Home
HSC
HSC Exams
2011 HSC Exam papers
2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre - Information Processes and Technology

2011 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 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 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 that 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

In better responses, candidates correctly identified the majority of the data types and field sizes, or successfully demonstrated an understanding of the data types and field sizes for most of the fields.

In mid-range responses, candidates correctly identified some of the data types and/or field sizes, or demonstrated an understanding of some of the data types or field sizes.

In weaker responses, candidates demonstrated a limited understanding of the data types and/or field sizes by restating words or numbers from the table within the question.
In better responses, candidates addressed aspects of active listening, including paraphrasing, mirroring, taking down notes and rephrasing. They explicitly identified active listening techniques and described how they would assist in determining the needs of the restaurant owners.

In mid-range responses, candidates addressed aspects of a discussion between Mel’s Apps and the restaurant owners, but did not mention a feature of active listening. They demonstrated an understanding of how active listening techniques would assist in determining the needs of the restaurant owners, but did not explicitly identify what these techniques are.

In weaker responses, candidates discussed interviews or orders of restaurant customers or restated the question without adding any further information.
In better responses, candidates described the appropriateness of using live data to test the developed app. They described the effects of ‘real time’ and ‘real people’ in relation to the systems data.

In mid-range responses, candidates described the characteristics of testing with no reference as to why live test data should be used. They identified and/or described features of testing, eg ‘bugs’ in the system need to be fixed.

In weaker responses, candidates demonstrated a limited understanding of what testing is at any level by restating the question in the answer, eg so you could test the app.
In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of a storyboard for booking a local restaurant and/or ordering take-away food and the appropriate components for each screen. They included screens with multiple links.

In mid-range responses, candidates drew a storyboard of the booking and/or take-away order system, including some of the required components of the app.

In weaker responses, candidates attempted a storyboard and demonstrated a limited understanding of the app.

Question 22

In better responses, candidates identified appropriate headings that would be displayed in the contents page of a requirements report.

In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature or heading of a requirements report.

A large number of candidates identified the processes listed in the scenario as the headings of a requirements report, which was incorrect.
In better responses, candidates drew a substantially correct decision tree showing the different fees members will be charged.

In mid-range responses, candidates drew a decision tree or table showing some of the different fees members would be charged.

In weaker responses, candidates attempted to draw a decision diagram (tree or table), with limited reference to the different fees members would be charged.
In better responses, candidates provided a clear assessment of the impact the new system would have on both employees and members, indicating a clear understanding of the proposed change.

In mid-range responses, candidates described an impact(s) that the new system would have on employees and/or members.

In weaker responses, candidates identified an impact of change on either employees or members.

Question 23

In better responses, candidates identified an appropriate transmission medium and provided a description of its features.

In weaker responses, candidates identified a transmission medium with no description or only gave a feature of a transmission medium.

Many candidates identified a transmission medium that was not relevant to the scenario provided, eg wireless.

Some candidates confused the term ‘transmission medium’ with ‘transmission device’ or ‘network topology’ and wrote about hardware devices (router, switch and hub) or a bus topology.
In better responses, candidates demonstrated a good understanding of the data required for the sales and head office staff. They designed separate distinct database views, with the data being unique to the individual participant. Responses also included interface design features of database forms and tables.

In mid-range responses, candidates identified some of the data for either the sales staff or the head office staff that would be displayed in a database view.

In weaker responses, candidates identified only a small number of fields and these were often duplicated for both the sales staff and the head office staff. Many of these responses were simple lists.
In better responses, candidates analysed multiple issues associated with storing corporate data on a TPSP. They described these issues and recommended suitable techniques that a company should consider before employing them.

In mid-range responses, candidates described the issues associated with storing corporate data. They needed to make each issue distinct and provide suitable and unique features for it.

In weaker responses, candidates simply listed issues that a company should consider. These were general and not specific to the storage of corporate data.

Question 24

In better responses, candidates outlined the ability of a fat client to perform processing and stated that it is independent of a server or network.
In better responses, candidates described a technological issue with the camera that may occur when scanning the number plate, resulting in a loss of quality of the captured data.

In weaker responses, candidates identified a technological issue with the camera that may occur when scanning the number plate, without making reference to the resulting loss of data quality.
In better responses, candidates provided similarities and/or differences between 3G communication and one or more specifically named wireless communication methods, while making a clear link to the scenario.

In mid-range responses, candidates provided similarities and/or differences between 3G communication and one or more specifically named wireless communication methods, without making any link to the scenario.

In weaker responses, candidates identified features of wireless communication, but did not correctly compare 3G communication to a different wireless communication method.
In better responses, candidates provided relevant social and ethical issues relating to the data matching in the scenario. They stated the implications of these social and ethical issues and used examples from the scenario to better demonstrate their understanding of data matching.

In mid-range responses, candidates described relevant social and ethical issues relating to the data matching in the scenario, without providing any related implications for these social and ethical issues.

In weaker responses, candidates provided characteristics of the relevant social and ethical issues with only a limited understanding of data matching, or merely identified an issue of data matching.

Section III

Candidates were required to answer two questions in this section. They should not have attempted more than two questions, as the time wasted on the extra question(s) could have been better spent fully answering the two required questions.

Question 25

1. Most candidates stated the meaning of batch transaction processing and identified the essential qualities of this process.
2. In better responses, candidates clearly described online real-time processing, stating the meaning of the term and providing relevant examples related directly to the theatre booking system scenario.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates either provided a meaning of real-time processing or identified a feature of booking theatre/movie tickets online using real-time processing.
3. In better responses, candidates provided a detailed description of an output from a specific transaction processing system and indicated how this data could be used in another information system – eg a management information system – to achieve the desired results for the users of both or either system.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified specific output(s) from transaction processing systems without concisely describing how to use this data in another system.
1. In better responses, candidates provided the characteristics and features of data integrity and supplemented their answer with specific examples from the scenario.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates simply provided a feature of data integrity with no relation to the scenario.
2. In better responses, candidates identified several participants who would use the HRMS. They then matched these participants with the processes they would each perform in order to edit an existing employee’s data.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided information for one or more participants and briefly described employee data that could be edited.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates provided a feature of data that could be edited or identified a participant without any attempt at a description. In many weaker responses, candidates restated the relevant parts of the scenario.
3. In better responses, candidates identified components of the collecting process, indicating a clear understanding of how data on a new employee could be collected and uploaded into the PIM using specific software or hardware. Candidates also provided reasons for choosing these collection methods in relation to the needs of the company and the employee and described how this data could be linked effectively with other modules within the HRMS. They provided a level of analysis showing insight into the collection processes related to the scenario.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided a description rather than an analysis of collecting relevant data and adding it to the system. They demonstrated some understanding of the process for adding a new employee to the HRMS.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of the collecting process without any attempt at a description. In many weaker responses, candidates restated the relevant parts of the stimulus material.
4. In better responses, candidates provided a clear understanding of the similarities and differences between the HRMS and a paper-based transaction system and discussed specific improvements offered by the electronic system.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided a discussion on the similarities or differences between electronic and paper-based transaction systems, providing examples related to the scenario.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of electronic or paper-based transaction systems.

Question 26

1. Many candidates confused ‘what-if analysis’ with ‘if-then rules’ when providing an example of a decision where this type of analysis could assist.
2. In better responses, candidates provided a description of backward chaining showing an understanding of the chaining strategy. In many of these responses, examples were included to support the description of this method of chaining.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of a chaining strategy used in expert systems whether it was backward or forward chaining.
3. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of the role of the knowledge engineer in relation to the creation of an expert system. Responses showed the relationship between the knowledge engineer and the expert, as well as the structuring of the if-then rules for the knowledge base.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates demonstrated an understanding of the role of the knowledge engineer in regards to creating an expert system but with some detail missing, or they confused the role of the knowledge engineer and the expert in relation to creating an expert system.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of an expert system or a role of the knowledge engineer.
1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a good understanding of a GIS by identifying more than one feature in relation to the scenario.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified one feature of a GIS.
2. In better responses, candidates provided a description of a structure of decision-making supported by the GIS – such as semi-structured and, in some cases, structured – with an example from the scenario demonstrating a clear understanding.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided some description of a structure of decision-making supported by the GIS without necessarily naming the structure. The example(s) provided showed some understanding of how that structure of decision-making is used when interacting with the GIS.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates either identified an example of decision-making or gave an example of a decision that could be made using the GIS.
3. In better responses, candidates showed analysis of the technologies, different sources of data, and different formats of data by providing relevant examples from the scenario and indicating how these areas linked to one another, demonstrating a clear understanding of the GIS.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided a substantially complete description of most areas – technologies, different sources of data, and different formats of data – with some reference to the scenario. In some cases, candidates made lists under those headings and gave limited descriptions.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates identified characteristics or features of the GIS.
4. In better responses, candidates clearly compared the GIS with alternate methods, showing the similarities and differences, with a strong emphasis on the improvements that the GIS system has to offer over alternative methods.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates compared the GIS with an alternate method(s), showing understanding of some similarities and/or differences with some mention of improvements offered by the GIS. Some responses provide a discussion of accessing the same information from the GIS or from an alternative method.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates provided a description of accessing the information from the GIS or from an alternative method. Some responses identified a feature of accessing data from the GIS or from an alternative method.

Question 27

1. In better responses, candidates indicated an understanding of damping by providing a clear syllabus-like definition. They included a diagram to complement the definition.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates showed a limited understanding. They identified over damping, under damping and critical damping.
2. In better responses, candidates described how CAD and CAM could be used in the manufacture of a jigsaw puzzle. They described the design of the jigsaw on the computer and the advantages offered by CAD, as well as the integration of the design with the manufacturing process on a CNC through the transfer of XYZ coordinates from CAD to a CNC.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates expanded the acronym and identified a feature of CAD/CAM. For example, CAD is computer aided design software and is used for the design of the jigsaw.
3. In better responses, candidates provided a comprehensive explanation of why manufacturing systems are automated – eg automation makes it possible for repetitive tasks to be carried out without people having to perform them.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates only listed in point form one or more reasons for automation – eg repetitive tasks, faster decision-making, or safety – without providing any explanation.
1. In better responses, candidates correctly identified an actuator (motor, solenoid, stepping motor, relay and hydraulic pumps) and how it could be used in a luggage handling system (eg a motor is used to move the conveyor belts).
  
  In weaker responses, candidates made reference to the use of the conveyor belt or arm in the luggage handling system without identifying the actuator.
2. In better responses, candidates refined the block diagram by including the position of the mechanical arm, as well as labelling inputs and outputs.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates refined the block diagram and showed the position of the mechanical arm.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates attempted a block diagram.
  
  Answers that replicated the block diagram in the scenario were not awarded any marks.
3. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of the sequence of steps that occurred and provided an analysis of the processes.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates included an outline of the sequence of steps with limited analysis of the processes.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates listed the sequence of steps from the scenario or only identified a characteristic of the system.
4. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a thorough understanding of an RFID luggage handling system and a manual/barcodes luggage handling system in terms of differences and similarities. Responses included a clear explanation of how an RFID’s luggage handling system offered an improvement over a manual/barcodes luggage handling system.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided a discussion of an RFID luggage handling system and a manual/barcodes luggage handling system. Reponses mentioned some improvements on the manual/barcode luggage handling system.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates provided a description or feature of an RFID luggage handling system and a manual/barcodes luggage handling system. These responses were framed as generalisations – eg an RFID is an electronic device that consists of a small chip and an antenna and uses radio waves to track luggage.

Question 28

1. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of hyperlinks by providing a definition, which was often accompanied by a relevant example or by stating that hyperlinks may be used to interact within multimedia.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates showed a limited understanding and did not accurately articulate what a hyperlink is. Many of these responses defined a hyperlink as a simple link in a website.
2. In better responses, candidates outlined several different technical skills, including both hardware and software skills, that are relevant to the production of multimedia. These responses provided specific technical skills with examples.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates showed a limited understanding of the required technical skills, often only identifying general computing skills or project management skills.
3. In better responses, candidates fully described the process of analog to digital conversion, including more than one type of media. Some responses used the conversion of sound as an example, often detailing the actual technical process of sampling. Other responses referred to the digital conversion of other media types, such as photos via scanning.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates gave partial descriptions or limited outlines of the conversion process, often without the use of specific examples.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates simply identified a recording device, such as video or microphone, or outlined in general terms the use of an ADC. These candidates struggled to demonstrate the more specific details of the process.
1. In better responses, candidates identified the relevant display hardware for the scenario in the question. Responses demonstrated clear understanding by including the hardware required for the website visuals, the sound output, and the possibility of printing the brochures. Many went beyond the requirement to identify the hardware by also stating why the listed hardware components were needed. This was not necessary.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates simply identified a list of computer-related hardware that included some of the display hardware as well as many input devices. Some responses simply identified a computer by itself or listed the parts of a standard computer system as separate pieces of hardware, without addressing the three different types of display that may be used for the website.
2. In better responses, candidates described the technical processes that may take place during the animation process – eg cel-based, path-based or tweening – in the creation of the virtual tour.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided weak descriptions of the animation processes without giving any detail of the process involved. Candidates identified the collecting of photos and vaguely mentioned animation software and techniques, often not recognising that the images needed to be joined in some way to present a continuous view for the virtual tour.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates simply identified a method of animation or concentrated on the collection of the required images only.
3. In better responses, candidates fully analysed the storage of the multimedia data for the website in the scenario. They explained how the data could be stored in a database on a web server, identified appropriate file formats for the various data types, and also justified the use of these formats – eg compression, small file sizes for speed of downloading, and the selection of particular file formats to work with plug-ins and other system requirements.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided a description rather than analysing the storing processes. They identified file formats and gave descriptions of these without attempting to describe or analyse the impact of the storing processes on the functioning of the website.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates simply identified a storage process or gave a list of file formats.
4. In better responses, candidates provided a full and detailed comparison, often in the form of an extensive table, of accessing information from the website and from more than one alternative. Candidates related to the scenario and also used several examples from the stimulus material and their own comparisons to explain how the website offered improvements over the alternatives.
  
  In mid-range responses, candidates provided descriptions or weak discussions of the website’s functions, often without reference to other explicit alternatives. They rarely provided any indication of explicit improvements to the access of information that the website provided when compared with alternatives. Some responses provided an explanation of how the website offered improvements without providing any comparison between the website and the alternatives.
  
  In weaker responses, candidates simply identified features of data access from the website directly from the stimulus material.