1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. 2012 HSC Exam papers
5. 2012 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Food Technology

2012 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 2012 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 2012 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 career opportunity and clearly stated a reason why this job opportunity would be created.
2. In better responses, candidates identified a number of ways that consumer demands can influence their chosen organisation’s development of value-added foods. In these responses, candidates showed a good understanding of consumer demands such as convenience, health and cost, and related these to the development of relevant value-added foods. These candidates supported their discussion with reference to their chosen organisation.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates generally demonstrated a poor understanding of value-added foods, typically identifying how a food could be made ‘healthier’. Their discussion was limited and not supported with relevant value-added food examples linked to their organisation.
3. In better responses, candidates identified a number of economic impacts resulting from the development of value-added foods in their chosen organisation. Typically, these students explained the increased costs related to research and development, training and equipment purchase as a negative consequence and/or how value-adding could lead to greater profitability and market share.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates wrote in general terms about how the production of food could result in more profit or loss for the organisation.

Question 22

1. In better responses, candidates provided a valid meaning of the term quality control such as the conducting of tests to check the standards of raw materials or products before, during or after use.
2. In better responses, candidates clearly identified a range of quality control procedures relevant to the flowchart and showed the relationship between these procedures and a safe and high quality end product. Examples included sorting (size, shape, colour, texture) for quality, pitting (consistency, consumer safety to avoid dental issues and choking) and filling and sealing of the cans (weight, headspace, temperature) for both safety and quality.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates tended to list the processes identified on the flowchart and provided very limited information about the process. These candidates made very poor links to safety and/or quality.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided a general discussion of quality control procedures. There was little or no reference to the flowchart. Many responses in this range identified HACCP procedures without linking them to the flowchart, safety or quality.

Question 23

1. In better responses, candidates provided a clear reason for preserving foods, eg prevent waste, retain nutritive value, extend shelf life.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates did not provide a reason for preserving foods. Some candidates suggested examples of preservation methods such as canning, or just repeated the question in their response.
2. In better responses, candidates provided characteristics and features of two different methods of removing water from food to provide dried food products. These candidates chose drying methods such as spray drying, tunnel drying, cabinet drying, freeze drying or sun drying and provided the characteristics and features for each. Candidates in this range provided a range of relevant examples of dried foods for each method chosen, eg powdered milk, instant coffee.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates demonstrated a general understanding of drying. Candidates were unable to provide characteristic and features for two methods. Some candidates provided characteristics for one method, providing general information or an outline of a second method. Many candidates in this range used ‘dehydration’ and ‘evaporation’ as their drying methods and the information provided was repetitive and sketched in general terms. Many candidates in this range misinterpreted the question and often described freezing, vacuum packaging and sous vide as methods of drying. Many candidates in the mid-range responses identified two drying methods but described the reasons for drying by these methods rather than describing the actual methods.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided general information on drying or dried foods. These candidates named some drying method(s) or equipment used to dry food, such as an oven, however they did not elaborate on the method or processes used.
3. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a strong understanding of the fermentation process. These candidates clearly stated the cause and effect of the fermentation process in relation to the manufactured food chosen, eg yoghurt. They made reference to the conversion of carbohydrates to acids or alcohol through the use of yeast or bacteria. They also commented on the effect of this fermentation process in terms of colour, flavour and texture changes, release of carbon dioxide, reduction of pH and the preservation effect as a result.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates provided characteristics and features of the preservation process and correctly linked this to a fermented food product. Most candidates in this range defined the process but the effect of this fermentation process on the food product lacked explanation. Most candidates noted the relationship between carbohydrates and the production of alcohol and acids through the use of yeast and bacteria, while addressing some effects such as lowering of pH and flavour changes and the preservation effect.
   
   Weaker responses came from candidates who outlined the fermentation process. Many candidates in this range mentioned the words carbohydrates, alcohol, sugar and acid, but were unclear in explaining the relationship between them and the fermentation process. Some candidates were able to identify a fermented food product. Many candidates in this range provided general information on fermentation or fermented foods. They were unclear about the process and often confused fermentation with pasteurisation or ultra-heat treatment. Many candidates also incorrectly selected a fermented food product or outlined food preservation methods in general.

Question 24

The majority of candidates correctly identified the meaning and purpose of a SWOT analysis and related it to some aspects of the question.

In better responses, candidates incorporated a range of elements of the given proposal into their discussion, such as the issues of storing and transporting fresh food products, the benefits of an extensive product range to satisfy a variety of consumer needs, the advantage of being an existing company with an established customer base, the significance of being an Australian company, the challenges of setting up a new online marketing system. They linked these clearly and directly to implications for the company, eg ‘fresh food products present significant challenges for an online market as the perishable nature of the food requires controlled conditions for delivery such as refrigerated transport to maintain optimum quality, which may strain the company's financial position and make the proposal unrealistic.’

They demonstrated a clear understanding of each component of SWOT and a strong analysis was sustained throughout the entire response as each aspect was addressed. Many candidates identified and discussed the internal factors (personnel expertise, financial position, production facilities, and company image) and external factors (economic, political, ecological and technological environments) that could be considered in relation to the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. These responses focused more on the perspective of the company as a business rather than on the consumer's experience alone. Responses by these candidates were also usually well supported with relevant examples and a high level of subject terminology.

Some candidates expressed their responses in a table format to highlight the characteristics and features of how SWOT could be applied to the Oz E-foods company proposal. While this format allowed candidates to present a logical, balanced and succinct response, this format limited the opportunity provided for analysis.

In weaker responses, candidates either identified or correctly named all or part of what the SWOT acronym represents or gave some general information about why a company might open an online shopping site. These responses tended to be sketchy and general in nature. They often considered the question from the consumer’s perspective rather than addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that faced the company.

Question 25

1. In better responses, candidates correctly identified that the product in the question was either a line extension or a ‘me too’. They then justified their selection by either explaining the reasons companies choose to develop new products or the modifications that can be made to existing products to create a line extension.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates either incorrectly identified the product as a ‘new to the world’ or innovation. Some had very limited knowledge of the types of food product development.

2. In better responses, candidates identified a number of appropriate ways these potato chips could be nutritionally modified and showed the direct links that these modifications would have on consumer health, eg by lowering the fat content of the chips by either changing the oil they were prepared in or by baking instead of frying. They then linked this modification to health concerns such as obesity, type II diabetes and coronary heart disease.
   
   Candidates who wrote mid-range responses identified modifications that could be made to the chips but struggled to show the direct relationship these modifications would have on the consumer’s health.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided only one way the product could be modified. The modifications provided were often not appropriate to potato chips or not nutritionally based, eg smaller serving sizes.

Question 26

1. 1. Most candidates correctly defined the term overweight by referring to actual percentages above the ideal body weight i.e. 10–19% or BMI range 24–29, or indicated to be overweight is to be above average weight for height or to carry excess adipose tissue.
   2. Most candidates correctly defined the term obesity by referring to actual percentages above the ideal weight, ie 20% above or a BMI above 30 or indicated that an obese person would be excessively overweight and have an increased risk of other health-related issues.
2. In better responses, candidates clearly explained a number of economic costs associated with obesity to individuals, the health care system, government or businesses.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates explained only one cost or several costs in less detail.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided a list of economic costs or provided general information on economic costs.
3. In better responses, candidates analysed the data in the table provided and made a relationship between the levels of physical activity and nutrient intake. They referred to factors that contribute to low levels of physical activity such as sedentary lifestyles and the impact of technology.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates provided a link to the information in the table and explained levels of physical activity and nutrient intake in more general terms.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates did not refer to the information in the table or they repeated the data with little explanation.

Section III

Question 27

1. In better responses, candidates clearly named a food product that had been developed by them in a classroom environment and link this product to a relevant consumer need. A diverse range of food products were named by candidates in this section of the question, eg smoothies, muffins, muesli bars, stir fries and pasta dishes. Relevant consumer needs that were indicated by candidates for their developed food product included health, convenience, taste.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates named a food product although they did not link their product to a consumer need. Otherwise, candidates listed an existing product that they had not developed, eg canned pears or a branded product. Frequently these candidates did not link the product that they identified with a relevant consumer need.

2. In better responses, candidates provided clear and appropriate reasons in favour of their packaging design; often discussing features such as size, shape, storage requirements, labelling information, or tamper-proof sealing that related to their food product.
   
   These candidates also provided clear information about the choice of material/s used in the packaging for their food product. Candidates included specific terminology regarding packaging materials, eg foil/paper laminate rather than general terms such as plastic. They linked the chosen packaging material/s to reasons why their packaging would ensure optimum quality for their food product such as preventing contamination, ensuring texture is maintained, ability to be heated in the microwave without affecting the quality of the food product.
   
   In some responses, candidates used descriptive and annotated diagrams/drawings to illustrate relevant information regarding aspects related to the aesthetics and function of their packaging design and the packaging material/s.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates provided characteristics and features of their packaging design and/or packaging material/s. Candidates who focused on the packaging material made limited reference to the quality of the food product in their description. Similarly, candidates who only described the design features of their packaging did not provide reasons for their recommendations.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided general information on the functions of packaging or about the materials and/or design to be considered for their food product. Some candidates listed one or more packaging materials or design features, eg plastic bottle with a lid, labelled cardboard box. They did not include reasons for the design features that they listed or make any connection to the way in which their packaging material/s would ensure optimum quality.

3. In better responses, candidates developed a range of suitable promotional strategies for their identified food product such as advertisements on television, radio, internet pop-ups, personal selling, taste testing. They demonstrated a clear understanding of ethically suitable strategies, providing examples such as avoiding misleading claims, environmental concerns, appropriate use of celebrities in advertisements, and avoiding use of prime-time television to advertise to children. In these better responses, candidates clearly supported their ethically suitable strategies with detailed reasoning.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates provided characteristics and features of a range of suitable promotional strategies for their identified food product.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided general information about promotional strategies for their identified food product, often only listing a number of strategies such as television advertisements, taste testing, and billboards. Frequently candidates did not include ethically suitable strategies nor attempt to support their inclusion in their response.

Section IV

Question 28

In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of the question and succinctly related food production and manufacture to environmental outcomes. Candidates made evident the relationship between a range of strategies used by both food producers and manufacturers and their impact on the environment. These responses were characterised by the use of relevant and accurate examples and appropriate terminology in a cohesive and logical response. Strategies for food producers included organic farming, improved waste management, biotechnology, quotas, aquaculture, selective breeding, use of energy efficient equipment and machinery, use of alternative energy sources, improved irrigation and soil management. Strategies for food manufacturers included use of alternative resources, recycling of water, reusing, reducing and recycling of packaging, use of local raw materials, waste management, environmentally friendly products, location of factories close to transport, considered use of transportation, stock control, education of workers, sponsorship of environmental initiatives, improved storage facilities, compliance with legislation.

In mid-range responses, candidates reflected a lower level of understanding of the environmental impacts of both food producers and food manufacture. Some candidates responded to only one area. Other candidates in this range did not clearly link the strategies employed to environmental impact. Examples given were not always relevant and environmental issues were discussed in more general terms.

In weaker responses, candidates did not distinguish between food producers and manufacturers and discussed pollution in general terms. Candidates in this range did not understand the terms ‘food producers’ and ‘manufacturers’ as used in the question. Many candidates repeated the question or focused on sectors of the Australian food industry which were beyond the scope of the question. When examples were provided, they were limited or not relevant.