Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level

9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Paper 9626/11
Theory

Key messages

Candidates must not use trade names in the examination. Where trade names are used, these will be
ignored, and the answer read as if the trade name was not present. Where the trade name has been given
f or a piece of software, for example, and the software type has not also been given in conjunction with the
trade name, this removal of the trade name usually renders the given answer meaningless. In many cases,
where candidates have given trade names, the points made by the candidate would have earned marks had
a sof tware type, rather than a trade name, been used.

Candidates are reminded that answers need to be legible. Whilst the number of illegible answers remains
very small, and every effort is made to read them, where answers cannot be read, examiners are unable to
give marks.

Candidates are also reminded that this examination is intended to assess their knowledge of Inf ormation
Technology to a high level of understanding. Theref ore, it is a reasonable expectation that candidates will be
able to use technical terms from across the syllabus accurately and employ suitably technical terms in their
answers. The use of what may be considered slang of ten renders answers meaningless. Terms such as
‘sketchy’, f or example are not acceptable at this level.

General comments

As is usually the case, a number of questions were not attempted. This is understandable, especially when
the concept is a difficult one, but individual questions tend to be structured so that they have a variety of
levels of demand within them. In effect, questions tend to have a range of answers, some of which may be
considered more accessible than others. This is especially true of questions that carry more marks.
Theref ore, candidates should be advised to attempt to answer all questions. Whilst they may not know the
whole answer, they may still pick up some of the more easily accessed marks that are available within a
question. That having been said, the number of questions without any f orm of answer is diminishing.

Interpretation of command words is improving. Increasingly, questions that require an explanation are being
answered correctly. In very general terms, where a question requires an explanation, the use of “because” or
‘theref ore’ in an answer will improve the candidate’s chances of providing an explanation where required.
However, candidates still struggle with the concept of justif ying a concept. In order to justif y, candidates
should be presenting arguments in support of a concept. Arguments that attempt to argue that a particular
concept is useless are not justif ying.

Finally, candidates should be reminded to focus on the context of a question. If the question is set within a
particular context, candidates need to consider the opportunities and restrictions that this context provides
and structure their answers accordingly. They should then consider which aspect of that concept is being
examined. The command word used can usually give a guidance here.

Comments on specific questions

Due to the very small number of candidates who attempted this paper, it is impossible to give meaningf ul
f eedback on candidates’ perf ormance on individual questions.

The general comments (above) should be ref erred to, along with the question paper, in order to analyse
candidate perf ormance.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Paper 9626/12
Theory

Key messages

Candidates must not use trade names in the examination. Where trade names are used, these will be
ignored, and the answer read as if the trade name was not present. Where the trade name has been given
f or a piece of software, for example, and the software type has not also been given in conjunction with the
trade name, this removal of the trade name usually renders the given answer meaningless. In many cases,
where candidates have given trade names, the points made by the candidate would have earned marks had
a sof tware type, rather than a trade name, been used.

Candidates are reminded that answers need to be legible. Whilst the number of illegible answers remains
very small, and every effort is made to read them, where answers cannot be read, examiners are unable to
give marks.

Candidates are also reminded that this examination is intended to assess their knowledge of Inf ormation
Technology to a high level of understanding. Theref ore, it is a reasonable expectation that candidates will be
able to use technical terms from across the syllabus accurately and employ suitably technical terms in their
answers. The use of what may be considered slang of ten renders answers meaningless. Terms such as
‘sketchy’, f or example are not acceptable at this level.

General comments

As is usually the case, a number of questions were not attempted. This is understandable, especially when
the concept is a difficult one, but individual questions tend to be structured so that they have a variety of
levels of demand within them. In effect, questions tend to have a range of answers, some of which may be
considered more accessible than others. This is especially true of questions that carry more marks.
Theref ore, candidates should be advised to attempt to answer all questions. Whilst they may not know the
whole answer, they may still pick up some of the more easily accessed marks that are available within a
question. That having been said, the number of questions without any f orm of answer is diminishing.

Interpretation of command words is improving. Increasingly, questions that require an explanation are being
answered correctly. In very general terms, where a question requires an explanation, the use of ‘because’ or
‘theref ore’ in an answer will improve the candidate’s chances of providing an explanation where required.
However, candidates still struggle with the concept of justif ying a concept. In order to justif y, candidates
should be presenting arguments in support of a concept. Arguments that attempt to argue that a particular
concept is useless are not justif ying.

Finally, candidates should be reminded to focus on the context of a question. If the question is set within a
particular context, candidates need to consider the opportunities and restrictions that this context provides
and structure their answers accordingly. They should then consider which aspect of that concept is being
examined. The command word used can usually give a guidance here.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

This f irst question f ocused on the use of a hierarchical database. Candidates were given a hierarchical
staf f ing structure as a prompt.

(a) The f irst question required candidates to explain what is meant by a hierarchical database
management system. The question was worth three marks and so candidates had to make three
points. In order to ‘explain’ they had to link the answer to the concept of a hierarchy, as given in the
question.

This question was poorly answered by many candidates. A signif icant minority answered about
hierarchies and based their answer on the diagram. The question itself was a theoretical question
and so, in ef f ect, candidates were expected to give a def inition o f a hierarchical database
management system, rather than a description of the hierarchy in existence.

(b) The second part of the question asked candidates to describe how the company’s records would
be stored. As the question referred to ‘the company’, this was candidates’ opportunity to link their
understanding of hierarchical databases with the diagram given. In ef f ect, candidates were being
asked to interpret the diagram given in the question, although they could also answer with more
general answers.

Candidates scored better on this question than the previous, although marks were still low overall.

Question 2

This question assessed candidates’ understanding of f actors af f ecting the quality of inf ormation, and its
impact on any decision made based on that inf ormation.

A f air proportion of candidates realised that the question was asking candidates to discuss both the impact of
the f actor on the quality of information and the quality of decisions based on that f actor. However, many
candidates simply f ocussed on the impact of the f actor on the quality of inf ormation.

(a) The f irst factor was the age of information. Virtually all candidates stated that old inf ormation may
be irrelevant or useless, although some candidates stated that the age of inf ormation meant that
inf ormation was outdated, which was not accepted, as it was effectively, a repeat of the question.
Of those who then linked this to the quality of decision, virtually all achieved the second mark.

(b) The second factor was the relevance of information. This question was worth three marks, and so
candidates could focus on what was meant by relevance of information, and then make a relatively
simple comment about the impact of this on decisions, or could choose to explore the area of the
quality of decisions.

As with answers to part (a) of this question, this question posed little challenge to those candidates
who attempted both aspects.

Question 3

This question focused on the use of control technologies. Candidates were asked to evaluate their use as
part of traf f ic management systems.

This question caused candidates some issues. Where candidates responded to the need to evaluate, there
were some good answers. For example, candidates discussed the benef its of traf f ic light systems,
specifically, usually, as means by which traffic flows may be controlled in cities, which, in turn, leads to more
f ree-f lowing traffic. Others considered the use of pedestrian controlled crossings, focusing on the impact on
road saf ety.

However, others misinterpreted the question. In some cases, candidates described how control technologies
worked. Typically, this involved an in-depth discussion of sensors. Occasionally, candidates only focused on
sensors and ignored any f orm of control technology.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Where candidates are asked to evaluate, this should be a process by where value judgements are made.
This may be an evaluation of a process, or of a system, but there should be a two sided, hopefully balanced,
discussion. Such discussions should end with a conclusion that revisits and brings together the points made.

Question 4

Candidates were given a description of a program and were asked to create a flowchart of that program. In a
very small number of cases, candidates gave a form of pseudocode, instead of a f lowchart f or the answer,
but, overall, this area of the syllabus has shown great improvement over the past f ew series. The vast
majority of candidates used the correct symbols for the flow chart and showed good understanding of the
logic involved. In a small number of cases, candidates confused input symbols with process s ymbols, but
overall, perf ormance on this question was very good.

Question 5

Question 5 allowed candidates to explore one of the causes of the digital divide. Where candidates did this
well, they did very well indeed and gave some really clear and convincing answers. However, the question
required candidates to be clear about what they were trying to argue, and this did cause some problems.
Candidates, for example, stated that highly educated people had more disposable income than poorly
educated people. There is no real intuitive link between one’s level of income and one’s education. However,
what does exist is a link between the job a person does and the income they receive, which then, in turn,
af f ects their disposable income. Similarly, people with a higher level of education do not necessarily have
greater access to technology. What is true, that they may have been surrounded by technology whilst they
were training, or, in their jobs, there is more likely to be more technology, but these answers are more
complex than simply stating that more highly educated people have greater access to t echnology.

Question 6

Computer models differ from simulations. This question focussed on computer models. Where candidates
answered about computer models, they did well. Answers ranged f rom models about weather through to
models to show stresses and strains on bridges as part o f the design process.

However, other candidates discussed simulations. Whilst there is a degree of cross over between the two,
this f undamental dif f erence caused some problems f or candidates.

Question 7

This question focused on the reasons why personal information should be kept conf idential. A single mark
was available for a generic answer about the results of personal information not being kept conf idential, but
any f urther marks had to be based on the use of clear examples of personal data and impacts.

Typically, candidates gave quite vague answers with largely unsupported claims. Candidates should avoid
claiming that access to ‘bank details’ means that a criminal can steal money. Bank details could be anything,
including the name of your bank and their phone number. If a candidate means bank account number, PIN
and security answer, they should state this. Similarly, knowing where someone lives does not mean that the
house will be burgled. However, knowing where someone lives and that they are on holiday would be a risk.

Questions such as these initially appear straight forward, but, in many cases, candidates give very vague
answers that do not achieve marks. This was def initely the case f or this series.

Question 8

This question f ocussed database structure.

(a) The f irst question asked candidates to identify the most appropriate data type for each of five fields.
For numeric f ields, candidates were asked to state which type of numeric f ield would be used.

Whilst some candidates did achieve all five marks, these candidates were relatively f ew. Typical
issues included stating that the field was numeric, but not stating what type of numeric f ield was
best, or simply confusing the data types. As a point for future ref erence, telephone numbers are not
stored in numeric f ields.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

(b) For the second question, candidates were asked to state and describe suitable validation checks
that could be carried out on the data as it is entered.

Some candidates attempted to answer without stating which f ields they were discussing . In such
cases, it is impossible to ascertain whether the validation check was appropriate and so no marks
were given.

Furthermore, as is standard practice, candidates are expected to identif y the f ield which they are
considering, with some accuracy. Whilst minor spelling or formatting mistakes were ignored, where
candidates had given vague f ield names, these answers were also not awarded.

(b) The f inal question asked candidates to describe how two databases could be combined together as
one. Where candidates approached this question in an organised manner, some very good
answers were given, especially f rom those who realised that a linking tabl e would be required.

However, other candidates gave very confused answers. Some argued that once combined, both
databases would still exist as separate databases, rather than f ields, whilst others conf used the
role of f oreign and primary keys.

Overall, it is clear that candidates have some good understanding of relational database, but are
poor at answering questions based on relational databases.

Question 9

Candidates were asked to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the use of telephone interviews t o gather
inf ormation f or an article.

The f irst point to make is that in virtually all cases, candidates adopted a good structure for this question, and
discussed both benefits and drawbacks, often in a very balanced manner. This is a significant improvement
on even a f ew series ago.

The second point is rather like that made for Question 8 and others. Candidates clearly have a grasp of the
concepts involved, but struggle to write answers that are not vague and theref ore achieve f ew marks. For
example, where candidates wrote that this method was cheaper, this was not sufficient f or a mark. Had the
candidate stated that a telephone interview avoids the need to travel to far flung places, which saves the cost
of , for example, petrol, this was sufficient. Answers such as ‘quicker’, ‘easier’ and ‘cheaper’ on their own are
extremely unlikely to achieve marks.

Question 10

The f inal question asked candidates to describe four benefits of using an expert system to identif y animals.
In some cases, candidates restated the question as an answer, stating that it helped to identif y animals, or
similar. Such answers did not achieve marks.

Other candidates realised that such a system was quicker than any other, or that such a system was the
collective understanding of many scientists, and so, effectively, represented a mass of knowledge, whilst
other candidates argued, correctly, that the use of an expert system gave consistent results.

However, some candidates attempted to argue that an expert system was a cheaper method. As no
inf ormation was given about costs in the question, this answer is, at best, a supposition and theref ore no
marks were given.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Paper 9626/13
Theory

Key messages

Candidates must not use trade names in the examination. Where trade names are used, these will be
ignored, and the answer read as if the trade name was not present. Where the trade name has been given
f or a piece of software, for example, and the software type has not also been given in conjunction with the
trade name, this removal of the trade name usually renders the given answer meaningless. In many cases,
where candidates have given trade names, the points made by the candidate would have earned marks had
a sof tware type, rather than a trade name, been used.

Candidates are reminded that answers need to be legible. Whilst the number of illegible answers remains
very small, and every effort is made to read them, where answers cannot be read, examiners are unable to
give marks.

Candidates are also reminded that this examination is intended to assess their knowledge of Inf ormation
Technology to a high level of understanding. Theref ore, it is a reasonable expectation that candidates will be
able to use technical terms from across the syllabus accurately and employ suitably technical terms in their
answers. The use of what may be considered slang of ten renders answers meaningless. Terms such as
‘sketchy’, f or example are not acceptable at this level.

General comments

As is usually the case, a number of questions were not attempted. This is understandable, especially when
the concept is a difficult one, but individual questions tend to be structured so that they have a variety of
levels of demand within them. In effect, questions tend to have a range of answers, some of which may be
considered more accessible than others. This is especially true of questions that carry more marks.
Theref ore, candidates should be advised to attempt to answer all questions. Whilst they may not know the
whole answer, they may still pick up some of the more easily accessed marks that are available within a
question. That having been said, the number of questions without any f orm of answer is diminishing.

Interpretation of command words is improving. Increasingly, questions that require an explanation are being
answered correctly. In very general terms, where a question requires an explanation, the use of ‘because’ or
‘theref ore’ in an answer will improve the candidate’s chances of providing an explanation where required.
However, candidates still struggle with the concept of justif ying a concept. In order to justif y, candidates
should be presenting arguments in support of a concept. Arguments that attempt to argue that a particular
concept is useless are not justif ying.

Finally, candidates should be reminded to focus on the context of a question. If the question is set within a
particular context, candidates need to consider the opportunities and restrictions that this context provides
and structure their answers accordingly. They should then consider which aspect of that concept is being
examined. The command word used can usually give a guidance here.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

This question required candidates to draw and describe the use of four flowchart symbols. This proved little
challenge to the vast majority of candidates. However, some candidates continue to conf use process
symbols and input symbols.

Due to the nature of the question, fairly vague answers about the use of individual symbols were accepted.
For example, a decision symbol could be described as helping to make a decision, deciding an outcome or
simply coming up with a Yes/No answer. Centres are advised that candidates should know the f unction of
individual f lowchart symbols as shown in the syllabus.

Question 2

For this question, candidates were asked to describe the f eatures of an MIS. To a limited degree, the
f eatures of an MIS include its purpose, but they also go much further. As has been the case when questions
have been based on MIS in the past, a small but significant number of candidates gave the impression that
they knew very little indeed about MIS.

Of the remaining candidates, most attempted to describe the purpose of an MIS, but did not go beyond that,
other than to state that it produced graphs and charts.

Question 3

This question f ocused on normalising databases.

(a) This required candidates to state what is meant by 2NF. Most marks were achieved by candidates
stating that it is based on 1NF, with a good proportion also stating that 2NF has no partial
dependencies.

(b) This question asked candidates to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of normalisation. Whilst the
vast majority of candidates gave both sides of the argument, negative aspects of normalisation
were typically based on the process of normalisation being complicated.

Positives included that a normalised database is usually smaller. Some candidates chose to
express this as ‘space is saved’. This answer is frequently given on this paper and is not accepted.
Storage space may be saved, but space is not saved. At this level, candidates should be able to
answer with a high degree of accuracy. Stating space, rather than storage space, is inaccurate.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Question 4

Question 4 f ocussed on validation and verif ication.

(a) The question asked candidates to compare validation and verification by describing the differences
between the two concepts. As the question stated ‘differences’ candidates had to give at least two
dif f erences between the two concepts in order to achieve f ull marks.

Candidates are clearly well practiced in these sort of questions, and answers were good, with most
candidates achieving two marks, and a large number achieving all three.

(b) This question focused on methods of validating and verifying. In both cases, a mark was available
f or correctly identifying the method as either a f orm of validation or a f orm of verif ication. Where
candidates are asked to describe methods, for example, which may be classified as a type of , f or
example, verification, marks are usually available for correctly identifying the relevant classification.

Range check did not present much of a challenge to candidates. This is an improvement on recent
series, as previous candidates typically conf used range and limit checks.

However, double data entry caused problems, with candidates giving some very vague answers
that, in many cases, were simply too unclear to award. Whilst candidates were aware that the
process was somehow related to having two copies, the answers became very unclear.

It is also worth stressing that the question itself f ocused on using validation and verif ication to
check data. Where candidates discussed double data entry as a method of confirming passwords,
this was of ten conf used and so marks were not always awarded.

Question 5

Historically, any question about encryption was answered by candidates giving everything they know about
encryption, as an answer. The answers to this question suggest that we have now moved on f rom this.
Candidates gave answers that were clearly thought o ut and selected, to give answers that were, in many
cases, clear, concise and quite successful. The improvement in answer to questions about encryption is
particularly pleasing to see.

Question 6

This question asked candidates to describe how a spreadsheet formula would calculate a result. The f ormula
itself used the NOT and OR key words as part of the formula. The question could be answered in two ways –
either by the value NOT being outside a range, or by the value being within the range.

Most candidates scored f ull marks f or this question.

Question 7

For this question, candidates were asked to describe the term goal driven when used as part of an expert
system. A few candidates became confused about whether goal driven was backward or f orward chaining,
but overall, most candidates were aware of this aspect.

In order to score highly, candidates had to be able to describe the role of the inference engine and be able to
describe how it uses the rules base. Whilst candidates showed some awareness of this, answers were quite
vague. Candidates would benefit from a greater technical understanding of how the individual parts of an
expert system work together.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Question 8

This question f ocused on the role of access to inf ormation technology in creating the digital divide.

This question proved to be quite complicated for candidates, as the question was a different style and f ocus
to similar questions asked on this topic over the past few series. Candidates had to be able to describe what
the inf ormation technology gap was, and how this itself led to the digital divide. Whilst candidates were
aware of the information technology areas, they often struggled to describe how this created or widened the
digital divide.

The majority of candidates scored no more than three marks f or this question.

Question 9

This question f ocused on two types of malware.

The f irst, spyware, is often confused with keyloggers, and this was the case for this question as well. Whilst
spyware focuses on the content of emails, for example, or what activities the user completes whilst on the
computer, including browsing history, a keylogger carries out a subtly dif f erent task.

For a worm, candidates gave slightly better answers, but as shall be discussed below, again gave some
misleading and vague answers.

Overall, candidates’ understanding of malware is lacking in focus. Whilst worms, for example, do impact on
the ability of a computer network to carry out tasks, this impact is in the specif ic area of bandwidth. As has
been stated, above, spyware operates in a different way to keyloggers. Answers to both questions lacked the
depth required for marks to be awarded but showed that candidates had some understanding. As a f urther
example, the information that spyware gathers is sent to the hacker or third party, but is sent by the internet,
rather than just ‘sent’.

Question 10

Candidates were asked to justify the use of online processing in stock control. As online processing was not
def ined in the question, marks were available f or stating what is meant by stock control.

Answers to the question suf f ered f rom a high degree of repetition. As a f undamental concept, online
processing allows for direct access to a central computer by the user. From this, stems many advantages,
including the ability to check remotely on stock levels, and to achieve accurate stock level figures. Similarly,
candidates could have stated that online processing results in improve stock control and minimum stock
levels.
Whilst candidates were aware of some advantages, these were of ten narrow and repeated f rom dif f erent
angles in an apparent attempt to achieve more marks.

Question 11

The f inal question focused on one-point calibration. This is a relatively simple concept that nonetheless
proved to be a good dif f erentiation between candidates. Almost all candidates stated that one -point
calibration was based on a single measurement, but f ewer candidates then describe the process of
comparing this value to a f ixed, known, value. Even f ewer candidates then completed the answer by
describing how this of f set could be applied to take account of any inaccuracy in the system.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Paper 9626/02
Practical

Key messages

For this examination, the main issues to note are as f ollows:

• Candidates need to make sure the spreadsheet is f ormatted as instructed in the question and that it
also matches the f ormatting shown in the diagram(s) provided in the question paper.
• Candidates need to consider when to apply absolute and relative references within a formula in order to
make it f ully replicable.
• Candidates must use the spreadsheet f unctions stated when they are specif ied in the question.
• Candidates need to understand the components and requirements of a data dictionary and apply this
knowledge to the data provided in the source f iles f or the scenario presented.
• Candidates need a better understanding of the conventions f or naming tables and f ields within a
database.

General comments

Some candidates performed well when creating their spreadsheet, with a f ull range of marks seen on this
task. Fewer candidates were successf ul with the modelling using their spreadsheet.

Some candidates performed well in the production of their data dictionary, while most candidates perf ormed
well on the audio editing task.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

Many candidates completed all of this task as specif ied although some f ound this task challenging. The
specified cells were often merged as instructed and formatted in the specif ied f ont style and background
colour. The instruction to format rows 2, 3, 4, and 18 to look like the diagram proved more challenging to
some candidates, who did not always centre align the cells as shown. Some candidates did not use a sans -
serif f ont style. At this level candidates should be able to distinguish between the typeface categories of serif
and sans-serif font types and select an appropriate f ont f or the type specif ied. A signif icant number of
candidates did not change the worksheet name to something more appropriate than the n24chain set by the
sof tware. The use of n24 was deemed inappropriate f or the given scenario. Most candidates saved the
workbook with the specified name, although a small number omitted their centre and candidate numbers
f rom the f ile name.

Question 2

Many candidates successf ully used a simple f ormula such as =E5*$U$19 to solve this task. Some
candidates identified the correct cells but did not consider the absolute or relative ref erencing required f or
this f ormula in order to make it replicable for all other chain styles and sizes. A number of candidates used a
f unction (above level) to convert ounces into grams.

Question 3

There were a range of responses to this question, some used the f ormula
=E5*HLOOKUP(E$2,$T$2:$V$3,2,0) that was shown in the mark scheme, others used appropriate solutions
with XLOOKUP in place of HLOOKUP. Some candidates provided valid solutions using nes ted IF statements
or the IFS f unction. The most signif icant omission was to f ollow the instruction to make the f ormula
replicable, which could be accomplished by setting the absolute ref erence on only the 2 of E2. The
ref erences to cells T2 and T3, along with V2 and V3 if used, should all have been set to absolute ref erences
f or both elements although some candidates omitted this.

Question 4

Most candidates used A5*2.54, or PRODUCT(A5,2.54), to solve this task. A number of candidates used a
f unction (above level) to convert inches into centimetres. Fewer candidates included a ROUNDDOWN (or
INT) f unction to round the value down to the nearest whole centimetre. Many erroneous attempts to perf orm
the round down were seen using the ROUND function. The formulae used were not always replicated into
the appropriate cells between rows 6 and 42.

Question 5

Despite a clear instruction to not use the concatenate f unction (either CONCATENATE or CONCAT
depending on the sof tware) many candidates used this f unction in their f ormulae. Most successf ul
candidates used a LEFT or MID function to extract the first character of E2 and the & to join it to the contents
of cell E3. Some candidates used the TEXTJOIN function to produce a working solution. Other solutions
were seen using nested IF f unctions, these were not particularly efficient for this task. Most candidates who
attempted this task replicated it as specif ied in the question paper.

Question 6

This step was completed well by the majority of candidates with weights being formatted to 3dp and currency
values in dollars with 2dp as given in the scenario. Some candidates formatted some of the appropriate cells
but not all, cells T3 to V3 were sometimes not f ormatted to dollars and 2dp.

Question 7

Most candidates created a new worksheet in the workbook with the correct worksheet name. Some errors in
case were seen. A f ew candidates incorrectly created a separate workbook f or this task.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Question 8

Row 1 was usually formatted to match the image in the question paper. Cells A2 and B2 were f requently
merged but the text placed in this merged cell was often inaccurate, not italicised and not always wrapped as
shown in the question paper. Row 3 was often narrowed as shown in the diagram and the contents of A3 to
A9 f requently right aligned. Text was not always added as shown, with case errors particularly prevalent.

Question 9

Most candidates who attempted this step used data validation with ref erences to cells in their 'Chain'
worksheet for both cells B4 and B5. A small number of candidates used the wrong ranges for cells or typed a
list within the rule rather than ref erencing a range of cells in the separate worksheet.

Question 10

This question specifically required candidates to look up, so solutions involving nested IF statements or IFS
f unction were not deemed valid. Correct solutions were seen in many responses using the XLOOKUP
f unction as identif ied in the mark scheme or f unctions such as INDEX and MATCH with solutions like
=INDEX(chains!E2:R2,1,MATCH(B4,chains!E4:R4,0)).

Question 11

Many candidates who attempted this task used valid INDEX and MATCH f unctions as instructed to create a
working solution. The most common error was getting the horizontal and vertical matches the right way
round inside the INDEX f unction.
Question 12

Many candidates who attempted this task used valid INDEX and MATCH f unctions as instructed to create a
working solution. The most common error was getting the horizontal and vertical matches the right way
round inside the INDEX f unction.

Question 13

Not all candidates set the weight in cell B8 into 3 decimal places and the cost in cell B9 into 2 decimal places
in dollars as given in the scenario.

Question 14

A significant number of candidates did not save this file with the specified file name and/or in rich text format.
Many candidates attempted the modelling, most of these entered the correct data but f ar f ewer attained the
correct results.

Question 15

Like step 14 most candidates showed evidence of changing the data f or the modelling, but some did not
show evidence that the price of gold had been changed. A number of candidates attained the correct values
f or this modelling.

Question 16

Many candidates successfully changed the speed of the track to twice the original speed. Changing the pitch
f rom the key of B to C♯/D♭, appeared to be challenging to a signif icant number of candidates. Several
managed to change the pitch but not always to the key specified. Almost all candidates trimmed the clip but
not all were precise in trimming to exactly 35 seconds. Many candidates presented a mono track having
mixed it down from stereo and most had applied a 2-second fade-out to the track. The tracks were usually
exported into both .wav and .ogg f ormat although there were a small number of errors in the f ile names.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Question 17

Many candidates successfully created a data dictionary for the customer data in the supplied source f ile. A
significant number of candidates did not identify the table name or gave the table an inappropriate name f or
the data such as n24cust. Most added field names that were suitable although some candidates used very
long f ield names and/or included spaces in their field names which were not suitable. A f ew candidates did
not include fields for all the data with some omitting the Email field. Most candidat es identified the customer
number f ield should be numeric with fewer also indicating it should be an integer sub -type. Many correctly
identified this field as the primary key. Most candidates identified the ‘Order date’/’First order’ field needed to
be in Date f ormat and that the other six f ields needed to be in text f ormat.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Paper 9626/32
Advanced Theory

Key messages

Candidates are expected to have a depth of knowledge of the subject topics. Questions can be set on any,
and all, areas of the A Level syllabus topic areas.

Questions are designed to give candidates the opportunity to demonstrate their wider understanding of the
syllabus topics to the Examiners. The different command words are used enable candidates to show that
they can not only recall, select, and communicate their knowledge of IT but can also, analyse and evaluate
IT issues using that knowledge.

It is important that candidates are able to customise their responses according to the command words in the
questions so that they can access the full range of marks available. Centres are reminded to advise their
candidates to target their responses to the command word used in the question and to ensure that they
actually answer the question as set. For example, where a question asks how a process is carried out e.g.
Question 2(a) where a description of how the ref lection f rom eyes in a digital image taken by f lash
photography can be removed in image editing software there is no credit available for an explanation of how
the ref lection was caused since this does not answer the question. Credit is only available for describing the
removal of the reflection. The command word ‘explain’ requires reasons whereas a description does not
require these. For example, Question 6(a) requires reasons why tunnelling protocols increase data security
so a description of a protocol without e.g. a reason why/how it works would not gain f ull credit.

General comments

Centres are advised to remind their candidates that they should not write answers based solely on words
that they have ‘spotted’ or on ‘key words’ in the question. Candidates must read the whole of each question
caref ully and apply their knowledge to the scenario in the question set. The f ull range of marks is only
available to candidates for answers referring to the scenario in the questions. For example, Question 8 was
about the implementation of a replacement system by parallel running and not about the computer-aided
design (CAD) or cloud computing systems.

Candidates must be encouraged to attempt all questions. Even if the candidate knows little about the topic,
writing a f ew sentences, despite the previous comments about targeting command words, may gain valuable
marks towards the overall total.

Candidates should also be encouraged to write full sentences and discouraged f rom writing bulleted, short
statements in their responses. Descriptions or explanations can only be conveyed in f ull sentences.
Analyses, discussions, and evaluations should also be in f ull sentences to properly answer the question.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

This question was about the use of for loops in JavaScript.

(a) While some answers showed a good understanding of the syntax, few candidates understood that
there is a distinct purpose for each of the statements in a for loop construction in JavaScript.
Many answers conf used the for loop given in the question with IF statements in e.g. Excel
spreadsheets stating that if the first statement is not true, then the next statement is carried out and
so on or gave similar such incorrect answers. There was often confusion between the purpose of

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

each statement with the initiation, condition and increment statement being given in the wrong
order. Good answers gave concise but full descriptions of each statement i.e. descriptions of the
initiation of a counter/variable, defining the condition, and determining the iteration/incrementation.

(b) Where both similarities and dif f erences, or where only similarities or only dif f erences, are
specifically required, this will be made clear in the question. This question did not ask specif ically
f or both similarities and differences, so candidates were able to gain the full marks by commenting
on either the similarities or the differences, or on both, between the use of two different JavaScript
loop constructs. While there was much confusion of the use of these loops, many candidates could
point out that both looped repeatedly through a block of code – the mark was f or the
repeatedly/iteration comment since ‘loop through a block of code’ was given in the question. Good
answers should have elaborated with comments about limits or stopping af ter a number of
iterations. Differences were less well described but some candidates could point out that a for in
loop is used to go through the properties of an object.

Question 2

This question was about the use of tools in image editing sof tware.

(a) There are many ways to remove ‘red eye’ f rom photographs, but the question required a
description of tools can be used to do so. Answers that described red eye reflection but not how to
remove it did not score marks. Good answers should have identif ied the tool, and the steps
f ollowed to remove red eye f rom the selection of the area and its recolouring.

(b) There are a number of ways to make the edges of objects clearer in photographic images. Good
answers concentrated on the objects rather than the whole image. The use of selection tools,
stroke, sharpen, adjusting f ilter radius or thresholds etc . were seen in good answers. As f or
Question 2(a) the steps that should be carried out using the tools should be included in description
of how such actions are carried out.

Question 3

This question asked candidates to describe the evaluation of a new sof tware application. An evaluation of
‘the ease of use’ was specifically mentioned in the question and candidates were asked to describe other
evaluations. Where questions ask f or ‘other’ ref erences, candidates must not ref er to those given in the
question. Answers about ‘ease of use’ theref ore did not gain any credit. There are two other areas of
evaluation given in the syllabus, so answers were expected f rom these. The question asked f or two other
evaluations so full marks could not be gained without mentioning two e.g. evaluating the application f or
ef f iciency in its use of resources and for how it meets user requirements. Good answers expanded on each
of these to give details of what would be evaluated or how the evaluations would be carried out.

Question 4

(a) This question asked candidates to draw a PERT (Perf ormance Evaluation and Review
Technique) chart using the details of a project given in a table. Since there are a number of ways to
draw a PERT chart, marks were awarded f or including the essential elements of a PERT chart.
Good answers used the appropriate symbols, labelling of tasks, durations and arrows and showed
the dependencies.

(b) Descriptions of PERT charts of costings did not answer the question. Good answer ref erred to the
use of PERT charts in showing dependencies, following calculations of timings including f loat and
overall durations.

Question 5

This question asked candidates to discuss the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care. At this level,
candidates are expected to be able to discuss this emerging technology accurately and, in some detail, but
weaker answers confused AI with expert systems or ‘robots’ and often attributed an autonomy to these that
does not exist e.g. diagnosing and prescribing medicines or robots that carry out precise surgery without
doctors being involved at all, or replacing humans in jobs such as nurses. Good answers described and
expanded upon the use of AI to enhance health practice e.g. it’s use in enhancing expert systems used by
doctors for diagnoses, used in analysing vast quantities of data in data mining to search f or patterns to

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

establish new treatments, enhancing the use of robotic vehicles or assistants in care facilities despite various
drawbacks e.g. the costs and the inability to deal with new, unf oreseen circumstances.

Question 6

This question asked candidates to consider how the use of tunnelling protocols in networking af f ects the
security of data.

(a) Good answers included references to the encapsulation of IP packets within other packets so that
they are disguised and are more private and to the use of tunnelling protocols to encrypt the
payload of other protocols when they are carried over public networks so that the contents are
hidden f rom or cannot be analysed by e.g. routers or f irewalls.

(b) Better answers referred to the consequences of encapsulation and encryption of the packets or the
packet contents e.g. bypassing firewall restrictions to make unauthorised connections references to
circumventing geo-restrictions did not answer this question unless there was a ref erence to data
security.

Question 7

This question asked candidates to describe phases in the data mining process. Many answers confused the
phases or described the use of data mining in a specific scenario e.g. credit card fraud these did not answer
the question. In questions such as these, candidates will only gain the higher marks by including accurate
details in their answers.

(a) Answers should have referred then collection of relevant data and its preparation f or use in a data
mining model e.g. removal of corrupt or inaccurate data, the cleaning of the data or selection of
data in terms of quality or quantity. Weaker answers described the use of the data to f ind trends
and patterns which is not part of this phase.

(b) Many candidates confused the use of the term evaluation as a phase in data mining with that in the
system life cycle. Also, there was confusion between evaluation of the model with evaluation of the
data itself or with the results of the data modelling. The evaluation phase in data modelling
evaluates the model against e.g. the success criteria set out when business understanding phase.

Question 8

This question was about the use of the parallel running method of implementing a new or replacement
system. The old system in the scenario was a standalone computer-aided design (CAD) system which was
to be replaced by a cloud-based CAD system. Responses that described CAD or cloud computing did not
answer the question. A good answer would have included descriptions and explanations of the benef its and
drawbacks to the company and the designers of using parallel running to change over f rom one system to
the other. The answer would have included the issue e.g. running both systems at the same time until the
new one completely takes over and commenting upon the consequences of this in terms of e.g. costs, time
and the af f ect on the designers work and work loads.

Question 9

This question was about animation.

(a) (i) Stop motion involves repeatedly photographing an object, moving it slightly and taking another
photograph to produce s a series of photographs which when shown in succession make the object
appear to move. Many candidates could describe this but there was a number that could not
describe it at all.

(ii) A key f rame holds and def ines all the parameters of the objects in a f rame. Adding a new key
f rame and altering the parameters makes the objects appear to move (or change). Adding f rames
in between the key f rames allows the illusion of movement. The better answers described this
concisely and in detail. To gain marks in such questions at this level, responses must be precise
and accurate.

(b) Many candidates gave the answer, correctly, as the speed of movement of change. A common
mistake was to ref er to timings, a repeat of the question.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Question 10

This question was about prototyping. Candidates were asked to evaluate the use of evolutionary prototyping
f or developing a data input screen for a database. The command word ‘evaluate’ requires a judgement of the
importance of the points being made about the method of prototyping. Weaker answers conf used the
methods of prototyping, made statements with no consequences, expansion, or judgments. To gain access
to the higher marks in this question, a good answer should include a point about the method of prototyping
e.g. the user continuously engages with the system throughout the process and then add a consequence on
this e.g. the effectiveness or ease of use of the screen is increased and adding ‘so the new screen is more
likely to meet the user requirements’ is a judgement. A full evaluation should include both arguments f or the
use of the method and arguments against its use. A concluding, overall judgment would also have been
given credit.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Paper 9626/33
Advanced Theory

Key messages

Candidates are expected to have a depth of knowledge of the subject topics. Questions can be set on any,
and all, areas of the A Level syllabus topic areas.

Questions are designed to give candidates the opportunity to demonstrate their wider understanding of the
syllabus topics to the Examiners. The different command words are used enable candidates to show that
they can not only recall, select, and communicate their knowledge of IT but can also, analyse and evaluate
IT issues using that knowledge.

It is important that candidates are able to customise their responses according to the command words in the
questions so that they can access the full range of marks available. Centres are reminded to advise their
candidates to target their responses to the command word used in the question and to ensure that they
actually answer the question as set. For example, where a question asks how a process is carried out e.g.
Question 2 where an explanation of how different types of test data are used in testing, marks would not be
available for a description of the actual data. The command word ‘explain’ requires reasons or supporting
evidence whereas a description does not require these. For example, Question 4 requires reasons why a
colour management system is needed so a description of a colour management systems (CMS) without e.g.
a reason why would not gain f ull credit.

General comments

Centres are advised to remind their candidates that they should not write answers based solely on words
that they have ‘spotted’ or on ‘key words’ in the question. Candidates must read the whole of each question
caref ully and apply their knowledge to the scenario in the question set. The f ull range of marks is only
available to candidates for answers referring to the scenario in the questions. For example, Question 6 (b)
was about the impact of the development of UHD televisions on the environment not about the impact on
viewing experience.

Candidates must be encouraged to attempt all questions. Even if the candidate knows little about the topic,
writing a f ew sentences, despite the previous comments about targeting command words, may gain valuable
marks towards the overall total.

Candidates should also be encouraged to write full sentences and discouraged f rom writing bulleted, short
statements in their responses. Descriptions or explanations can only be conveyed in f ull sentences.
Analyses, discussions, and evaluations should also be in f ull sentences to properly answer the question.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

This question was about the manipulation of strings in JavaScript.

(a) Many candidates could give the precise def inition of a string as a ‘sequence of characters’.

(b) Most candidates scored the mark with ‘enclose the characters in quotation marks’.

(c) (i) A common mistake was to repeat the question e.g. ‘concatenate the variables without describing
how. A good answer would describe the use of e.g. the concat() method and how it would be

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

used, or to describe how the variables could be joined using a + and a space to create the correct
sequence of words when displayed. Giving an example without a description did not allow the
award of f ull marks as it was not a description of ‘how’ the joining would be carried out.

(ii) There are a number of different ways to extract characters from strings or variables in JavaScript.
Marks were awarded for identif ying a correct method and describing its use. Many candidates
answered this correctly.

Question 2

This question was about the use of the dif f erent types of data rather than about the types of data
themselves. Answers that did not explain how the data would be used were not able to access the f ull range
of marks. As well as the use of the e.g. extreme, normal etc . types of data to test the f unctioning of the
system, a good answer should have referred to e.g. the use of the test data to see what error messages are
produced and the use of null data to test how the system reacts processes blank f ields .

Question 3

(a) This question asked candidates to describe what is meant by brightness in a bitmap image. A
precise description such as ‘the degree of pixel intensity’ was all that was required. Repeats of the
question e.g. ’how bright the image is’ did not gain credit.

(b) A precise description of contrast in a bitmap image such as ‘the dif f erence between a pixel’s
maximum and minimum intensity’ was all that was required.

(c) Colour balance refers to how the intensities of the diff erent colours in a bitmap image render the
image’s appearance under varying light conditions compared to a ‘neutral’ colour. Valid ref erences
to colour temperature and white balance were also accepted.

(d) In bitmap image terms, highlights can refer to spots of light giving visual clues to e.g. the shape or
the location of an object, or to the light source.

Question 4

This question asked candidates to explain why a colour management system is needed in computer
graphics. Weaker answers that stated ‘to make the colours look better or interesting’ did not gain credit.
Answers that described a CMS without explaining why it is required could not gain full marks. Good answers
included those that referred to a CMS being needed because colour is dependent on the device or medium
monitor displaying the colour and explaining that they are used to ensure that colours are displayed looking
the same on the dif f erent media or devices.

Question 5

This question asked candidates to justify the use of the agile method of software development when creating
an app f or smartphones. This required candidates to describe the process of the agile method and give
reasons why it would be used. To access the f ull mark range, answers should make a point about the
method and then give a reason e.g. the app can have f eatures added or removed more easily because a
customer gives feedback during development, and this can improve the app quality. It is the reasons that
gain most credit in questions that ask f or ‘justif y’.

Question 6

This question asked candidates about ultra-high def inition television (UHD), an emerging technology.

(a) A concise description of UHD television technology was required.

(b) The question was about the impact of UHD television technology on the environment not on the
user. Weak answers referred to how it affects user experience when viewing TV e.g. health issues
which did not answer the question. The better answers were those that focused on describing the
environmental impacts of the effect of mining for the metals required in production, the increased
resources need to provide the infrastructure for UHD TV streaming or broadcast to the home and
the disposal of older TV sets.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Question 7

This question was about system flowcharts. In both Question 7(a) and Question 7(b) there was conf usion
between the symbols used in system f low charts and those used in data f low diagrams.

While it is accepted that there are variations on the use of symbols and their naming in system f lowcharts, it
is expected that f or the purposes of this syllabus that the symbols shown in the syllabus be used.

(a) (i) The symbol is used to represent multiple document output.

(ii) The symbol is used to represent a magnetic disk f ile.

(b) Candidates were expected to draw one other symbol that would be used in a system f lowchart.
Most candidates could neatly draw a system flowchart symbol and describe its use, but many drew
symbols that were either unclear or f ound in charts other than system f lowcharts.

Question 8

Most candidates discussed data mining by businesses in depth in a structured way as required by the
command word. Some very good answers were seen. However, some candidates produced answers that
described the data mining process rather than its use. To gain access to the f ull mark range, candidates
must answer the question as set. Answers should have included references to a use and expansions on the
point e.g. data mining allows businesses to collect reliable information for use in marketing research so they
can determine the products that interest customers make those products available f or sale and e.g. data
mining helps businesses find patterns in their data to evaluate their own policies and procedures to f ind out
how ef f ective these are. Responses that only make a point e.g. ‘data mining can be used to discover
trends/patterns in customer buying’ without any further expansion is not ‘in depth’ or structured as required
by the command word so cannot be awarded more than a f ew marks in total.

Question 9

Most candidates explained the drawbacks of using social media to advertise commercial products. Some
very good answers were seen. However, some candidates included benef its of using social media, some
described social media use by individuals, and some gave generic answers about access to social media
none of which were required by the question. This question illustrated the need f or candidates to read the
whole question and focus their answers on the information given in the scenario of the question. The higher
marks were only accessible to candidates who concentrated their answers on advertising by businesses.

Question 10

This question was about the dif f erent types and methods of animation.

(a) A description should state the main points of a topic or give characteristics or f eatures. Most
candidates could state the name, but f ew could provide a proper description. A good answer
should include e.g. that CGI is Computer Generated Imagery (or Images) that creates special
ef f ects or adds backgrounds to movies or TV programmes.

(b) Cel animation, while mostly superseded by computer sof tware methods, is listed f irst in the
methods noted in the syllabus and should be studied along with the other animation methods.

(i) Some good descriptions were seen but many could not correctly describe this method of animation.

(ii) Many candidates could answer this question and gain at least one mark. As mentioned above,
explanations should include ‘reasons’ e.g. computer animation sof tware uses key f rames so can
create animation sequences with greater accuracy and realism of movements compared to
manually drawn cel animations.

Question 11

This question was about the consequences of , and prevention of , unauthorised access to data.

(a) Most candidates could answer this question, but many did not give suf f icient detail of the
dif ference. A good answer would have included a description of one and then described how the

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

other differs e.g. data manipulation changes the format of the data but does not change the f actual
content, but data modif ication changes the f actual content to a dif f erent value.

(b) This question was answered well by most candidates. However, some candidates included
physical methods which were not required. The question asked for methods, in plural, so at least
two methods were required from candidates to gain f ull marks. Some very good answers were
seen with a range of software methods included, each being expanded upon and judgments made
about the effectiveness of the method. In questions where an evaluation is, or evaluations are,
required, the judgement can be f or individual points or f or an overall judgement on the whole
content of the answer.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Paper 9626/04
Advanced Practical

Key messages

In terms of basic skills, it seems that most candidates were well prepared f or this session but there were a
number of common issues that indicate that candidates need a greater depth of experience if they are to
aspire to the higher grades.

For this session, the main issues f or centres to bear in mind are:

• Candidates need to be sufficiently familiar with the concept of modelling; centres would benef it f rom
providing more practice with similar tasks.
• Candidates need to be aware of the use of chart sheets as opposed to adding the chart to a worksheet .
• The importance of extensive experience and practice with the use of selection and masking tools .
• The need to stress the importance of examining details shown in graphics tasks very closely and that
f inal images must match examples shown very accurately .
• Candidates need experience of the creation and use paths in animations .
• The problem-solving elements of tasks that seemed to cause the most problems f or candidates.

General comments

Most elements of the data task proved accessible to all candidates but the last stage of the task, showed that
many needed more f amiliarity with the concept of modelling and more practice with similar tasks.

The graphics and animation tasks showed that while almost all candidates were able to demonstrate the
necessary basic skills, many of their attempts at the necessary ref inements, lacked accuracy and did not
match the details shown in the question paper with suf f icient precision.

Complete solutions f or Task 4 were rarely seen and this is an area that candidates can improve on.

Comments on specific questions

Task 1

Full solutions to the initial break-even task were f ew. The solution required the use of the ‘Goal Seek’
f unction. The task instructed candidates not to use the trial and error method. There were no marks for only a
close result.

The marketing scenario element required amendment to the referencing in the unhidden f ormula. This was
clearly understood and carried out accurately by most candidates. The extension of the table did not prove
dif ficult to most and when completed, all candidates managed to create a chart. The chart needed to be
shown in a ‘chart sheet’, however, and not just added to a worksheet.

Formatting the chart was another important element. Setting a secondary axis was often completed but the
major issue was configuring the axis values and all the titles as shown. Candidates need to be aware that
f ulf illing simple formatting requirements is essential and this is an area that candidates can improve on.

The f inal part of the task, modelling, was potentially the simplest and candidates need to realise that this only
required manual entry of the advertising amounts given and manual recording of the resulting maximum
prof it in a table.

© 2024
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
9626 Inf ormation Technology November 2024
Principal Examiner Report f or Teachers

Candidates need experience in recognising the problem-solving elements and this is an area that candidates
can improve on.

Task 2

The graphics task only required candidates to carry out the specified steps. Marks were therefore gained f or
the accuracy of their solutions.

To avoid cumulative errors and imprecisions, the task was best tackled using layers since the layers not
being worked upon could be hidden in order to concentrate on the correct stage. From their f inal images it
was difficult to tell which candidates used layers eff iciently, but successf ul candidates showed they were
aware of the importance of matching the image shown in the question paper very closely.

Removing the figure in the sea was carried out by all, but the sea had to be repaired with precision. The
concentric ripples needed to appear uninterrupted, and no other elements of the scene should have been
af f ected.

The next step was to recolour the image as greyscale and cut out the sky. The greyscale required only the
use of a simple application menu option, but cutting out the sky required a lot of care. Successful candidates
took time to make sure that elements were cleanly cut. It was important that the mast of the boat and the
headland and trees were clearly defined. The use of selection and masking tools are skills that candidates
can improve on.

The replacement sky with the correct gradient was carried out well, particularly if a background layer was
used to f ill the extracted area.

Most candidates managed to recolour the sea and the sand with a 40 per cent opaque blue layer. It was
important to ensure the layer only covered the sea and the sand.

The next steps were to include the moon with a halo, add some stars and position some lights as shown in
the question paper. Recolouring the moon to silver proved no problem for candidates but the proportions of
the moon, the halo and the stars needed caref ul attention.

The f inal step of adding the reflection of the moon in the sea involved selecting the silver components f rom
the source image. Most candidates extracted the solid silver core, but it was important to accurately select all
the detail required. Again, the skilful use of selection tools was the key to success with this part of the task.

Task 3

All candidates made a f air attempt at the animation. There were, however, a f ew common issues.

The earth and axis images needed to be consistently aligned whilst the earth image rotated to face the focus
of the ellipse. Of ten the axis was seen to be f ixed and rotated as well.

The earth plus axis image had to f ollow a path to match the example. Animating the image in small
increments in an attempt to match the correct path was insuf f icient. This was particularly clear with the
rotation of the earth plus axis image which would then just jump between angles.

The appearance to the required text at the correct points and timings proved no problem but it should be
noted that matching the f ont and f ont size was important as well.

Task 4

There were very f ew fully working solutions f or this task, but many candidates made a f air attempt and
earned marks f or use of the correct code elements.

Almost all were f amiliar with editing an external JavaScript f ile and the techniques f or hiding and showing
HTML elements. A few candidates created problems for themselves by renaming the external .js file and not
ref erencing it accurately in the HTML. Although this meant that their solution could not work, they could still
earn marks f or the code.

In general, the main problem for candidates seemed to be the logic of the sequence required to display the
correct buttons and text and this is an area that candidates can improve on.

© 2024