Information and Communication Technology: Paper 0417/11 Theory 11

Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education
0417 Information and Communication Technology June 2023

Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGY
Paper 0417/11
Theory 11
Key messages
The paper was more challenging for the candidates than in previous sessions. This was evident in the higher
number of nil responses, where candidates did not attempt to answer the questions. The reason for this is
unclear, as the influence of the pandemic would have diminished. This made the paper difficult to analyse.
The marks for the paper ranged from 1 to 64, with a skew towards the lower end. The paper covered a wide
range of topics, including both previously covered topics and new topics. The balance of technical and
general questions was good, so it was surprising that there were no responses from the whole range of
areas, not just the harder questions. This year's paper had fewer marks available than previous papers, with
80 marks instead of 100.
It is important for candidates to read the question carefully before answering it, as marks are awarded for
answering the question that has been set. In this session, candidates who performed well used specific and
detailed language when replying to ‘describe’ and ‘discuss’ type questions. The number of answers that split
the response into advantages and disadvantages (discuss/describe/compare) has decreased, as this type of
layout may not give candidates enough scope to be awarded high marks.
As with previous series, there has been a trend of candidates using brand names for hardware and software,
instead of generic names. This is not in accordance with the instructions on the front page of the examination
paper, which state that "No marks will be awarded for using brand names of software packages or hardware
systems." To avoid this issue in future exams, please use generic names for all hardware and software. This
will help to ensure that all candidates are evaluated fairly, regardless of their familiarity with specific brands.
If a candidate needs to expand their answers on to other parts of the examination paper or onto extra sheets,
they should clearly indicate where the extra part is written and write the question number on the extra work.
This is because the paper is marked electronically, and if the candidate writes on extra sheets or on the
blank pages/spaces in the examination paper, the extra elements, or key points within it may be missed.
General comments
This paper gave candidates the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of a wide
variety of topics.
For questions that indicate a specific number of answers, candidates should only write one answer in each
allocated space. Any extra answers placed below the numbered responses will not be marked.
To receive full credit, candidates should provide clear and concise answers that explain their reasoning. A
good rule of thumb is to start each answer with "because" and then state the reason. All answers should be
relevant to the question being asked.
In past examinations, many answers were based on rote learning. In this session, however, candidates'
answers were more likely to be based on their own experiences with home-based devices.
© 2023
Comments on specific questions
Question 1
This question was a tick box question that should have been straightforward. However, some candidates
may have found it challenging because bar codes in previous series have been depicted as integers. This
question included an X, which is not an integer, so the answer should have been "Text". Unfortunately this
was also due to candidates not reading the question carefully before placing their answers.
Question 2
This question related to internal hardware. Parts a and b were answered batter by candidates than parts c
and d.
(a) This part of the question was quite well answered by many candidates. However some candidates
confused RAM with ROM.
(b) As with part a this part of the question was quite well answered
(c) The Examiners allowed other examples for this question including GPU and video card. This was
quite a challenging question even with the other allowable answers with few candidates giving the
correct answer. The question stated that the answer was a printed circuit board but some
candidates wrote monitor or even speaker.
(d) As with part c this was also a very challenging part of the question. Many candidates failed to
attempt to the question and of those that made an attempt some wrote wifi, hub, LAN and even
email. The correct answer was Network Interface card, again the question stated that the answer
was a printed circuit board.
Question 3
This was another challenging question for most candidates. The question asked how photographs could be
transferred onto a school network. The type of answer expected by the Examiners were cables, Bluetooth or
wifi. The Examiners in this session allowed email as a correct answer but this may not be the case in future
series. Some candidates wrote unclear answers like cloud which could not be awarded marks as the
question required some explanation like downloading from the cloud.
Question 4
This question related to the internet and was very challenging for most candidates.
(a) This was a technical question relating to web browsers and was very challenging. As many
candidates were struggling to be awarded good marks on this question the Examiners allowed
more lenient answers, although this may not be the case in future series. The Examiners allowed
more generic answers like ‘the web browser displays the web page’ rather than the more technical
answers like ‘Rendering the web page to view’. Even with the more generous marking this was still
a very challenging question for most candidates. Some candidates thought the question was about
search engines and therefore gave answers relating to searching for information.
(b) As with the previous part of this question this was also very challenging for most candidates. Many
candidates mixed up the intranet with the internet and therefore could not give correct differences.
With this type of question candidates need to clearly show the difference between the intranet and
the extranet to be awarded the mark. Some candidates correctly identified that the intranet was
private but that the extranet was public.
© 2023
Question 5
This question related to safety issues in using computers. The question as a whole was challenging for
candidates. This topic was not a new topic and had been set many times in the past. In some cases
candidates thought that the safety referred to damaging the equipment rather than the user.
(a) Some candidates misread the question and gave answers like the computer would stop working.
This was a challenging question for many candidates. Some candidates gave electrocution as the
correct answer.
(b) Surprisingly this was also a challenging question for most candidates. Some candidates were able
to give the correct answer which was fire although some gave explode.
(c) This was the best answered part of the question with most candidates able to give the correct
answer.
(d) As with much of this question most candidates found this part challenging. Many thought that the
safety aspect related to the breaking of the device rather than hurting the person.
Question 6
This question was well answered by many of the candidates. Most candidates were able to be awarded at
least four marks.
(a) Many candidates were able to score good marks on this part of the question. Candidates appeared
to understand the concept of strong passwords.
(b) As with part a this part of the question was also well answered by most of the candidates.
Question 7
As with previous questions this question was very challenging for candidates.
(a) This topic had been set many times in the past and therefore it was very surprising to see that this
was a very challenging topic. The answers the Examiners were looking for were observation,
interview, questionnaires and reading existing documentation. Some candidates achieved all three
marks whilst others struggled to be awarded one mark.
(b) As with the previous part of this question this was also challenging with many candidates unable to
understand how projects could be shared on the cloud. Some candidates thought that the
document was only stored on the cloud.
(c) This topic had been set many times previously and therefore it was very surprising that it appeared
to be very challenging, with candidates only managing to be awarded a couple of marks out of the
eight available. Even standard, general answers like it is cheaper rather than having to travel to the
venue seem to have been missed. The Examiners were more generous on the marking pf this
question, but this may not be the case in the future. The answers seem to relate to personal
experiences of using video conferencing rather than the understanding of the topic.
Question 8
This topic on OMR and OCR systems had been set previously therefore it was very surprising that
candidates found the topic very challenging.
(a) Some candidates understood that OCR read characters and OMR read marks but struggled to
convey this answer to show understanding of the topic. The used the words marks and characters
which were in the questions. Other candidates explained their answers with examples without
clearly showing they understood the differences between them.
(b) A with part a this was also a challenging question even though the topic had been set many times
before. Many of the answers given were on the correct lines and showed some understanding the
answers given were very vague. Multiple choice answers were correct but marking exams were too
vague.
© 2023
Question 9
There was a similar pattern with other questions on this paper in that this question was also found to be
challenging for many candidates. This topic on file paths and anchors is technical and can be difficult to
answer by candidates even though the topic had been set previously.
(a) (i) Very few candidates were able to be awarded a mark for this part of the question. This is a
technical topic which can be challenging. This is a topic that needs to be taught and may not be in
the candidates’ general knowledge of computer systems.
(ii) This question was better answered that the first part but still is challenged many of the candidates.
A simple answer was that the hyperlink would not work, which was answered correctly by a few
candidates.
(b) Many candidates were able to be awarded at least one mark for this part of the question mostly for
answering about the hyperlink rather than the anchor. Most candidates knew what a hyperlink was
and attempted to explain what an anchor was.
Question 10
Many candidates were awarded at least two marks on this question about dialogue-based interfaces.
(a) For those candidates that understood dialogue-based interfaces they were able to be awarded both
marks. Many candidates were able to explain that the input to this system was using the voice.
(b) This question was not as well answered as part a although there were some good answers given
by candidates. Many of the answers lacked sufficient detail. Good answers tended to relate to the
safety aspects of using a dialogue-based interface. Candidates tended to give more benefits of
using the system rather than drawbacks.
Question 11
As with many questions on this paper candidates once again found this question challenging. This was a
standard question about the use of portable solid-state drives rather than using portable hard disk drives.
Many answers lacked detail for example SSD are smaller or quicker but then did not add a reason and
therefore could not be awarded the marks as this was an explain question.
Question 12
Media streaming is an up-to-date topic that had not been set previously. However as this topic is popular
across the world it was felt that candidates would find this question straightforward. However candidates
found the topic challenging.
(a) This part was answered better than part b with some candidates showing an understanding of
streaming services. Some candidates answered the question from their own knowledge as
opposed to taught knowledge. There were a larger number of trade names given as answers in this
question. Many of the answers repeated the word streaming and therefore could not be given
credit, others thought that it involved streaming live events on social media or they described TV
broadcasting. These answers lacked detail and therefore could not be given credit in this question.
(b) Having not understood what media streaming was, part b of this question then became more
challenging. The most common correct answers were that the service was on demand or that it
required the internet. Answers tended to be related to the candidates own experience rather than
taught knowledge.
© 2023
Question 13
Most candidates were able to be awarded a couple of marks on this question which was about file formats.
(a) Many candidates were able to be awarded at least a mark for this question as they understood that
a GIF was a moving image.
(b) This part of the question was not as well answered as the first part even though some of the
answers could have been used, with expansions from part a. As with part a candidates understood
the gif format better than the jpg format.
(c) This question asked how the file size of an image could be reduced, many candidates answered a
question about reducing the size of the image. This gave answers like cropping or reducing its
height and width. The answer the Examiners were looking for were compressing the image or
reducing its resolution. Some candidates gave good answers to the question.
Question 14
As with much of this paper many candidates found this question challenging when the topics had been set
before and the answers should have been straightforward.
(a) The correct answer was proofreading but few candidates gave this answer, mixing it up with
verification.
(b) This was the best answered part of the question. The answer was validation although the
Examiners allowed an example of validation.
(c) The answer to this part of the question, with few candidates writing verification. However
candidates were able to describe the process and marks.
© 2023

TECHNOLOGY
Paper 0417/12
Theory 12
Key messages
This paper was in line with the difficulty of previous years and tested the candidates in several ways.
The marks for the paper showed a healthy range. The paper covered a wide range of topics, including both
previously covered topics and new topics. The balance of technical and general questions was good, so it
was surprising that there were no responses from the whole range of areas, not just the harder questions.
This year's paper had fewer marks available than previous papers, with 80 marks instead of 100.
General comments
variety of topics and most of the questions were attempted leaving very few blank responses.
In some cases, the handwriting was difficult to read. This can make it difficult for Examiners to give full
marks, as they may not be able to understand what the candidate has written. To avoid this, it is important to
write clearly and legibly.
© 2023
Question 1
This question was well answered by most of the candidates.
Question 2
This question was well answered by the candidates with most be awarded at least two marks of the three
available.
(a) This produced the best rate of correct answers of the three parts to this question. Most candidates
were able to give the correct answer. Some candidates gave the answer as RAM rather than ROM.
The Examiners found that Those candidates who wrote the acronym carelessly felt it was difficult to
differentiate the A for an O in the answer.
(b) This question was quite well answered by most candidates. Some candidates misread the question
which stated that the device provided input and output of audio signals. These candidates tended
to answer with microphone or speaker.
(c) This question was quite well answered by most of the candidates.
Question 3
This question proved to be very challenging for the candidates to answer. Many of the correct answers came
from the fact that the camera was more portable, and that light could affect the image in a digital camera. To
help the candidates the Examiners allowed a general answer that both were input devices. Many candidates
repeated the question in that they wrote ‘to convert the hard copy photographs into digital format’. Some
candidates used a vertical line down the centre of the answer lines and answered digital camera on one side
and scanner on the other. Due to the nature of the question this tended to be awarded few marks.
Question 4
This was quite a challenging question for most of the candidates.
(a) This part of the question was quite challenging. Marks were awarded for stating the type of user
that could be allowed to use an extranet i.e. vendors and customers and that it was a private
network; in some cases these were the only marks that the candidates achieved on this part of the
question.
(b) As with the previous part of this question, this part was challenging for the candidates to answer.
Some candidates drew a line down the centre of the answering lines and as a result a true
comparison was not made therefore few marks were awarded. This has been reported back on
previous reports. The better candidates made a good comparison in that the internet contained
more information and was available for all to use whereas the extranet was restricted to members
of the organisation and authorised users. As the question related to the extranet some candidates
mixed up internet with intranet.
Question 5
This question was very well answered with most candidates be awarded full marks. This year the Examiners
were more lenient in the types of answers awarded and this had an impact on the marking of the question.
This leniency may not occur in future series.
(a) Very well answered by most of the candidates, however not as well answered as parts (b) and (c).
(b) This part of the question was very well answered by most of the candidates.
(c) This part of the question was very well answered by most of the candidates.
© 2023
Question 6
This was a very challenging question with many candidates only managing to be awarded a couple of marks
for the question as a whole. The question stated that the passwords were strong and could not be reused
although some candidates gave answers that contradicted this.
(a) This part of the question was better answered than parts (b) and (c) as candidates were able to
use their own knowledge of changing passwords. Some candidates were awarded a mark for each
of the elements but did not give enough detail for the second part of the element or repeated the
words ‘changed regularly’ in the answer given. Some candidates thought that changing passwords
regularly would crash the system even though it was written in the question that this was a rule
within the organisation. The best answer that the candidates gave was that the user could forget
the password and would then be locked out of the system.
(b) This was a challenging part of the question. This was due to digital certificates being a hard topic
for candidates to understand and that the topic had not been set for a number of series. These two
factors were evident in the marks awarded. Some candidates misread the question and related
their answers to the company rather than the website.
(c) As with part (b) this part was very challenging for many of the candidates. Digital certificates is a
difficult topic. Many of the answers given lacked sufficient detail for example name without
specifying that it was the company name.
Question 7
Surprisingly this was a very challenging question with many candidates were only awarded a couple of
marks. The question related to test data a topic which would have been tested in both the practical and
theory parts of the syllabus.
(a) This was a challenging part of the question. Candidates needed to give two examples of extreme
test data and then state why they had used this test data. Some candidates gave explanations
rather than test data and therefore struggled to give a reason. Those candidates that gave correct
test data usually gave a good reason for example testing the boundaries of the formula. For this
session the Examiners allowed the reason that the numbers given were at the boundaries if the two
values were correct. This may not be allowed in future series.
(b) Most candidates were able to be awarded at least a mark for this part of the question. This was
usually for stating that the data tested the formula or that it generated an error message.
Question 8
Surprisingly this was a challenging question that asked candidates what web conferencing was and how it
could be used. There were many references to named web conferencing software apps which cannot be
given credit.
(a) This part of the question asked what web-conferencing was and surprisingly few candidates were
awarded full marks. It appears from the answers given that candidates know the trade name for
these online conferences but not the generic name.
(b) As with part (a) it was surprising that many candidates did not be awarded better marks on this
part of the question as the candidate’s personal knowledge could have been used. Common
correct answers were that the conference would save transport costs and time and also it could be
held anywhere. Some candidates misread the question, writing how they would set up a web-
conference.
© 2023
Question 9
Question 9b answered better than 9a but this was still a challenging question for many of the candidates.
The question looked at RFID and bar codes.
(a) As with the previous question on similarities and differences some candidates drew a line down the
answer lines and split the answer. This does not allow for a true comparison therefore fewer marks
are awarded. Some candidates answered the question referring to the RFID tags and bar codes
rather than the readers. This was a comparison question and therefore needed answers that
related to both types of reader.
(b) This part of the question referred to the use of RFID and was better answered than part (a). There
were some good examples given and candidates were able to be awarded at least a mark.
However some of the answers given were a little vague i.e. ‘on a form’ or ‘in a supermarket’.
Question 10
This question was a technical question and therefore quite challenging for the candidates. The question
referred to metatags and the topic had not been set for some time.
(a) For those candidates that understood the topic they could be awarded at least two marks for this
part of the question others seemed to guess the answer. The Examiners in this series allowed two
examples of the name attributes and this had an impact on the marks awarded.
(b) This part was answered better than part (a) with many candidates stating that it was the head
section, however some candidates wrote heading or header and therefore did not be awarded the
mark.
Question 11
This question was set as it would relate both to the taught course and to the candidate’s personal knowledge
therefore it was surprising that candidates found it challenging. The question related to gesture-based user
interfaces; there were some good answers, but candidates tended to repeat parts of the question in their
answers.
(a) This part of the question asked the candidates to explain what gesture-based user interfaces were.
This topic had not been set previously and this was reflected in the marks awarded. Some
candidates answered that they were interfaces that used gestures showing a lack of understanding
in the answer. Some candidates correctly identified that it used body movement to control a device.
(b) This part of the question asked for the drawbacks of using gesture-based user interfaces, some
candidates gave benefits as well as drawbacks. There was a range of answers for this question –
with the majority referring to lack of accuracy, limited gestures and learning them, and disables
people having issues. In most cases, candidates were able to be awarded one or two marks. A lot
of answers though were quite general or lacked detail.
© 2023
Question 12
As with some previous questions this question was quite challenging apart from 12b(ii) which produced
some good answers. The question related to backing stores.
(a) This part of the question was challenging which was surprising as it compared blu-ray discs with
internal hard disks. Blu-ray discs are on the syllabus and therefore should be taught even though
they may no longer be popular. Many candidates be awarded marks for stating that blu-ray discs
were more portable, but some thought they had more storage than a hard disk.
(b) (i) This was a challenging question for many of the candidates who seemed not to understand the
word characteristic. There were some good answers like backing storage is non-volatile and it is
permanent. Some candidates thought that backing storage was storage used in backing up data.
(ii) This was better answered than the other parts of the question with most candidates being awarded
at least one mark. There are still references to USB, which is a port and not storage. The question
asked for other devices, but some candidates wrote internal hard disk or blu-ray disc and were
awarded no credit. Some candidates gave floppy disk as an answer, and this was given credit even
though floppy disks were phased out some years ago. There were some references to brand
names especially when writing about the cloud – these be awarded no credit. As there were many
possible answers some candidates wrote extra answers than the two permitted, the first two are
marked in this instance irrespective of whether they are correct or not.
© 2023
Question 13
Overall this question had mixed responses with parts (b) and (c) producing better answers than part (a).
(a) Modelling had been set previously in the examination series but not related to weather. This had an
impact on the candidates ability to answer the question. There were some good responses but
many lacked detail. Many candidates did not understand the question thinking that the model was
created using sensors and was operational 24/7.
(b) This was well answered by many of the candidates who were able to give two good answers.
(c) This part of the question was well answered with most candidates be awardeding at least one mark
for either printer or monitor. Some candidates answered with speaker but this was not appropriate
for displaying the weather data.
Question 14
This was a very challenging question for many of the candidates. The question related to ePublications and
copyright.
(a) ePublications has been rarely set in previous examinations as it is a new topic and this had an
impact on the answers given. Some candidates thought that it was related to social media and
others thought it was exclusively linked to the internet. Some candidates mixed up characteristics
with the way the ePublication looked and its layout. Many candidates were able to be awarded at
least a mark for mentioning that the ePublication could use videos and hyperlinks.
(b) Copyright is a difficult topic for many candidates. This part of the question opened up the copyright
and gave the opportunity for candidates to achieve better marks. Many candidates were able to be
awarded a mark for stating that serial numbers could be used or a licence agreement could be set
up.
© 2023

TECHNOLOGY
Paper 0417/13
Theory 13
Key messages
This series the paper was more challenging for the candidates than in preceding sessions. This was evident
in the higher number of nil responses, where candidates did not attempt to answer the questions. The
reason for this is unclear, as the influence of the pandemic would have diminished. This made the paper
difficult to analyse.
The marks for the paper ranged from 0 to 65, which is a good range. However, there was a skew towards the
lower end, with fewer candidates scoring between 30 and 65 than in the lower end of the range. The paper
covered a wide range of topics, including both previously covered topics and new topics. The balance of
technical and general questions was good, so it was surprising that there were no responses from the whole
range of areas, not just the harder questions. This year's paper had fewer marks available than previous
papers, with 80 marks instead of 100.
General comments
variety of topics.
© 2023
Question 1
This question was quite well answered by most candidates. The original answer was format check although
the Examiners allowed length check as only one number was given.
Question 2
Overall this was a technical question and therefore challenging for the candidates.
(a) This part of the question was more challenging than the other parts of the question. The answer the
Examiners were looking for was Network interface Card.
(b) The correct answer to this part of the question was backing storage although in this series the
Examiners allowed an example of backing storage as an alternative answer. As a result of this this
part of the question answered well.
(c) Even though the correct answer was touch screen the Examiners in this series allowed a number
of other devices that could be connected to a screen, this improved the answering of the question.
Question 3
Overall this question was challenging with most of the marks being awarded for parts b and c.
(a) This was more challenging as it was a ‘discuss’ type question and therefore required candidates to
expand on their comments and give reasons. As a result of this many of the answers given lacked
the development required to be awarded high marks. The question related to typing ion the data for
the newsletter, but some candidates did not read this and answered with other forms of inputted
data like images. It is important with scenarios to read the stem before answering the question.
As costs are relative in these devices the Examiners no longer give credit for answers where cost
is involved. As battery life improves Examiners no longer give credit for answers relating to battery
life.
(b) (i) This part of the question was well answered by most of the candidates.
(ii) This part of the question was well answered by many of the candidates.
(iii) This part of the question was very challenging with many candidates writing down devices that
could not be connected to a smartphone to store data. 0
(c) This ‘describe’ type question was quite challenging question as many candidates omitted to add
expansions or reasons even though they gave simple answers. Some candidates wrote that pdf
files could not be edited when it was only harder to edit these types of files; in the same way all
devices and software can read pdf files when only some can do this.
(d) As in previous series this was a very challenging topic. In recent series the Examiners have
simplified the answers that can be given to these types of question, and this has been reported
back on previously. Many of the answers given by the candidates are vague. In the stem of the
question it stated that the newsletter was emailed to the parents implying that it was a document.
Some candidates wrote about the email being a piece of software and included videos etc. in their
answers.
Question 4
This was a technical question and therefore was challenging for the candidates to answer. To be awarded
full marks in this type of question candidates need to write about both the comparisons and differences
between the intranet and the extranet. The question is a comparison question therefore both elements need
to be written about. Some candidates misread intranet as internet and answered the question accordingly.
© 2023
Question 5
This question was quite well answered with most candidates being awarded at least two marks overall. The
question related to the appropriate cause of each of the health issues, but some candidates gave
preventions rather than causes.
(a) This part was not as well answered as part b but is produced some good answers and most
candidates were able to be awarded at least a mark.
(b) This was well answered with most candidates able to give one correct answer.
Question 6
Overall candidates were able to be awarded some good marks in this question with part b producing better
answers than part a.
(a) This question was very challenging for all candidates even though the Examiners gave an example
for the type of answer they were looking for. Many candidates misread the question and answered
relating their answers back to the example given others mixed up the form of identification with the
example. The answers the Examiners were looking for included ‘something the user owns or
knows or has’. As candidates were struggling with the question the Examiners allowed any
example from the three section irrespective of whether a correct identification, this resulted in better
marks for this part of the question. This leniency was only for this series and may not be repeated
in future series.
(b) Many candidates understood the nature of this question with ‘more secure’ being a popular
response along with ‘adds another layer of security’.
Question 7
This was a very challenging question for all candidates with part b answering better than part a. The topic,
Point of Sale, has been rarely set in the past and this lack of use of the topic affected candidates’ ability to
answer the question fully. Many appeared to answer the question from their own experiences.
(a) This part of the question was a ‘discuss’ type question which is aimed at the higher ability
candidate. Candidates struggled to expand on their answers and did not give answers that were in
enough depth to be awarded higher marks. As a result of using their own experiences many
candidates wrote about the payment of products rather than the POS elements that were asked for.
(b) As with part (a) this part was very challenging for most candidates. However most candidates were
able to be awarded at least a mark.
Question 8
Most candidates were able to be awarded at least two marks on this question, 8b was better answered than
the rest of the question. Parts (a) and (c) were not as well answered.
(a) This question should have been straight forward, but many candidates misread the question, and
this affected the marks that could be awarded. As a result of this the Examiners allowed more
examples to be awarded marks rather than a theoretical explanation, this allowed more marks to
be awarded for the question. Full marks could not be awarded from just giving examples of test
data. This leniency was only allowed in this series and may not be allowed in future series. As a
result of this many candidates being awarded at least three marks.
(b) This past of the question was well answered by many of the candidates.
(c) This as a very challenging question with few candidates being awarded a mark here. Many
candidates confused real data with real-time data in their responses.
© 2023
Question 9
This question was well answered with most candidates being awarded at least three marks overall. The
question related to audio conferencing, a topic that had not been set much is previous series.
(a) Most candidates were able to be awarded at least a mark here for an explanation of what audio
conferencing was. Many candidates were awarded this mark for stating that it used the voice but
did not expand upon this statement, probably since the topic had rarely been set.
(b) This part was quite well answered with most candidates being awarded at least a mark for giving
advantages of using audio conferencing. This question asked for advantages and therefore
required a comparison to be made with video conferencing.
(c) This part of the question was well answered with most candidates able to be awarded at least two
marks mostly for the hardware. Some candidates gave proprietary answers rather than generic
answers for the audio-conferencing app even though it is clearly written on the question paper not
to do this.
Question 10
This was a very challenging question for most candidates. Marks were available for writing out bcc and cc in
full.
(a) This was a technical question and therefore was challenging for many of the candidates. Many
candidates missed writing down the full name of bcc and cc and therefore missed two easy marks.
Candidates either understood about the use of carbon copy or they did not.
(b) This question related to a topic that had not been examined for some time and this influenced the
marks awarded to candidates. As a result of this many candidates found this question challenging.
Question 11
Surprisingly this question was very challenging for many candidates. Candidates would have used gutter
margins in the practical papers and the topic has been set many times in the theory paper, but few
candidates could fully explain what they were.
Candidates had difficulty in clearly expressing the whereabouts of a gutter margin on pages of text, but the
responses gave evidence that ‘the gutter margin helps to ensure the text is not obscured by the binding’ was
understood in some cases.
Question 12
This was a technical question and therefore was challenging to many of the candidates. The best answer
was that an inline style attribute had a higher hierarchy than an external stylesheet.
© 2023

TECHNOLOGY
Paper 0417/21
Document Production, Databases and
Presentations 21
Key messages
We recommend that candidates read the question carefully before answering it, as marks are awarded for
answering the question. We advise the candidates to use the font or the style set by the question, if they
have to complete a presentation task using an editor. Candidates must be able to distinguish between the
typeface categories of serif and sans-serif font types and select a font style as specified. Candidates must
enter accurate text in bold or italics when requested. The question may ask to modify or to retain existing
styles applied to recall text. When candidates finish their presentation task on a test, they should use
proofing techniques to identify errors and ensure consistency of presentation.
If a task asks the candidates to import a spreadsheet into a database and produce a report, candidates must
be able to distinguish between the database page header/footer area and the report header/footer area and
understand which is appropriate to use.
For presentations, candidates must be able to set a link on an action button that contains text. They should
be aware that the question may give different instructions for creating the presentation’s header, body, or
footer areas.
Candidates must ensure they include their identification details in tasks before printing as instructed on the
question paper. Candidates must produce legible screenshots which show the outcome of an action rather
than the skill process. Candidates must print out the Evidence Document as this contains supporting
evidence that could substantially improve their grade.
General comments
This paper was in line with the difficulty of previous years. There was no evidence of any difficulties with the
new syllabus content and reduced examination time, suggesting that candidates were generally well-
prepared for the assessment. The paper gave a good spread of marks, and the majority of candidates
completed or attempted all elements of the paper. Most candidates showed a good level of skill.
We advise the candidates on the difference between the typeface categories of serif and sans serif font
types. These are not the actual names of font styles but categories of font types with specific attributes.
Candidates must be able to select an appropriate font for the font type specified.
When creating or editing paragraph styles candidates must base the style on either the ‘normal’ (Microsoft
Office) or the ‘default’ (Open Office) paragraph style.
The text to be entered by the candidate as part of a task is displayed in bold on the question paper. Marks
are available for accurate data entry of this text which must be keyed exactly as shown, including
punctuation and capitalisation. Candidates are advised to carefully check their data entry to ensure it
matches the text on the question paper. Common errors in this paper included incorrect capitalisation,
incorrect or missing characters, omission of spaces, truncated headings, and superfluous punctuation.
Candidates are instructed to produce screenshots as evidence of ICT skills that cannot be assessed through
the printed product alone. These screenshots must display the outcome of an action and not the process.
For example, the saved word processing document must be visible in the file list within the folder; the ‘Save
As’ dialogue box is insufficient as the save process is incomplete. The screenshot evidence is often small or
faint to be read by the examiner. Candidates must ensure that all screenshots can be easily read with the
© 2023
naked eye. Candidates should take precautions when cropping and resizing their screenshots to ensure that
all important elements are still shown, such as primary keys in the table structure.
The question paper prompts candidates to include their name, centre number, and candidate number on all
tasks before printing. Without clear printed evidence of this, marks cannot be awarded. It is not acceptable
for candidates to annotate their printouts by hand as there is no real evidence that they are the originators of
the work.
When the centres submit their candidates' work, we recommend using hole-punching and securing it with
treasury tags or string. The punch holes should not obscure the text. Centres should return the Supervisor’s
Report Folder together with the candidates’ work. This identifies the software used and can be helpful if
issues were experienced during the practical test. The candidates’ work must be submitted in the original
hard-copy printed Assessment Record Folders that are provided to centres. Printed or photocopied
Assessment Record Folders should not be used.
Task 1 – The Evidence Document
Most candidates created an evidence document and used it to store their screenshots. Some of the
candidates' screenshots were small or faint, making it difficult for the examiner to read them. Sometimes, the
candidate cropped out essential information from the screenshot. Few candidates did not print their
identification details on the document, so marks could not be awarded for these pages.
Task 2 – Document
Question 1
Most candidates opened the correct file and saved it correctly with the required file name. Some candidates
incorrectly saved it in the original RTF format rather than the format of the word processing software used,
and a few did not enter the filename in capitals as shown on the question paper.
Some of the screenshot evidence was inconclusive because it showed the save-in process rather than
capturing the outcome of the file saved. After saving the file, a screenshot of the folder contents provides the
evidence required to get the mark.
Most candidates retained the page setup settings as instructed. A few candidates made changes to the
existing paragraph styles which had already been created and applied, even though the question paper
instructed that no changes should be made. There was often extra space inserted after the body style in one
or more paragraphs.
Question 2
Most candidates inserted and aligned the header text as instructed. A few candidates omitted their centre or
candidate number from the header details. Some candidates incorrectly split their identification details in the
header area. For example, the candidate's name was right-aligned, the centre number was centred, and the
candidate number was left-aligned.
Some candidates used an automated field for the page numbers in the footer, with the keyed number 1
appearing on all pages. Occasionally, the header/footer items did not align with the page margins on all
pages. The candidates who used the built-in content control to align the items did not always remove
superfluous text or placeholders in the header or footer areas.
Question 3
The creation and storage of the title style were well done by most of the candidates. Common errors
included: capitalisation or typographical errors in the style name, an underscore used instead of a dash, or
the style containing additional formatting not listed. Candidates should be careful that the new style is based
on the default or ‘normal’ paragraph style, as this avoids inheriting additional formatting. A few candidates
entered ‘serif’ into the font dialogue box as the font name. A font style with attributes of the serif typeface
category must be selected and applied. Screenshot evidence of the CF-title style provided details of the
settings created for this style.
© 2023
Question 4
Most candidates applied their created title style to the title text in the recall document. The formatting of the
title text needed to match the settings seen in the Evidence Document screenshot. A few candidates applied
this formatting without providing screenshot evidence of creating the title style and, therefore, did not gain
any of the style marks.
Question 5
Most candidates applied two equally spaced columns to the correct text, with the required spacing between
the columns. Some candidates included the final paragraph in the column formatting or displayed the entire
document in two columns, therefore not controlling the display of the columns. Some candidates set the
space between columns at the default or was much larger than 1.5 centimetres. Some candidates inserted
the initial column break below rather than above the subheading. Occasionally, a page break was inserted
instead of a section break. The final full stop in the column selection was not included always.
Question 6
Most candidates imported the correct image and positioned it in the correct paragraph, so they received the
mark.
Question 7
Reflection of the image horizontally so the bike pointed to the left was done well by those candidates who
attempted it.
Question 8
Most candidates successfully resized the image, applied text wrap, and aligned it correctly. Occasionally, the
image was too high to align with the top of the paragraph or extended into the left margin.
Question 9
Most candidates applied the bullets to the specified text as required by the question. Some candidates did
not include all the list items. Any consistent bullet style was acceptable. The presentation of the bullets was
often not in single line spacing as specified. Occasionally, the candidate did not leave a 6-point space after
the last item in the list. The bullet indent of 1.5 centimetres from the left margin was often not accurate, or the
bullets were aligned at the left margin.
Question 10
Most candidates deleted the column from the table as instructed with only a few not attempting this.
Question 11
Formatting the first column of the table proved to be challenging. Most candidates managed to rotate the text
in the right direction, but some did not merge all the cells. Centring the text vertically and horizontally within
the cell was not always done with the precision required with some candidates inserting extra space to try
and centre the text rather than using the functions of the software. Most managed to apply a black fill to the
cell with white text.
Question 12
Most candidates applied the table style to columns 2,3 and 4. Some candidates applied the table style to
column 1 as well. Even if most candidates displayed the table text on one line, there were cases when they
incorrectly removed spaces from the headings to fit the table within the column width. Most candidates
applied the correct table gridlines. Several candidates left no space after the table, or the space was greater
than 6 points.
Question 13
Applying superscript to the text was challenging for some candidates. A small number did not attempt this,
and those that did, often did not apply the superscript to the asterisk.
© 2023
Question 14
In most cases, there was evidence of good proofreading and document presentation skills. The table or the
list was rarely split over two columns or pages.
The spacing between items was not always consistent. There were instances when the body style spacing
was changed, leaving gaps after paragraphs.
The columns and pages were not always aligned at the top of the page. Occasionally, there was a widow or
orphan where a subheading or single line of text had been left at the bottom of a column.
The spacing below the columns was often greater than the 6-point set in the body style.
Task 3 – Database
Question 15
Examining the csv file and identifying the most appropriate field containing unique data for the primary field
produced a mixed response. Many candidates correctly selected the Race_No field as the primary field but a
number of candidates set this on Start_Code (which was the first field and contained duplicate data). Few
candidates did not set a primary field at all or included an ID field. Importing of the csv file using the correct
field names and data types were mostly done correctly.
Question 16
There were very few issues with importing the second csv file with most candidates using the correct field
names and data types. As the primary key was given in the question paper there was little issue setting this
correctly.
Question 17
There were very few issues with importing the third csv file. Importing of the csv file, using the correct field
names and data types, and setting the named primary key were well done.
Question 18
Where the primary keys were set correctly in the tables, most candidates correctly created one-to-many
relationships between the tables. The screenshot evidence supplied did not always provide sufficient
evidence with a few candidates capturing the process of creating the relationships rather than the outcome;
this was insufficient to confirm a one-to-many relationship had been created. Screenshots of the relationship
dialogue box will evidence the relationship type. The relationship diagram will only be credited if it shows the
single and one-to-many infinity symbols confirming the relationship type.
Question 19
Most candidates entered the new record in the correct table. The new record occasionally contained data
entry errors with the spelling of Wardle often presented as Wardie. Candidates were penalised if they
overwrote the first record in the database (Justin Fernsby) instead of entering this data as a new record at
the end of the table.
Question 20
The first report used fields from two tables and was done well by candidates who attempted this question.
The report title was usually entered in a larger font size at the top of the report. Occasionally this title
contained data entry or capitalisation errors, or displayed additional text such as ‘Query 1’ in the title area.
The ‘g’ and ‘y’ descenders on the title were not always fully visible as the text box had not been adjusted to
accommodate the larger font size. The two search criterion were completed well by most candidates. The
most common errors with the search were those who searched for the records after 1975 instead of 1975
and later, and a few confused the greater than (>) and less than (<) operators. Most included the correct
fields in the report although these were often in the wrong order as, without manual intervention, the software
placed the sort field at the start of the report. This can be avoided by setting the sort order in the report
structure rather than during the creation of the report if a report wizard is used. The sort order was usually
© 2023
correct but data in the Group_Code field was often grouped despite the instruction on the question paper not
to group the data. Occasionally data in one or more fields was truncated and required some manipulation to
ensure all data was fully visible. The calculation to count the number of database records was usually well
done and this could be positioned anywhere at the end of the report. The label was usually entered to the left
of this value but often contained capitalisation errors and/or a superfluous colon. Most presented the report
in portrait orientation but this did not always fit on a single page. Most candidates entered their identification
details on the report.
Question 21
The second report used fields from two tables. Few candidates achieved full marks for this report. The report
title was usually entered in a larger font size at the top of the report. The title was usually accurate although a
few candidates truncated the ‘s’ on Results. There were no descenders on the title so there were few issues
with vertical truncation. The search criteria were more challenging than report 1. Generally, the wildcard
search on ‘power’ was well done but excluding DNF and DNS from the Status field was not always
successful. There were many incorrect variations with the most common being the use of the ‘OR’ operator
instead of ‘AND’. Some candidate inspected the data and searched for ‘FIN’ instead which did produce the
correct result in the report, but the screenshot evidence was not awarded as this question was testing the
higher skill of excluding DNF and DNS. The new field heading was usually entered accurately with only a few
incurring a fault for omitting the underscores, data entry or capitalisation errors. Most used the correct
calculation although this was often not formatted to display time as hh:mm:ss with many candidates using an
AM/PM time format. Most included the correct fields in the report although these were often in the wrong
order due to the sort being set during the creation of the report instead of in the report structure. The report
extended to more than one page with data often truncated in the First_Name, Last_Name or Club_Name on
the second or subsequent pages. The sort was not always set for both fields, probably due to the order of
the fields with the second sort field appearing first. This again can be avoided by setting the sort order in the
report structure after the report has been created instead of in the query or during the setup of the report.
Most presented the report in landscape orientation with the correct fields displayed. Candidates were not
penalised if the calculated field was not attempted or displayed. Identification details were often entered in
the report footer so they only appeared on the last page of the report rather than in the page footer so they
printed at the bottom of every page.
Task 4 – Presentation
Question 22
Most candidates successfully imported the 6 slides and presented each as a title and bulleted list. Marks
were not awarded where incorrect software had been used such as the RTF file opened, manipulated, and
printed in word processing software.
Question 23
Most candidates correctly entered their identification details in the bottom left and slide numbers in the top
right of the slide, so they displayed consistently on all slides in the presentation. Occasionally these were in
the wrong position or inconsistent on the first slide. Built-in slide designs can be used but often apply a
different layout to slide 1 so candidates must ensure the design chosen meets all the master slide
requirements. Drawing a 3 to 4 point line above the identification details was not always completed well.
Some candidates drew the default line and did not increase the line weight. Common errors including
drawing the line at the top of the slide instead of the bottom, the line not extending across the full width of the
slide, or no attempt made at drawing the line.
Question 24
The majority of candidates changed the layout of slide 1 to a title slide layout, but often this was not centred
vertically on the slide, or the bullet had not been removed from the subtitle.
Question 25
Most candidates created a pie chart, but the data selection was often incorrect with the Total data also being
included.
© 2023
Question 26
The chart title was usually entered in the correct position but occasionally contained data entry or
capitalisation errors. There were often errors in the spelling of ‘percentage’ and ‘wins’ keyed as ‘win’.
© 2023
Question 27
Controlling the display of the sector labels was not always well done with many including all the data instead
of only the group names and percentages. The chart labels were not always displayed outside each sector
with many candidates not changing the software default. Displaying the percentages to 1 decimal place was
challenging for a number of candidates.
Question 28
Not all candidates attempted this but those that did were usually successful in emphasising the largest group
by pulling that sector away from the chart. Less exploded charts were seen this session. This mark was
awarded if the wrong data had been displayed in the chart but the largest sector was pulled away.
Question 29
This was completed well with most candidates placing the chart on the correct slide to the right of the bullets.
A few candidates placed the chart to the left of the bullets. A small number did not adjust the position of the
bulleted text to make room for the chart on the right and instead placed it above or below the text.
Occasionally the chart overlapped the bulleted text or the text wrapped around the chart.
Question 30
The production of presenter notes was done much better than previous sessions with many candidates
producing and printing the presenter/speaker notes correctly. There were some text data entry or
capitalisation errors, most commonly with spacing around the dash. A few still incorrectly added the
presenter/speaker text to the slide as a comment, whilst others typed the presenter/speaker notes directly
onto the slide as an additional bullet or in a text box and then printed this as a full page slide.
Question 31
This new syllabus item was done particularly well considering it was the first time to appear on this question
paper. Most linked the correct text and had the correct email address and subject text. There were
occasionally capitalisation or data entry errors in the text and a few candidates linked too much text. The
screenshot in the Evidence Document mostly provided the correct evidence for full marks.
Question 32
Most candidates printed the full presentation with two slides each filling half the page. A small number of
candidates presented this in landscape instead of portrait orientation or omitted the chart slide from this
printout.
Task 5 – Printing the Evidence Document
Some candidates did not submit a printout of the Evidence Document. It is essential that candidates print
their Evidence Document towards the end of the examination time, regardless of whether they have finished
the paper. Candidates should make sure that their screenshots are large enough for the evidence to be
legible and that cropping/resizing has not removed essential evidence.
© 2023

TECHNOLOGY
Paper 0417/22
Document Production, Databases and
Presentations 22
Key messages
We recommend that candidates read the question carefully before answering it, as marks are awarded for
answering the question. We advise the candidates to use the font or the style set by the question, if they
have to complete a presentation task using an editor. Candidates must be able to distinguish between the
typeface categories of serif and sans-serif font types and select a font style as specified. Candidates must
enter accurate text in bold or italics when requested. The question may ask to modify or to retain existing
styles applied to recall text. When candidates finish their presentation task on a test, they should use
proofing techniques to identify errors and ensure consistency of presentation.
If a task asks the candidates to import a spreadsheet into a database and produce a report, candidates must
be able to distinguish between the database page header/footer area and the report header/footer area and
understand which is appropriate to use.
For presentations, candidates must be able to set a link on an action button that contains text. They should
be aware that the question may give different instructions for creating the presentation’s header, body, or
footer areas.
Candidates must ensure they include their identification details in tasks before printing as instructed on the
question paper. Candidates must produce legible screenshots which show the outcome of an action rather
than the skill process. Candidates must print out the Evidence Document as this contains supporting
evidence that could substantially improve their grade.
General comments
This paper was in line with the difficulty of previous years. There was no evidence of any difficulties with the
new syllabus content and reduced examination time, suggesting that candidates were generally well-
prepared for the assessment. The paper gave a good spread of marks, and the majority of candidates
completed or attempted all elements of the paper. Most candidates showed a good level of skill.
We advise the candidates on the difference between the typeface categories of serif and sans serif font
types. These are not the actual names of font styles but categories of font types with specific attributes.
Candidates must be able to select an appropriate font for the font type specified.
When creating or editing paragraph styles candidates must base the style on either the ‘normal’ (Microsoft
Office) or the ‘default’ (Open Office) paragraph style.
The text to be entered by the candidate as part of a task is displayed in bold on the question paper. Marks
are available for accurate data entry of this text which must be keyed exactly as shown, including
punctuation and capitalisation. Candidates are advised to carefully check their data entry to ensure it
matches the text on the question paper. Common errors in this paper included incorrect capitalisation,
incorrect or missing characters, omission of spaces, truncated headings, and superfluous punctuation.
Candidates are instructed to produce screenshots as evidence of ICT skills that cannot be assessed through
the printed product alone. These screenshots must display the outcome of an action and not the process.
For example, the saved word processing document must be visible in the file list within the folder; the ‘Save
As’ dialogue box is insufficient as the save process is incomplete. The screenshot evidence is often small or
faint to be read by the examiner. Candidates must ensure that all screenshots can be easily read with the
© 2023
naked eye. Candidates should take precautions when cropping and resizing their screenshots to ensure that
all important elements are still shown, such as primary keys in the table structure.
The question paper prompts candidates to include their name, centre number, and candidate number on all
tasks before printing. Without clear printed evidence of this, marks cannot be awarded. It is not acceptable
for candidates to annotate their printouts by hand as there is no real evidence that they are the originators of
the work.
When the centres submit their candidates' work, we recommend using hole-punching and securing it with
treasury tags or string. The punch holes should not obscure the text. Centres should return the Supervisor’s
Report Folder together with the candidates’ work. This identifies the software used and can be helpful if
issues were experienced during the practical test. The candidates’ work must be submitted in the original
hard-copy printed Assessment Record Folders that are provided to centres. Printed or photocopied
Assessment Record Folders should not be used.
Task 1 – The Evidence Document
Most candidates created an evidence document and used it to store their screenshots. Some of the
candidates' screenshots were small or faint, making it difficult for the examiner to read them. Sometimes, the
candidate cropped out essential information from the screenshot. Few candidates did not print their
identification details on the document, so marks could not be awarded for these pages.
Task 2 – Document
Question 1
Most candidates opened the correct file and saved it correctly with the required file name. Some candidates
incorrectly saved it in the original RTF format rather than the format of the word processing software used,
and a few did not enter the filename in capitals as shown on the question paper.
Some of the screenshot evidence was inconclusive because it showed the save-in process rather than
capturing the outcome of the file saved. After saving the file, a screenshot of the folder contents provides the
evidence required to get the mark.
Most candidates retained the page setup settings as instructed. A few candidates made changes to the
existing paragraph styles which had already been created and applied, even though the question paper
instructed that no changes should be made. There was often extra space inserted after the body style in one
or more paragraphs.
Question 2
Most candidates inserted and aligned the header text as instructed. A few candidates did not leave a space
after the colon or inserted their identification details on a separate line instead of following the colon. The
header text was occasionally inserted in the body area instead of the header area, so it did not appear on
every page.
A few candidates omitted their centre or candidate number from the header details. Some candidates used
an automated field for the page numbers in the footer, with the keyed number 1 appearing on all pages.
Occasionally, the header/footer items did not align with the page margins on all pages. The candidates who
used the built-in content control to align the items did not always remove superfluous text or placeholders in
the header or footer areas.
Question 3
Most candidates applied two equally spaced columns to the correct text, with the correct spacing between
the columns. Some candidates included the final paragraph in the column formatting or displayed the entire
document in two columns, therefore not controlling the display of the columns. Some candidates set the
space between the columns at the default, or they did not set it at 2 centimetres. Some candidates inserted
the initial column break below rather than above the subheading and occasionally a page break was inserted
instead of a section break. Occasionally, the final full stop in the column selection was not included.
© 2023
Question 4
The creation and storage of the subhead style was well done by the vast majority of candidates. Common
errors included: capitalisation or typographical errors in the style name, an underscore used instead of a
dash, or the style containing additional formatting not listed. Candidates should make sure that the new style
is based on the ‘default’ or ‘normal’ paragraph style as this avoids inheriting additional formatting. A few
candidates entered ‘serif’ into the font dialogue box as the font name. A font style with attributes of the serif
typeface category must be selected and applied. Screenshot evidence of the style provided details of the
settings created for this style.
Question 5
Most candidates applied their created subhead style to the four subheadings in the recall document. The
formatting of the subhead text needed to match the settings seen in the Evidence Document screenshot.
Few candidates did not apply the style to all four subheadings with a single subhead left aligned or extra
space after a subhead. Some candidates incorrectly applied the subhead style to the title text at the top of
the document. Without evidence of the subhead style being created and stored, the application mark was not
awarded.
Question 6
Most candidates managed to move the paragraph to the correct location although this was not always done
with the accuracy required. Inconsistent spacing was occasionally left in the area where the text had been
moved from, or below the text in the new location. A few candidates copied the text instead of moving it.
Question 7
Most candidates imported the correct image and positioned this in the correct paragraph. The image must be
placed somewhere in the correct paragraph to achieve this mark.
Question 8
Rotating the image 180º was done well by most candidates. A few candidates incorrectly flipped the image
as well as rotating it and some made no attempt to change the presentation of the image.
Question 9
Most candidates successfully resized and applied text wrap to the image. Some candidates aligned this with
the left of the column instead of the right. Occasionally the image was too high to align with the top of the
paragraph or extended into the right margin.
Question 10
Most candidates formatted the first row of the table, so it was centre aligned over the three columns with a
light grey fill. Occasionally the light grey fill was not applied.
Question 11
Sorting the data in the table produced a mixed response. The sort order was occasionally done in ascending
rather than descending order. The integrity of the data was lost where only the Download Growth data had
been sorted. A few candidates included the second row in the sort, so the column headings were misplaced.
A small number of candidates did not attempt the sort.
Question 12
Most candidates inserted the new row in the correct position and entered the data accurately. Occasionally,
the row was inserted in the middle of the table, or the data entered contained data entry errors.
Question 13
The majority of candidates applied the table style, but a number also applied this to row 1 as well. Few
candidates adjusted the column widths, so the data was displayed on one line. Controlling the gridlines and
external border were not done particularly well. A number of candidates included internal gridlines and/or
© 2023
used the default border width instead of increasing this external border to 3 – 4 point. A number of
candidates left no space after the table, or the space was greater than 8 points.
Question 14
In most cases there was evidence of good proofreading and document presentation skills. The table was
rarely split over columns or pages. The formatting of the three original paragraph styles was not always
maintained with some inconsistent spacing between paragraphs. The columns and pages were not always
aligned at the top of the page. Occasionally, there was a widow or orphan, most commonly where a
subheading or single line of text had been left at the bottom of a column. The spacing below the columns
was often larger than the 6 point set in the body style.
Task 3 – Database
Question 15
The importing of the csv file and setting the primary key were usually well done. A few candidates incorrectly
included an ID field in the table. The most common error was not storing and displaying the LPF_Ratio field
to 3 decimal places. Candidates’ screenshot evidence did not always show all ten fields.
Question 16
There were very few issues with importing the second csv file with most candidates using the correct field
names, data types and setting the correct primary key.
Question 17
Most candidates created a relationship between the tables, but the screenshot evidence supplied often
captured the process of creating the relationship rather than the outcome. This was insufficient to confirm a
one-to-many relationship had been created. A screenshot of the relationship dialogue box will evidence the
relationship type. The relationship diagram will only be credited if it shows the single and one-to-many infinity
symbols confirming the relationship type.
Question 18
Most candidates created a columnar data entry form with the correct fields displayed, and few were
successful in applying two appropriate formatting features to improve the design. Some attempted to change
some field lengths but the size was not always appropriate for the data. Credit was given for changing the
form title, but this often contained the source file name which was not appropriate.
Question 19
Screenshot evidence did not always show the new record in the form with a number of candidates capturing
the form with the first record in the table which provided no evidence of accurate data entry. Data entry errors
included errors in Veteran, the Year_Band data not presented as shown and the LPF_Ratio presented as
integer so the accuracy could not be assessed. Candidates were penalised if they overwrote the first record
in the database (1010) instead of entering this data as a new record in the form.
Question 20
The first report used fields from both tables and was done well by candidates who attempted this question.
The report title was usually entered in a larger font size at the top of the report. There were no descenders
on the title, so there were few issues with vertical truncation.
The two search criteria were completed well by most candidates. In the wildcard search, some candidates
searched for records containing land instead of those ending in land. Most candidates used the correct OR
operator.
Most candidates included the correct fields in the report, although these were often in the wrong order as,
without manual intervention, the software placed the sort field at the start of their report. This can be avoided
by setting the sort order in the report structure rather than during the creation of the report if a report wizard
is used. The sort on one field was usually correct, and there was minimal evidence of grouping any of the
data.
© 2023
Occasionally, data in one or more fields was truncated, most commonly in the Last_Name field. Some
manipulation was required to ensure all data was fully visible. Most presented the report in portrait
orientation, but this did not always fit on a single page. Most candidates entered their identification details on
the report.
Question 21
The second report used fields from both tables. Few candidates achieved full marks for this report. The
report title was usually entered in a larger font size at the top of the report. Occasionally, the title contained
capitalisation or data entry errors such as ‘GRB’ and ‘Catagory’ and a few candidates truncated the ‘s’ on
Results. The ‘g’ and ‘y’ descenders on the title were not always fully visible as the text box had not been
adjusted to accommodate the larger font size.
The search criteria were usually completed well, with the most common error being in searching for 1960 or
earlier. Several candidates confused the greater than (>) and less than (<) operators, and not including those
records equal to (=) 1960.
The new field heading was usually entered accurately with only a few incurring a fault for omitting the
underscore, data entry, or capitalisation errors. Most used the correct calculation, although this was often not
formatted to display time as hh:mm:ss, with candidates either displaying a numeric value or using an AM/PM
time format.
Most candidates included the correct fields in the report, although these were often in the wrong order due to
the sort being set during the creation of the report instead of in the report structure. Occasionally, the
Country_Code had incorrectly been included in the report. Candidates were not penalised if the calculated
field was not attempted or displayed.
The sort was not always set for both fields, probably due to the order of the fields, with the second sort field
appearing first. This can be avoided by setting the sort order in the report structure after the report has been
created instead of in the query, or during the setup of the report.
Report data was often truncated in the Club_Name and Country fields. The calculation to find the longest
race time was not always successful, with some candidates using SUM or COUNT instead of MAX.
A small number did not provide screenshot evidence of the database formula used. Candidates were not
penalised if this value was displayed as a number instead of a time format. Some candidates put this
calculation in the page footer instead of the report footer, so the value or error message appeared incorrectly
on every page.
Few candidates accurately right aligned this with the race times in the Race_Time column. The label was
usually entered to the left of this value but often contained capitalisation errors and/or a superfluous colon.
Most presented the report in landscape orientation. Identification details were often entered in the report
footer, so they only appeared on the last page of the report rather than in the page footer, so they printed at
the bottom of every page.
Task 4 – Presentation
Question 22
Most candidates successfully imported the 6 slides and presented each as a title and bulleted list.
Occasionally bullets and text on the chart slide were right aligned, resulting in inconsistent presentation as on
all other slides the text and bullets were left aligned. Marks were not awarded where incorrect software had
been used, such as the RTF file opened, manipulated, and printed in word processing software.
Question 23
Most candidates correctly entered slide numbers in the top left and their identification details in the bottom
left of the slide, so they displayed consistently on all slides in the presentation. Occasionally these were in
the wrong position or inconsistent on the first slide. Built-in slide designs can be used but often apply a
different layout to slide 1 so candidates must ensure the design chosen meets all the master slide
requirements.
© 2023
Question 24
Most candidates created a vertical bar chart using the correct data. A few presented all the data instead of
demonstrating their ability to select non-contiguous data. Those that selected the correct data had no
problems displaying app titles on the category axis. Occasionally, a horizontal chart was presented.
Question 25
The chart title was usually entered in the correct position but occasionally contained data entry or
capitalisation errors. There were often extra or omitted words in the title and the value axis was occasionally
presented as ‘Millions’.
Question 26
Displaying the data values as data labels along the top of each bar was completed well by those candidates
that attempted this. Occasionally these were incorrectly positioned on the bars making the values difficult to
read.
Question 27
More candidates were able to demonstrate their ability to control the value axis than in previous sessions.
Most were able to set the minim value of 0, a maximum of 15 and increments of 3. Some did not attempt to
change the value axis scale at all and those that set the correct minimum and maximum values did not
always change the increments to 3.
Question 28
This was completed well with most candidates placing the chart on the correct slide to the left of the bullets.
A few candidates placed the chart to the right of the bullets. A small number did not adjust the position of the
bulleted text to make room for the chart on the left and instead placed it above or below the text.
Question 29
This new syllabus item was done quite well considering it was the first time to appear on this question paper.
Most managed to create a shape but this was not always an action button as a number of candidates linked
the text instead of the shape/button. The shape was often not square. The text was usually entered on the
shape/button but occasionally overlapped the edges or contained capitalisation errors. Candidates did not
always provide the screenshot evidence required, with some candidates evidencing the link on the text and
not on the action button.
Question 30
Most candidates set the slide show to loop continuously although the screenshot evidence did not always
show this was applied to all 6 slides.
Question 31
Most candidates printed the full presentation with three slides to the page. A small number of candidates
presented this in landscape instead of portrait orientation or omitted the chart slide from this printout. Most
were able to print the chart slide as a single full page slide although this was not always in landscape
orientation.
Question 32
Some candidates did not submit a printout of the Evidence Document. It is essential that candidates print
their Evidence Document towards the end of the examination time, regardless of whether they have finished
the paper. Candidates should make sure that their screenshots are large enough for the evidence to be
legible and that cropping/resizing has not removed essential evidence.
© 2023

TECHNOLOGY
Paper 0417/31
Spreadsheets and Website Authoring
31
Key messages
We recommend that candidates read the question carefully before answering it to be able to get most of the
marks. Candidates need to understand the importance of following the instructions on the question paper to
get these marks.
Candidates need to follow the instructions on the question paper concerning the HTML tags that can be used
for a task, and not rely upon WYSIWYG software to provide a correct solution. Candidates should have a
sound understanding of HTML, not just be able to create a page using WYSIWYG software, or where it is
used be able to edit the markup appropriately. Candidates need to ensure that all HTML and screenshots
submitted can be easily read by the examiner.
When working with a spreadsheet, the candidates should identify which spreadsheet function is the most
appropriate for a task. Candidates need to ensure that all spreadsheet column widths are wide enough to
display the data/formulae whilst using a font size large enough to enable examiners to read the work.
For the evidence document, the candidates must ensure that they include their candidate details in the
correct place on all printouts. Candidates need to take greater care with the accuracy of data entry.
General comments
There were significant differences in the range of results from centre to centre, and from candidate to
candidate within centres. The paper gave a good spread of marks, and candidate errors were spread evenly
over the sections of the paper.
Candidates MUST ensure that the text within the markup, stylesheet, and spreadsheet printouts is fully
visible and large enough to enable the examiners to read the work.
Task 1 – Evidence Document
Almost all candidates created an Evidence Document.
Task 2 – Spreadsheet
Question 1
The source file was used and saved with the correct file name by most candidates, although fewer
candidates saved their work as a spreadsheet with several files still saved in .csv or .txt format. Almost all
candidates placed their name, centre number, and candidate number on the right in the footer, fewer placed
an automated file name without the file path on the left.
Question 2
Many candidates produced a spreadsheet with identical formatting to the image shown in the question
paper. The more frequently found errors and omissions occurred when merging, aligning, or formatting the
cells, or when applying cell borders.
© 2023
Correct work for full marks should include:
• Cells within the range A6 to C11 merged across the 3 columns as shown in the diagram.
• Cells within the range A6 to C11 right aligned.
• The merged cells in rows 1 and 13 formatted with a grey background.
• The merged cells in rows 1 and 13 set in an italic font.
• Text in rows 11 and 14 was wrapped as shown.
• Text in row 14 aligned centrally both horizontally and vertically.
• Cell borders applied as shown in the question paper.
Question 3
This was completed well by almost all candidates, but row and column headings were often omitted, and
values were sometimes not fully visible. A small number of candidates had the page orientation set to portrait
rather than landscape.
Question 4
This step was performed well by most candidates using a number of different methods. Many used six
individual AVERAGE functions with different ranges for each month and each town (as shown in the mark
scheme). Some candidates set the ranges to rows 15 to 73 and used an AVERAGEIF function with wildcard
searches for January or February. Most candidates successfully applied the ROUND function (with, 1) to all
six of their functions.
Question 5
This step was performed well by many candidates using COUNTIF functions, although there were a number
of candidates who attempted this with COUNT functions (sometimes manually identifying the cells that
matched the required condition). A small number of candidates also attempted to use either the SUM or
SUMIF functions.
Question 6
This step was successfully completed by fewer candidates than Question 5, using the COUNTIF function,
although some candidates attempted this with a COUNT function and individually referenced cells which for
this task was not an acceptable solution. Most candidates used the correct selection criterion of ‘>7.5’.
Question 7
There were mixed responses to this question, with most candidates selecting the AVERAGE function and the
correct range. The most common error was selecting the range D15:D73 rather than D15:D45. Fewer
candidates successfully applied a ROUNDUP function to this. The use of the ROUND function here is a
common incorrect response.
Question 8
Many candidates used the COUNTIF function, although some candidates attempted this with a COUNT
function. Most candidates used the correct selection criterion of ‘<5’. Many candidates used the incorrect
range D15:D73 instead of D15:D45. Some excellent solutions were seen using the COUNTIFS function
testing for both the wind speed and the month with the full ranges between rows 15 and 73.
Question 9
This was completed well by many candidates, but row and column headings were often omitted, and
formulae were sometimes not fully visible in candidates work.
Question 10
This was completed correctly by almost all candidates, but row and column headings were sometimes
present in candidates work. Candidates’ values were occasionally not fully visible in their screenshots. A
small number of candidates had the page orientation set to landscape rather than portrait. Some candidates
printed the full spreadsheet and not the specified cell range.
© 2023
Question 11
Most candidates created a chart, but not all recognised that the data to be displayed required a comparative
line/bar or line graph to display this data. Most candidates who completed this had calculated the correct
values for the total rainfall.
Many candidates set the months as the category axis, but not all applied appropriate titles to this axis. Many
candidates plotted both data sets correctly, but few used two value axes as specified in the question paper.
Another challenge for some of the candidates was to label these axes appropriately.
Values for hours of sunshine were often plotted using inappropriate scales, making the different values for
the two months difficult to see clearly. The chart title was sometimes omitted. Where candidates had
included the chart title, it did not always convey to a user what the chart represented, including the name of
the town. Fully labelling the chart should have included an appropriate legend so that a user could determine
which data was sunshine and which was rainfall. This was not always evident.
Task 3 – Web page
Question 12
Many candidates completed this step as instructed, although some did not apply the styles to all 4 selectors.
A number of candidates omitted the speech marks around the ‘Helvetica Neue’. A significant number of
candidates erroneously included HTML code in this despite the instruction that this was to be added to an
external stylesheet.
Question 13
Many candidates did not demonstrate a detailed understanding of the use of meta tags. Most set the correct
title and default target window as specified. The use of the metatags appeared to be more challenging with a
significant number of typographical errors included within the candidates’ syntax. The most common was the
use of the singular ‘keyword’ rather than keywords. Some candidates managed to select the appropriate
keywords that related to the contents of the web page. Few candidates appeared to understand that the best
keywords were single words rather than short phrases and that these keywords relate to the topic at hand.
Words like region, engine, and HTML, for example, were all seen, but would not help a search engine locate
this webpage. Some candidates did not place their meta tags within the head section of the web page,
despite clear instructions to do so.
This was printed as specified by almost all candidates.
© 2023

TECHNOLOGY
Paper 0417/32
Spreadsheets and Website
Authoring 32
Key messages
We recommend that candidates read the question carefully before answering it to be able to get most of the
marks. Candidates need to understand the importance of following the instructions on the question paper to
get these marks.
Candidates need to follow the instructions on the question paper concerning the HTML tags that can be used
for a task, and not rely upon WYSIWYG software to provide a correct solution. Candidates should have a
sound understanding of HTML, not just be able to create a page using WYSIWYG software, or where it is
used be able to edit the markup appropriately. Candidates need to ensure that all HTML and screenshots
submitted can be easily read by the examiner.
When working with a spreadsheet, the candidates should identify which spreadsheet function is the most
appropriate for a task. Candidates need to ensure that all spreadsheet column widths are wide enough to
display the data/formulae whilst using a font size large enough to enable examiners to read the work.
For the evidence document, the candidates must ensure that they include their candidate details in the
correct place on all printouts. Candidates need to take greater care with the accuracy of data entry.
General comments
There were significant differences in the range of results from centre to centre, and from candidate to
candidate within centres. The paper gave a good spread of marks, and candidate errors were spread evenly
over the sections of the paper.
Candidates MUST ensure that the text within the markup, stylesheet, and spreadsheet printouts is fully
visible and large enough to enable the examiners to read the work.
Task 1 – Evidence Document
Almost all candidates created an Evidence Document.
Task 2 – Image Editing and File Management
Question 1
Most candidates created the TAS folder as specified. They located and stored the required source files in
this folder. However, some candidates cropped the image, so the folder name was not visible in their
screenshot. Therefore, the examiners could not verify that the files viewed were in the correct storage
location. Some screenshots did not include image dimensions. Another error was saving the modified image
as .jpg instead of .png.
Most candidates performed some manipulation of the tiger image. Almost all rotated the image as specified
in the question, but fewer candidates reflected it horizontally. Most candidates cropped the left of the tiger
image, but not all removed most of the tyre. Some candidates erroneously cropped the image so that part of
© 2023
the tiger was removed. Most candidates cropped the top of the tiger as specified, but a significant number
also removed the lower part of the tiger, including the feet.
Many candidates resized the image to 1000 pixels high, but not all retained the aspect ratio. Of those
candidates who cropped the right-hand side of the final image to 500 pixels wide whilst retaining the height
of 1000 pixels, many resized it approximately (which did not meet the specification). Some candidates
resized the image, resulting in distorting the image. Others may have completed this, but there was no
evidence of the file sizes as they did not display all the required elements (particularly the image dimensions)
when displaying the TAS folder for the screenshot.
Task 3 – Web Page
Question 2
Many candidates produced the page's structure within a single table, as shown in the question's diagram.
Most of the candidates set the cell widths to the specified sizes, using percentages and not pixels. If the
sizes were omitted completely then marks were subtracted.
Some candidates created tables with more than four rows and more than three columns. Most candidates
set the table to be 80 percent of the width of the browser window (although the default 100 percent was seen
on some occasions).
Almost all candidates (correctly) did not display the letters in the cells. Not all candidates followed the
instruction that table borders must not appear on the final web page, and some table borders and internal
cell borders were seen.
Question 3
Several candidates ignored the instruction to use video and source tags to place the video, allowing their
editing software to attempt to insert the video tags such as <object> and, in some cases, even <img>. These
gained no credit.
Of those candidates who attempted this using the <video> and </video> tags, most set the video width to
100 percent of the cell width. Some candidates erroneously set their error message as part of an alt attribute
(which is not used with the video tag) or did not place the error message between the <video> and </video>
tags. The most common error seen from candidates attempting to use the video tags was the failure to also
include source tags, instead attempting to place the src and type attributes directly into the video tag.
The banner was almost always placed in the correct cell, as was the tiger image. The monkey image was
often placed in row 4 along with an elephant image, but sometimes the wrong elephant image was used. A
small number of candidates had placed these images the wrong way around in cells E and F. Although the
placement of the images was frequently correct, some candidates did not maintain the aspect ratio of the
images. Fewer candidates set appropriate alt text for all the images, especially for the banner image. The alt
text should be usable by a reader to indicate what the image is, for both the partially sighted and in the case
that the image fails to display in the browser. This needs to be detailed enough for a user to understand what
they are looking at.
Question 4
This step was performed well by most candidates, almost all candidates placed extra h2 tags or break tags
to split the paragraphs. There were some typographical errors in the third paragraph. Not all candidates set
this into style h2 with a surprising number using a combination of h2 and paragraph tags.
Question 5
This step was performed well by many candidates, although the most common issue was the inclusion of file
paths for one or both of the images which would allow this to work on only a computer with the same file
structure as the candidates and therefore would not be suitable for a web page uploaded to the internet. The
hyperlink around the elephant image was sometimes placed next to or below the image, and in some cases
omitted completely.
© 2023
Question 6
This step proved to be more challenging to a number of candidates who did not appear to understand the
syntax of the ‘mailto’ attribute. A number of different errors were seen with some candidates mixing up the ‘:’
and ‘=’ symbols and others omitting the subject line. A significant number of candidates inserted the email
link on the elephant image instead of the monkey image as instructed. The details within the ‘mailto:’ attribute
sometimes contained spelling errors. Some candidates did not place the anchor around the image.
Question 7
This step was frequently completed as specified with the stylesheet attached (although not all candidates
placed this in the head section) and the web page visible in the browser. Not all candidates displayed the
address bar in the browser and some candidates did not use a browser at all, displaying their page in an
editor which gained them few marks. Most candidates placed a copy of their HTML code in their Evidence
Document, often copying and pasting the text. Those candidates who attempted this with screen shots were
less successful, as some screen shots did not display all the html and the text in others was so small or had
so little contrast between the background colour and the text, so they were sometimes unreadable. It is
important that candidates present examiners with work that will gain them the marks, to this end appropriate
font size and readability are critical.
Task 4 – Spreadsheets
Question 8
Opening, examining, copying, pasting, and deleting rows all appeared to have been completed, with few
problems, by the vast majority of candidates. The placement of the text and automated functions in the
header appeared to be more challenging. When a space requirement was specified, this was omitted, and
several additional punctuation marks such as the use of extra colons were evident. Most candidates saved
the spreadsheet (although some saved text files in .csv format) but some did not save the file with the
specified file name.
Question 9
Many candidates formatted the spreadsheet as shown, but a number of errors and omissions were seen.
These included:
• not merging the correct cells in row 1 and column A
• not emboldening column A, rows 2, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 22
• not centre aligning the contents of cells in row 2 and in columns A and B
• not reducing the height of row 7 and 21.
Question 10
The majority of candidates used appropriate SUM functions to complete this step, and they placed the
formulas in the appropriate cells. A number of candidates used formulae like ‘= C9 + C10 + C11’ which did
not meet the requirements of the question as it asked for functions. The best acceptable solutions were ‘=
SUM(C9:C11)’ and even ‘= SUM(C9, C10, C11)’ but solutions such as ‘= SUM(C9 + C10 + C11)’ were not
deemed acceptable as the SUM function was not used within the calculation.
Question 11
Most candidates completed a correct formula in cell C23, but then some just copied this down into C24 and
C25 without considering the cells that these formulae were referencing. This led to a significant number of
errors. Many candidates did recognise the need to place each of these formulae individually and completed
this as specified. Candidates who omitted the instruction to examine the file in step 8 were less likely to be
successful with this question. A few candidates did not replicate these three formulae correctly.
Question 12
Despite clear instructions in the introduction that all currency values must be in dollars ($), displayed to 2
decimal places, this was not evident in a significant number of candidates’ work as they did not apply
© 2023
appropriate formatting to cells containing numeric data. A variety of other currencies were seen, the most
prevalent being pound sterling.
Question 13
This question appeared to be challenging for some candidates. Many would have appeared to set the
conditional formatting (as there was evidence of coloured text and backgrounds in the printouts), but not all
these candidates displayed screenshots in their Evidence Document showing their methods. Where the
evidence was presented, some candidates mixed up the symbols for 'greater than' or 'less than' within their
formulae or omitted to include those values that were equal to.
Question 14
This was completed correctly by almost all candidates, but row and column headings were sometimes not
visible, and formulae or data were not fully visible.
Question 15
This was completed correctly by almost all candidates, but row and column headings were sometimes visible
and occasionally the data was not fully visible. Some candidates did not print the entire spreadsheet showing
the values, printing only the cells containing numeric data.
This was printed as specified by almost all candidates.
© 2023

Information and Communication Technology: Paper 0417/11 Theory 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information and Communication Technology: Paper 0417/11 Theory 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information and Communication Technology: Paper 0417/11 Theory 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education

0417 Information and Communication Technology June 2023

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

Comments on specific questions

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

Comments on specific questions

This question was well answered by most of the candidates.

This was quite a challenging question for most of the candidates.

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

Comments on specific questions

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

Comments on specific questions

Task 1 – The Evidence Document

Task 5 – Printing the Evidence Document

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

Comments on specific questions

Task 1 – The Evidence Document

Task 5 – Printing the Evidence Document

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

Comments on specific questions

Task 1 – Evidence Document

Almost all candidates created an Evidence Document.

Correct work for full marks should include:

Task 3 – Web page

Task 4 – Printing the Evidence Document

This was printed as specified by almost all candidates.

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

Comments on specific questions

Task 1 – Evidence Document

Almost all candidates created an Evidence Document.

Task 2 – Image Editing and File Management

Task 3 – Web Page

Task 5 – Printing the Evidence Document

This was printed as specified by almost all candidates.

You might also like