1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. 2011 HSC Exam papers
5. 2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Food Technology

2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Food Technology

Contents

• Introduction
• Section II
• Section III
• Section IV

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 2011 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 2011 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents 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 mark 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 far beyond the indicated space 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’.

Section II

Part A

Question 21

1. In better responses, candidates provided a valid meaning of ecologically sustainable food production. In poorer responses, candidates were unable to do this and often confused the term with other concepts, such as the economy.
   
   
2. Better responses identified issues and provided points for and against the use of genetically modified crops in food production. These responses clearly identified what genetically modified foods were and discussed a wide range of positive and negative issues surrounding their use in food production. These candidates supported their discussion with good examples.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates generally limited their discussion to one issue. Some identified genetically modified crops, but failed to support their discussion with issues or examples. There was some confusion between organic crops, nutritionally modified foods, functional foods and genetically modified foods.

Question 22

1. In better responses, candidates clearly indicated three of the four processes shown in the flowchart. Weaker responses listed fewer than three processes, or did not refer to the flowchart at all.
   
   
2. In better responses, candidates clearly discussed the characteristics and features of one process used to transform wheat into flour. They clearly articulated the changes that occurred in the process and generally identified the equipment needed to do it.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates simply named a process, provided little information in their attempt to discuss the process, or wrote in general terms about an unidentified or incorrect process. Some candidates confused quality control with process.

Question 23

Better responses reflected a strong knowledge of a range of government legislation and policies. These candidates related these items to the food industry and provided specific details of how each affected the various sectors. Common points of explanation included the role of the Imported Food Control Act 1992 (Cth) in keeping the agriculture and fisheries sector disease free and the impact of the Food Act 2003 (NSW) in ensuring that the food processing sector has quality assurance in place. In better responses, candidates identified policies such as the Eat Well Australia 2000–2010 plan and explained how these influenced food producers in developing a greater range of healthier foods.

In mid-range responses, candidates provided characteristics and features of a range of government legislation and policies. The explanation component of these responses was limited. Other good responses included a description and an outline of the effect of the legislation/policy on the Australian food industry. A third variation included a range of impacts, but did not link these back to specific legislation or policy.

Poorer responses were limited to an outline of legislation and/or policy or the effects on the Australian food industry. These responses were generally lacking in detail and sometimes the information provided was inaccurate. The weakest responses were limited to one or two pieces of general information on legislation and/or policy.

Question 24

1. In better responses, candidates provided characteristics and features for the primary function of emulsifiers and humectants and named a relevant example of each additive. They noted that emulsifiers are used to combine oil and water in a product to prevent separation in storage – for example, in mayonnaise – and that humectants are used to absorb moisture from the atmosphere and prevent foods from drying out – for example, in mixed dried fruit.
   
   In poorer responses, candidates identified only one characteristic and/or function, such as emulsifiers combine oil and water, and/or provided a relevant example, such as salad dressing.
   
   Some candidates did not describe humectants, or they provided incorrect content for this question part.
   
   
2. In better responses, candidates provided two or more reasons why an additive code numbering system is an advantage in food labelling. A range of advantages was provided, such as:
   
   • coded numbers are easier for consumers to identify/remember than long scientific names
     
   • long, complex names replaced by numbers mean that the coded numbers are less confusing
     
   • coded numbers take up less space on the labels so there is more space for manufacturers to include other information/recipes/promotional material
     
   • it is easier for consumers to identify coded numbers for foods to which they may have allergic reactions.
   In weaker responses, candidates identified a single advantage, frequently related to a coded number being easier for consumers to identify than long names, or provided general information about the additive code numbering system.

Question 25

1. In better responses, candidates incorporated appropriate terminology and thorough, relevant content to support why the production of a prototype is necessary during food product development. Responses may have made reference to:
   
   • testing consumer acceptance of the prototype prior to mass production of the product
     
   • identifying any undesirable characteristics that need modification
     
   • deciding whether factory machinery is suitable for large-scale production
     
   • providing feedback to allow for the ongoing success of the food product development process for the company.
   Poorer responses provided general information about why prototype production is necessary, such as ‘to see if there are any problems that need fixing’ or ‘to keep people satisfied’, without any further discussion.
   
   
2. In better responses, candidates clearly identified two or more suitable product prototype test methods, such as sensory evaluation, consumer testing, storage trials and packaging tests, and examined this range of product prototype test methods. These responses considered using storage trials to determine the shelf life of the packaged product, using packaging tests to ensure that the designed packaging performs all necessary functions, determining consumer/target market acceptability via focus groups and prototype sampling, and conducting sensory evaluation using tasting panels to assess colour, flavour and other relevant features and to provide feedback. Other responses in this range clearly identified two product prototype testing methods and investigated these two testing methods in detail.
   
   Mid-range responses demonstrated an understanding of prototype testing methods. Some candidates described one product prototype testing method, providing characteristics and features of only that testing method, while other candidates accurately listed appropriate product prototype testing methods without any further detail.
   
   Poorer responses provided general information about the testing of product prototypes or limited their responses to identifying a prototype testing method, such as using consumers to taste the prototype.

Question 26

1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of the external factors. They also provided succinct examples to match each external factor in the allotted table.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates recalled some or all of the external factors, providing limited examples to support them. Some of these responses included internal factors or SWOT analysis.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates did not identify any of the external factors or any supporting examples. These poorer responses provided examples such as consumer demand, temperature and seasonal change.
   
   
2. In better responses, candidates clearly showed how the food industry responds to changes in the economy in terms of pricing structures. A range of pricing structures, such as penetration pricing, price skimming, competitive pricing or status-quo pricing, was used by these candidates to highlight the relationship between pricing structures and the economy.
   
   Mid-range responses provided characteristics and features of the economy and the way(s) the food industry adjusts its pricing structure(s). The link between the economy and pricing structure(s) was often limited to ‘prices go up’ or ‘prices go down’. These candidates also stated how consumers respond to changes in the economy and not the food industry.
   
   Weaker responses provided only general information on pricing structure(s) or the economy, rather than making evident the link between them.

Question 27

1. In better responses, candidates named a group they had investigated and identified a specific, relevant health concern. These candidates explained the concern as being either the result of the health issue or a cause of it. For example, the elderly may suffer from osteoporosis, which may result in brittle bones and increased risk of fracture (result of the health issue), OR osteoporosis is due to loss of calcium and low calcium levels in the diet (cause of the condition).
   
   In weaker responses, candidates either identified a health concern relevant to the group without an explanation, or gave general information on why the specific group may be at risk of a health concern without clearly identifying the concern itself. Some candidates named organisations such as McDonald’s or sectors such as the agriculture and fisheries sector rather than groups.
   
   
2. In better responses, candidates correctly identified a broad range of dietary changes required to address the specific nutritional needs of the group. These changes were expressed as both nutrients and foods that would need to be either increased or decreased and were clearly linked to the various health issues encountered by the group. These candidates also explained the interrelationships of nutrients to promote optimum health.
   
   Some candidates limited their responses to the health issue identified in part (a). They needed to reflect a deeper knowledge of the nutritional requirements of this health issue with a range of dietary examples in order to access the upper mark range. Many candidates explained in detail the reasons why the group had nutritional needs, but did not focus on the issue of dietary changes in sufficient depth.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates outlined some dietary changes but did not link these to the needs of the group. Some provided general dietary advice or identified foods to be consumed as part of a healthy diet. Responses that accessed marks in the lower bands were often characterised by the use of general terminology and provided limited depth and/or breadth.
   
   
3. In better responses, candidates correctly identified a strategy that showed a clear understanding of the nature and needs of the group. These candidates went on to explicitly justify this strategy by explaining why it would be effective. Appropriate use of subject-specific terminology was a feature of many responses that accessed the upper mark range.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates tended to focus on dietary advice or general strategies, such as television advertisements, without making a clear justification about how or why the strategy would meet the needs of the group. The concept of a strategy was often limited to individual food choices or the use of a dietary model.

Section III

Question 28

1. Better responses came from candidates who provided several causes of spoilage and deterioration in fruit, such as poor storage, particular weather, the action of pests and microbial activity. They also provided specific causes of deterioration and spoilage in fruit using examples such as ‘cutting fruit will result in oxidative browning’.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates listed examples of deterioration, such as ‘bruising’ and ‘fruit flies’, rather than stating what actually caused the fruit to spoil.
   
   
2. In better responses, candidates provided characteristics and features of the legislative labelling requirements for a preserved product. This meant that rather than just stating ‘nutrition panel’, the candidate provided detail regarding why the nutrition panel was required and/or what features you would find on a nutrition panel.
   
   
3. In better responses, candidates used appropriate terminology to explain the relationship between two preservation processes and how they extend shelf life. In weaker responses, candidates provided very general information about preservation processes and/or ways to extend shelf life.

Section IV

Question 29

In better responses, candidates examined in detail each of the societal changes – ageing population and shifts in lifestyle and household structures – along with health and diet-related issues. They made strong connections between each societal change and the response of food manufacturers and food product developers, which they supported with relevant examples. These candidates also discussed the extent to which food manufacturers and food product developers addressed each of the societal changes. They used appropriate terminology and provided a logical, cohesive response.

Mid-range responses may not have addressed all societal changes or may have described some in more detail than others. These candidates explained the relationship between societal changes and the response of food manufacturers and food product developers, or provided links between the societal change and the response of food manufacturers and food product developers. They provided examples and generally used appropriate terminology.

Weaker responses outlined or provided limited detail about societal change(s) or the response of food manufacturers and food product developers. Candidates in this range often referred to societal changes other than those specified in the question. They only provided general information about societal change or food manufacturers and food product developers.