1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. 2012 HSC Exam papers
5. 2012 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre - Information Processes and Technology

2012 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Information Processes and Technology

Contents

• 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 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 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 far beyond 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 that are not included in the glossary may be used, 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

1. In better responses, candidates correctly identified a relevant field from the Customer table and the corresponding data type of that field.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of a field or data type but did not choose fields from the customer table or match the field with a corresponding data type.
2. In better responses, candidates identified a range of specific technologies that would be necessary for a user to connect to an online bookstore. These included identifying communication technologies, hardware technologies and relevant software technologies.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates identified some of the necessary technologies needed to access online environments, but either did not include software technologies or omitted communication technologies.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates only identified a relevant technology or feature of a technology necessary for accessing online environments.
3. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of what a developer would do in order to assist a customer place an order online. Answers included descriptions of help systems that would guide a user through the process of ordering, using features such as tutorials, online help, chat, animated examples or pop-up prompts.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature that may assist in placing an order online.
4. In better responses, candidates demonstrated understanding of database views by sketching a view that would assist packers and dispatchers in their job then justified why they chose those particular fields for this particular context.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates provided either a database view that was relevant to the context or provided a justification for choosing certain fields without providing a sketch of a database view.
   
   In low-range responses, candidates attempted to sketch a relevant view yet omitted to include obvious contextual fields such as ‘address’.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates only identified a feature of a database.

Question 22

1. In better responses, candidates drew and clearly labelled a diagram, demonstrated an understanding of the scenario and indicated the appropriate transmission media.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates attempted to draw a diagram that demonstrated a basic understanding of data communications.
2. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of an appropriate development approach and thoroughly justified its suitability.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates identified a development approach and/or justified the development of the system in the scenario.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of system development related to the scenario.
3. In better responses, candidates demonstrated an understanding of how the role of the emergency response telephone operator would change due to the introduction of the new system.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates identified an aspect of the nature of work of the emergency response telephone operator.
4. In better responses, candidates demonstrated an understanding of data packets and analogue to digital conversion in relation to the context.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates demonstrated a limited understanding of data packets or analogue to digital conversion
   
   In weaker responses, candidates identified component(s) of a data packet.

Question 23

1. In the better responses, candidates clearly stated two different issues with the flat-file database and discussed appropriate techniques to solve the issues. Many candidates identified data redundancy and unique identification keys. Candidates used the key word as an indicator of the depth of response required.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates identified only one issue and provided limited discussion of normalisation as the solution.
   
   In poorer responses, candidates identified a lack of organisation as an issue then suggested alphabetisation as a solution.
2. In better responses, candidates reduced the data redundancy by minimising the inappropriate fields, including appropriate key fields and relationships. These candidates also labelled the correct type of relationship, such as one to many.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates drew the correct number of tables, divided the appropriate attributes based on the stimulus material and drew lines to link tables.
   
   In poorer responses, candidates drew tables but included minimal attributes and some lines.
3. In the better responses, candidates identified the need for a unique key to assist in the storage and retrieval of the library items.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates described a method of categorisation and retrieval associated with digital data.
   
   In poorer responses, candidates identified a feature of an appropriate organisational system.

Question 24

1. In better responses, candidates correctly identified participants and described their roles when contributing to the development of an open source software. Participants identified and described by the candidates included analysts, designers, developers, testers and content providers.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates listed participants or demonstrated an understanding of the role of a participant.
2. In better responses, candidates provided a user interface with appropriate features for users to collaborate. Features included video conferencing and email/chat as well as file sharing, a collaborative workspace or sharing of documents.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates attempted a user interface, but did not demonstrate an understanding of user collaboration.
3. In better responses, candidates discussed the positive and negative issues related to the installation, support and maintenance of an open source software. They considered issues such as licencing, cost, security, help documentation and training.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates demonstrated an understanding of the positive and negative issues related to installation, support or maintenance. They described issues that may arise when installing, supporting or maintaining software.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates identified positive and/or negative issues or a feature related to installation or maintenance.

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. 1. Most candidates were able to define an online transaction processing system and identified the essential qualities of this process.
   2. In better responses, candidates clearly described the importance of data backup, stating the meaning of the term and relating backup to the concept of online submission of student assignments.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified an issue related to data backup without indicating an understanding of the context.
   3. In better responses, candidates provided a detailed explanation of why batch processing occurs. Some used specific examples to support their responses.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates either described batch processing or identified a feature of batch processing without demonstrating the reasons why batch processing is used.
2. 1. In better responses, candidates provided the characteristics and features of alternative procedures that might be required if the module became unavailable. They also supplemented their answer with specific examples related to the scenario and ERP systems.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates simply provided a feature of alternative procedures with no link to the scenario.
   2. In better responses, candidates were able to provide reasons why data mining could be used to advantage by the multinational company.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates provided a description of data mining.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of data storage or data mining.
   3. In better responses, candidates provided a comparison between the two options presented in the scenario. Their responses indicated a clear understanding of the use of an ERP within the scenario provided.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates provided a comparison with some understanding of the use of an ERP within the scenario.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of the scenario or ERP.
   4. In better responses, candidates provided a discussion or a description of an alternative application demonstrating the use of an ERP. They also provided information on how data would be stored and organised. These candidates also provided a specific example of an alternative application.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates identified an application or features demonstrating some understanding of the use of an ERP.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of an ERP.

Question 26

1. 1. Most candidates described how what-if models could assist in decision making.
   2. In better responses, candidates provided a description of the use of macros in spreadsheets and, in some cases, these responses were supported by examples.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified a use of a macro in a spreadsheet or a feature of a macro in the form of an example.
   3. In better responses, candidates discussed multiple implications that could arise from automated decision-making, clearly showing understanding of decision support systems.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates provided a description of an implication that could arise from automated decision making, demonstrating some understanding of decision support systems.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates generally identified a feature of decision making.
2. 1. In better responses, candidates identified suitable computer hardware demonstrating understanding of the SiroFire scenario.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates generally identified a feature of computer hardware or were able to identify a technology.
   2. In better responses, candidates recognised the category of the DSS as an unstructured situation and provided clear justification why this was the case by demonstrating understanding of the context of the scenario. Supporting examples were often evident in responses.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates either identified a suitable category of the DSS and described its distinguishing characteristics, demonstrating understanding of the DSS, or identified the type of DSS rather than category and described the distinguishing characteristics of this type of DSS.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates either identified a feature of DSS or identified the type of DSS in the scenario.
   3. In better responses, candidates discussed issues related to data collection from multiple sources, including the importance of data quality and the implications related to poor data quality in relation to the scenario.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates described the importance of data collection from multiple sources as well as the implications arising from inaccurate collection of data. These responses did not relate their answers to the scenario and rather described issues on data quality in isolation.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of data quality.
   4. In better responses, candidates suggested an alternative application that uses GIS, multiple sources of data and a processing method. These responses demonstrated a clear understanding of GIS and how they can be used to recommend solutions.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates suggested an alternative application that uses GIS and multiple data sources or a processing method, demonstrating some understanding of GIS and how they can be used to recommend solutions. Some of these responses provided alternative methods for the SiroFire system rather than a completely different application.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates provided a description of an alternative application demonstrating limited understanding of DSS or in some cases identified a feature of a decision support system, often in the form of naming another type of DSS.

Question 27

1. 1. In better responses, candidates provided an example and application of the action that a robotic arm may perform in an automated manufacturing situation, for example a robotic arm would be used in the car industry to perform precise repetitive welding on body panels.
   2. In better responses, candidates identified a suitable sensor that could be used and provided a description of the operation of the sensor, such as detecting cars to enable adaptive traffic lights to function.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates either identified an appropriate sensor only or provided a feature of how a sensor could work without identifying the sensor.
   3. In better responses, candidates provided an explanation indicating an understanding, purpose and operation of computer numerical control and the relationship with CAD/CAM. Responses discussed the use of X, Y, Z coordinates generated from the design process on the computer (computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing) that are transferred to a router or other cutter to produce a finished part. In mid-range responses, candidates provided a description of computer numerical control without reference to CAD/CAM.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of computer numerical control.
2. 1. In better responses, candidates identified an appropriate sensor and provided a description of the physical operation of the sensor in the context of mobile security robots.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified an appropriate sensor or operation of a sensor.
   2. In better responses, candidates indicated a clear understanding of human-centred systems. Responses made reference to the scenario and indicated that, unlike machine-centred systems where humans assist machines, humans make the final decision in this scenario.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates provided a reason/s for using human-centred systems in the context of industrial and warehouse environments.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified that data was sent from the robots to human for analysis or identified a feature of human-centred systems
   3. In better responses, candidates provided a clear explanation of the features and processes of the system and related this to the scenario. Candidates discussed ‘processing’ as a method by which data can be manipulated in different ways (filtering of data received from the robots in the scenario or analogue to digital conversion of data) as well as ‘displaying’ as the method by which information is output from the system (temperature graphs on computer monitors).
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates provided a description indicating an understanding of automated manufacturing systems and the features and processes. Processing and/or displaying were included.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates either identified a feature or provided a description of automated manufacturing.
   4. In better responses, candidates provided a discussion of an alternative application for roaming robots in hazardous environments. Responses discussed the collection of data by sensors to support the operation of the robot in this new application. Responses also considered and discussed further developments.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates provided a suitable application indicating understanding of robots. Some responses provided no reference to further development or a very limited consideration of further developments.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates either identified a feature of robots or provided an application.

Question 28

1. 1. In better responses, candidates provided a definition and a supporting example to demonstrate their understanding of the definition.
   2. In better responses, candidates showed an understanding of key frames and the process of computer generated ‘in-between’ frames that are used to assist the animator and save time. Responses also included reference to the difference between path-based and cell-based animations to illustrate the time saving benefits of tweening.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates provided general statements or examples of animation techniques or identified the concept of key frames, but showed no understanding of how in-between frames could be used to save time.
   3. In better responses, candidates clearly identified several similarities and differences between the two versions. Many of these responses used tables as a method to ensure that they showed understanding of both similarities and differences.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates listed some specific and some general differences, but no similarities between print and multimedia.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates only gave an example of print and/or multimedia or a generic difference.
2. 1. In better responses, candidates recognised and described issues within the system and provided details of the types of users and participants in this on-line university who would have a problem with accessing the system. Some responses also addressed the impact of this type of technology on the quality of teaching and learning.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified a generic issue or provided a limited description.
   2. In better responses, candidates provided a discussion that explored the benefits of using lossless compression with that of lossy.
      
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates considered a change/reduction in resolution and image size as ways to reduce file sizes in preparation for uploading, but made no reference to the scenario. Some responses described lossy and lossless compression in general terms.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of file size, such as colour or cropping photos, as a compression method or identified the terms lossy and lossless compression as strategies.
      
   3. In better responses, candidates included examples of media that could be used to display the system or described a range of media options. Candidates also provided a relationship between them and the implications of using them then related them to the given scenario.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates provided generic descriptions and discussions of the hardware used to display or the media involved, and made some links to a multimedia system.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates listed media types or hardware used for displaying.
   4. In better responses, candidates provided clear predictions of new technologies that are currently in development or hypothetical technologies that may be developed in the future. These predictions were then explored to highlight how they could be flexible and linked to the given scenario. Candidates also provided current examples indicating their understanding and awareness of emerging technologies such as smart phones and tablet devices and how they would support online learning as well as enhancing flexibility.
      
      In mid-range responses, candidates showed an understanding of a new or emerging technology but related these to multimedia systems in general.
      
      In weaker responses, candidates demonstrated limited understanding of emerging and new technologies in general terms.