1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. Pre-2016 HSC exam papers
5. 2009 HSC Notes from the marking centre
6. 2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Information Processes and Technology

2009 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 2009 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 2009 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.

Teachers and students are advised that, in December 2008, the Board of Studies approved changes to the examination specifications and assessment requirements for a number of courses. These changes will be implemented for the 2010 HSC cohort. Information on a course-by-course basis is available on the Board’s website.

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 mark allocated to the question and the answer space (where this is provided on the examination paper), are a guide 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 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’.

Section II

Question 21

1. In the better responses, candidates clearly outlined three distinct aspects from the different feasibility constraints that should be considered when upgrading to a wireless network. These candidates related their responses directly to the scenario.

   In the mid-range responses, candidates outlined three aspects that should be considered when upgrading to a wireless network. The aspects were not always distinct and did not illustrate an understanding of a system feasibility study.

   In the weaker responses, candidates outlined some aspects that related to the upgrade of a wireless network with no mention of the scenario.

2. In the better responses, candidates drew a clear diagram that included all of the hardware components outlined in the scenario as well as other necessary hardware devices needed to have a wireless network. They included the software necessary to conduct a wireless network. This was included as an additional list or surrounding the devices.

   In the mid-range responses, candidates provided a diagram of the hardware components from the scenario and another hardware device need for a wireless network. These responses did not include the required software components.

   In the weaker responses, candidates attempted to draw a diagram of a computer network or they included software needed for a computer network.

3. In the better responses, candidates provided a range of similarities and differences between the two networks. The candidates clearly related these factors back to the scenario.

   In the mid-range responses, candidates provided a description of a wireless or a cabled solution. These responses focused on the advantages and disadvantages of each of the network types rather than the similarities and differences. Many did not relate it to the scenario.

   In the weaker responses, candidates provided an element of a wireless or a cabled solution or stated a recommendation of which network they thought was best.

   Many candidates successfully used the table format to compare the selection a wireless network and a cabled solution.

Question 22

1. Better responses successfully explained all parts of the given universal resource locator.

   Mid-range responses explained at least one of the three parts of the given universal locator.

   Weaker responses identified only a minimal number of parts with limited discussion.

2. Generally, candidates experienced difficulties with identifying the correct symbols used in a context diagram.

   Better responses demonstrated a clear understanding by providing the required external entity (customer), process and labelled data flows.

   Weaker responses only provided one of the essential elements.

   A significant number of students provided responses in the form of a systems flowchart instead of a context diagram.

3. Better responses demonstrated a clear understanding by discussing all three of the listed information processes and provided a clear relationship between these processes.

   Mid-range responses identified some of the requirements usually relating to collecting and storage and retrieval.

   Weaker responses identified some components usually relating to providing the appropriate data for the collecting process.

Question 23

1. Many candidates identified what the system does but could not offer a valid reason as to why the system would be put into place.

   Better responses identified issues related to road safety as the underlying purpose.

   Weaker responses simply stated that it slowed down fast drivers.

2. Better responses listed a range of both hardware and software.

   Weaker responses only stated simple hardware devices or one piece of hardware and one piece of software.

3. Better responses provided two examples of possible scenarios that would be considered a social or ethical issue. They clearly demonstrated why it was an issue to society for both of their examples.

   Many mid-range responses described one social or ethical issue. Responses that included a second issue only stated it without a detailed description, leaving the issue unclear; or else they introduced an irrelevant issue such as ‘copyright’.

   Weaker responses simply provided an identification of one issue such as ‘privacy’, without providing the characteristics needed to show why it was an issue.

4. Candidates had difficulty providing a different scenario in which it was clear that it was remotely monitored. Many candidates showed a relatively poor understanding of the information processes of organising and processing, as outlined in the syllabus.

   Better responses provided a clear description of a different application, such as tracking, that used GPS technology to remotely monitor a person, object or situation. An understanding of the information process was evident in the responses and they appropriately referenced each of the required information processes for their new application.

   Mid-range responses often identified and described a suitable application of remote monitoring, but did not provide clear descriptions of the tasks involved in the information processes. Other mid-range responses did not provide a new or different application, but demonstrated the candidate’s knowledge of some information processes by describing the ISA system mentioned in the question, or by describing a situation where the monitoring was not remote, such as a sensor that sent an ‘sms’ alert to a person.

   Weaker responses often discussed the use of a car navigation device that uses GPS technology (eg Navman), applied the same application to bikes, buses and trucks, or simply gave a description of how data was displayed on the GPS device from the satellite.

Question 24

1. Better responses provided why and/or how information was collected from customers to aid in the development and design of the online system. Specifically, candidates provided a range of needs and the methods used to collect these needs at a particular stage of this system’s development.

   Weaker responses identified an issue or issues from the scenario and provided what customers’ needs may be, rather than how these needs are met, thus showing only a limited understanding of the context.

2. Better responses included a well-structured data dictionary including all components: field name, data type, data size, description, example, and data relevant to the scenario.

   Poorer responses provided a data dictionary with a limited structure and/or included limited data about the customer or other fields not related to the customer.

3. Better responses provided a clear, relevant and detailed schema which included the nature of the relationships, relevant key fields, ie primary and foreign, and a logical organisation of data within each table.

   Mid-range responses provided a schema indicating some relationships and some fields related to the context of the question.

   Weaker responses did not demonstrate an understanding of a schema. Candidates relied upon the steps provided in the scenario and used these steps in their response as flow charts.

Section III

Candidates were required to answer TWO questions only from this section. Candidates should be discouraged from attempting more than two, 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. 1. Better responses demonstrated some understanding of a transaction or provided a relevant example of a transaction to support their definition.

      Weaker responses did not demonstrate an understanding of a transaction and only provided responses that did not relate to a transaction.

   2. Better responses provided a description of a batch transaction processing system using a valid example.

      Weaker responses only provided a feature or features of a batch transaction processing system.

2. Better responses indicated an understanding of two methods of backup procedures and provided examples of where each method could be appropriately used.

   Mid-range responses indicated some understanding of backup procedures by providing an example of a backup procedure, for example grandfather, father and son.

   Weaker responses only provided a feature or an example of a data backup procedure.

3. 1. Better responses demonstrated a clear understanding by providing a design of the e-ticket and a description of the data related to the transaction of purchasing an online airline ticket.

      Mid-range responses indicated an understanding of the transaction by providing a design of an e-ticket and some description of the purpose of the data.

      Weaker responses demonstrated limited understanding by providing a design of the e-ticket and/or a description of the data. Some responses did not provide a design of the e-ticket and only identified features of the design or data relating to the scenario.

   2. Better responses provided the relationships between the required information processes with reference to screen shots of an online booking system, showing clear understanding of the scenario.

      Mid-range responses demonstrated an understanding of the scenario by discussing or providing a description of the information processes with reference to the screen shots.

      Weaker responses indicated an understanding of the scenario by providing a description of the data/information. Other responses provided features of the data/information requirements without reference to any of the information processes.

   3. Better responses demonstrated a clear understanding of the online transaction processing (OLTP) system compared to booking an airline ticket in person, by identifying components of each system and the relationships between them.

      Mid-range responses demonstrated an understanding by discussing the OLTP system compared to booking in person.

      Weaker responses indicated a limited understanding by providing a description of the OLTP system in comparison to booking in person. Some responses identified and named a feature, or features, of a transaction processing system, not necessarily the one given in the scenario.

      A number of candidates seemed to understand this topic but did not give appropriate examples.

Question 26 – Decision support systems

1. 1. Many candidates provided a definition that demonstrated that they understood geographical information systems (GIS).

   2. Better responses clearly described how GIS are used for decision support by using a real-life scenario. These responses contained relevant detail and in many cases provided multiple examples of how the GIS could be used.

      Weaker responses provided some detail on how a GIS could be used for decision support but often lacked clarity and full understanding on the use of a GIS.

      Some candidates used ANNA as their example and consequently were not awarded marks.

2. Better responses named and clearly described the roles of an expert and knowledge engineer and how they are crucial for the development of an expert system.

   Mid-range responses named roles and provided descriptions. However, they may not necessarily have been the most crucial roles in terms of the development of an expert system.

   Weaker responses generally confused roles with components of an expert system such as a knowledge base.

3. 1. Better responses compared and contrasted the features of both a neural network and expert system and demonstrated a clear understanding of those systems.

      Mid-range responses candidates generally showed a clear contrast between the two systems but failed to compare the systems.

      Weaker responses generally attempted to show some contrast or comparison demonstrating limited understanding of either a neural network or expert system.

   2. Many candidates provided a description of the information processes in relation to the system by using the information provided in the scenario.

      Better responses analysed the data/information for all three information processes and demonstrated a clear understanding of the development of the system within its context.

      Mid-range responses provided a description of the information processes and how they play a vital role in the development of the system. However, limited or no analysis was evident in these responses.

      Weaker responses provided a description of how the system may be developed, or they identified features of this system.

      Many candidates used the information provided in the scenario to help them describe the development of the system.

   3. Many candidates did not talk about ANNA but provided a discussion of neural networks in terms of how they work with little reference to the context, even though there was a line of text preceding the scenario stating that candidates were to use the information when answering parts (c) (ii) and (iii).

      Better responses provided an analysis of the use of neural networks for decision support in relation to ANNA.

      Mid-range responses generally dealt with how neural networks function, but made limited reference to the context.

      Weaker responses generally provided a description or identified a feature of neural networks for decision-making, but showed limited understanding.

Question 27 – Automotive manufacturing systems

Better responses related to the automated manufacturing system situation described in the scenario. Candidates are reminded that they should relate their answers to the stimulus material in the question and avoid over-generalised responses.

1. 1. Better responses demonstrated a clear understanding of an actuator and provided an example of an actuator used in automated manufacturing system.

      Poorer responses only stated the meaning – for example, ‘an actuator performs an action’.

   2. Better responses showed the differences between CAD and CAM by providing a description of each in an AMS.

      Weaker responses recognised features of either CAD or CAM without an example of their use in an automated manufacturing system. Some responses merely expanded the CAD and CAM acronyms.

2. Better responses identified two methods of processing and discussed the type of task and where batch, continuous or discrete processing would be used in an AMS. The response also provided an example for each method of processing.

   Mid-range responses identified two methods of processing and provided a description or an example that demonstrated some understanding.

   Weaker responses only identified examples of processing or a feature of processing.

3. 1. Better responses provided clear arguments as to why block diagrams would be used as the tool for describing the interactions between information technology items within the automobile recycling scenario. Block diagrams included the sensor and actuator that could be used in the removal of wheels as well as showing the position of the controller and labelling the process.

      Mid-range responses provided a limited justification for its use. Block diagrams indicated some of the symbols used. Diagrams included a reference to a sensor or actuator.

      Poorer responses provided a definition of a block diagram, or drew a block diagram indicating only input and output symbols.

   2. Better responses demonstrated a clear understanding by identifying the data/information requirements of the information processes of collecting, displaying, transmitting and receiving when wheels were removed. The responses also identified the relationship and provided a link for the data/information between the three processes.

      Mid-range responses generally identified the data/information requirements for some of the information processes, without making reference to the relationship between the information processes in the scenario.

      Weaker responses only identified features of the removal of wheels.

   3. Better responses provided a clear understanding of quality control and repetition of tasks and the effect on the automated manufacturing scenario as part of the stimulus.

      Mid-range responses provided a limited discussion of quality control and repetition of tasks with no reference to the scenario.

      Weaker responses provided a description of repetition of tasks. Some candidates stated that quality control was not required in an automobile recycling centre.

Question 28 – Multimedia systems

1. 1. Better responses demonstrated an understanding of pixels by providing a clear textbook-like definition.

      Weaker responses showed a limited understanding by providing weak analogies involving television screens, monitors and other types of display devices.

   2. Better responses provided a clear understanding by providing a description of the relationship between pixels and screen resolution. These responses often included, but were not limited to, calculations of screen resolution and descriptions of the increase in image quality with increased resolution or increased number of pixels within a given area of the screen.

      Weaker responses showed a limited understanding by often only describing a calculation for screen or image resolution without reference to the changes in image quality. Some of these candidates only referred to the physical size of the pixels, graphics or screen without showing a relationship between the size or number of pixels and the screen resolution.

2. Better responses provided a clear description of two different but relevant fields of expertise. These descriptions identified the job roles and provided details of what the different personnel did within the development of the multimedia application.

   Mid-range responses provided some understanding by describing fields of expertise but with less detail. Some candidates provided answers that described generalised information systems personnel or job descriptions rather than specific multimedia expertise.

   Weaker responses showed a limited understanding by identifying features of multimedia systems or by listing elements of multimedia rather than providing fields of expertise or job descriptions.

3. 1. Better responses provided a clear understanding by providing detailed descriptions of suitable file formats for the scenario. These candidates also provided justifications for each file format. They also related their justification to the context of the scenario.

      Mid-range responses showed their understanding of file formats by identifying suitable formats and justifying their use, but often without descriptions of the file formats. Some responses identified file formats that were not the most suitable, but they were still able to attract marks by providing a reasonable justification for their use. Many of these candidates provided responses based on their general knowledge of downloading audio and video to commonly used devices such as iPods, rather than making use of the stimulus material provided in the question.

      Weaker responses showed a limited understanding by simply listing some file formats.

   2. Better responses provided a complete analysis of the named information processes, related them to the context and demonstrated the relationship between each of the processes.

      Mid-range responses provided a discussion or description of the information processes. Some candidates described the information processes without linking them together. Other mid-range responses included descriptions of two information processes with a third poorly described. This was often the description of the information process of processing being confused with the processing done by the CPU.

      Weaker responses showed a limited understanding by providing generalised information on the development of information systems rather than the specific development of multimedia systems.

   3. Better responses gave a clear analysis of a number of issues related to the scenario. These responses demonstrated an understanding of the emerging technology of virtual worlds and the issues directly related to the use of this new technology.

      Mid-range responses showed an understanding of issues related to the use of technologies that could be used, but they often confused the concept of virtual worlds with social networking, chat rooms or simple video conferencing. These responses were often limited to social and ethical issues.

      Weaker responses showed a limited understanding by simply identifying a few relevant issues without any description of the issues.

2010065