discussion of multimedia and virtual world systems. They addressed emerging technologies within multimedia information systems.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided descriptions of future applications without including any of the technology that is used in the system in the scenario. These responses often included new technologies that might exist in some distant future. Many mid-range responses did not include any depth of description of how the technology fitted into the system.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates simply identified an existing system that utilises multimedia technology or listed issues related to multimedia in general.

20110250