9626 · June 2023
Information Technology
Candidates are reminded that brand names for software and other items should not be used in responses. This is unlikely to change, and therefore candidates should be learning the proper terms for software and specialist items of hardware.
Source: Cambridge International
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
No data available in official reports
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
At this level of study, candidates are expected to demonstrate more than just general knowledge and should be able to provide more detailed answers than would be expected at GCSE.
Most questions require a better technical understanding of the ICT terms and their applications than at the GCSE level.
Some of the questions proved to be more challenging this year for all candidates, although the paper's difficulty level was similar to previous years.
It is important that the correct technical terms are used appropriately, and the correct steps are used in analysing the ICT processes.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
9626/11
Theory 11
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
No data available in official reports
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology June 2023 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2023 repeat their arguments with different wording or explanations. Any valid point may only be awarded once, so we recommend a better strategy for using the time during the examination. Candidates are also reminded that where handwriting cannot be read, whilst every effort is made to interpret the candidate’s answer, where the answer is illegible, marks cannot be awarded. Comments on specific questions Question 1 (a) Most candidates gave good answers to this question. One common mistake is considering that encrypted data is unreadable without a key, which is one advantage of encrypting the data. Since encrypted data is a sequence of letters, numbers, or other characters, it is actually readable. However, because the original data is scrambled, its meaning is hidden, making it impossible to understand or interpret. (b) This question was actually about how data may be misused. Most candidates realised this and gave answers that focused on identity theft. However, candidates lost marks despite showing some understanding because they did not give the right explanation. Typically, candidates missed some marks by suggesting that losing bank account details would cause losing funds. This answer is not enough. Candidates need to be, at least, talking about bank accounts and credit card numbers for this answer to be acceptable. Having correctly identified that loss of a, for example, credit card number would have an implication, candidates need to state something more than ‘money will be lost’. Question 2 This question is one instance where using trade names directly hindered candidates. As mentioned above, trade names are ignored in examination. Therefore, giving an answer solely based on the trade name, the sentence made little sense or not. However, where the trade name was used as an example of an already identified generic device, removing the trade name did not affect the clarity of the answer. Candidates generally had some idea of what was meant by a Smart Home, and some candidates' answers showed a deep understanding and an approach one would expect to work at this level. However, there were instances where the answers were quite vague about how the devices are controlled within the Smart House. Question 3 Few candidates scored marks on this question, showing a good understanding of compilers. Typically, candidates stated that a compiler was slow, expensive, or had to compile every time the program was being run. Sometimes, candidates knew fully that compilers only compile for one operating system, and gave excellent answers that fully justified the award of three marks. Question 4 (a) As with other questions that focus on the digital divide and its causes, few candidates attempted to answer the question as written. The most common mistake is introducing different causes with little or no reference to the impact of the level of industrialisation. No marks are awarded on those answers, so candidates lost valuable time during the examination. Where candidates were aware that different causes for the digital divide exist and were able to focus on the impact of industrialisation, answers were fair, although often quite vague. Typically, candidates achieved marks for mentioning differences in infrastructure but then failed to expand on the nature of the infrastructure. (b) Many candidates seemed to feel that this question was an opportunity to either repeat their previous answer or give answers that were so vague as to have been able to fit any scenario. This is disappointing, because amongst the vague answers, there were some that were on their way to being correct. For example, some candidates focused on an inability to talk to family members. This is clearly not enough, but if, as is probably the case, the candidate meant to say that people
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology June 2023 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2023 are unable to communicate with family members via web enabled devices, for example, this would have been awarded the mark. In fact, in many cases, had candidates approached this question with more concentration and more fully answered the question, far more marks would have been awarded. In all such questions where candidates have to describe the effects of a form of digital divide, candidates would be advised to consider whether an answer based on the divide getting ever wider may be the basis of a suitable answer. Question 5 (a) Few candidates identified validation and sorting for this answer. (b) Questions such as this are asked fairly regularly. The question clearly states that the candidate should list the steps involved when a master file is updated using a transaction file. Despite this, few candidates described the steps, and few described a process of updating a master file from a transaction file. This would suggest that very few understood the relationship between the two. This may be disappointing, as the actual process of comparison, identification and updating is relatively straightforward and the range of possible answers and marks far outweighed the actual marks available for the question. Where candidates did attempt the question with a degree of understanding, the answers were often very confused. Candidates tended to ignore Product ID numbers as the identifying factor for each record and tended to confuse the term file for record. Question 6 (a) This question appeared to cause some confusion. At its most simple, the question is about what needs to be decided before one backs up data held on a server. In such a case, what, where, and when would appear to be fairly straightforward foci for the answer to the question. Where candidates focused on all or some of these themes, there were some good answers. Unfortunately, some candidates included superfluous content, including an in-depth discussion of what is meant by the term ‘back-up’, as well as a discussion of choosing the software to do the back up and from where this was best downloaded. Candidates also discussed the need for compression as part of the back-up process. Again, this discussion was irrelevant to the question asked here. (b) Arguably, this question’s focus on compression may have led to some of the confusion shown by candidates in the previous question. However, the question clearly states that compression will be carried out before the back-up process begins. This should have served to remove any doubt in candidates’ minds that compression was a constituent part of the process of creating a back-up. This question requires a better technical understanding of compression. In a few cases, candidates mentioned lossy and lossless compression, but then, generally, failed to give any further technical understanding of the processor their impact on the audio files. Question 7 This question required candidates to be able to describe the collection, processing, and display of data. As a question, it posed various problems for candidates, many of which are fairly easily remedied. Firstly, candidates should avoid repeating the question. As candidates were asked to describe how a system collects data, their answer had to avoid relying on the word ‘collect’. Terms such as ‘gather’ were acceptable. The repetition of the question is a common error in this paper, and candidates are recommended to have a range of alternative terms they can use to explain simple concepts such as data gathering. Secondly, not all candidates linked the context of the question to the main focus. Measurement of pollution is a frequent focus for this paper. Few candidates were able to clearly describe the variables that would be
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology June 2023 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2023 measured, or the sensors that would do so. As a result, descriptions of the process of data collection were not gaining all marks. Some candidates addressed the process by which data would be processed and then gave the results of any processing far more authority than it deserved. Typically, sensors collect values. These values may trigger events, such as in an alarm system, or may be collated into sets so statistical analysis may be carried out. In the case of pollution, data that is collected can be analysed to measure maximum, minimum and average values. From these, further analysis may be carried out, but this is not part of the process of collecting or processing data. Question 8 Where candidates had a good understanding of how flowcharts are constructed, they did very well on this question. However, where they did not, they tended to score very poorly, if at all. Candidates are reminded that all decision boxes must have a Yes and a No output (True and False are acceptable) and that they should use mathematical expression rather than text in their boxes. For example, the term ‘is x between 5 and 10’ is not acceptable. Question 9 Some candidates knew this topic in great depth and gave full answers that fully deserved the high marks awarded. This is an important part of this syllabus and candidates would be advised to ensure that they have a sound understanding of different ways in which they may protect themselves in a range of differing scenarios. Question 10 This question again requested an adequate level of technical understanding by candidates. Few candidates were able to give a working definition of sampling resolution and to describe how it was used. Question 11 This question gave candidates the opportunity to show what they knew about methods of collecting data and many took the opportunity in their stride. There were some very good answers to the question, albeit occasionally beset by the issue of repetition. Repetition of points is a frequent issue with this paper and this instance was no exception. Some candidates attempted to define the term ‘direct data source’ and of those about half gave a good definition.
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology June 2023 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2023 work for these marks. Furthermore, in an apparent attempt to fill their answers with points, some candidates repeat their arguments with different wording or explanations. Any valid point may only be awarded once, so we recommend a better strategy for using the time during the examination. Candidates are also reminded that where handwriting cannot be read, whilst every effort is made to interpret the candidate’s answer, where the answer is illegible, marks cannot be awarded. Comments on specific questions Question 1 (a) Most learners understood what indirect and direct sources are or the difference between them. Learners identified that any data may be out of date; this may be considered a generic answer to any question about the validity of data. However, fewer candidates focused on the context of the question. When faced with a question that has a clear context, learners should take this as an opportunity to apply their understanding in the particular context. In this case, learners' understanding should be about the factors that affect the relevance of data, while the context was to create a study of the average number of family members in a local area. Therefore, the candidates had to explain why an electoral register would not give the statistics required. In a few cases, candidates expanded on their discussions of the electoral register to consider who would actually be on it. Sometimes, they mistakenly argued that people who choose not to vote would not be on it, while also realising that younger people would not. Other candidates expanded on their realisation that data would be out of date by stating that some people may have moved to a different address or died, both of which were acceptable. Their discussion on whether the people who had been born should be included or not, was not acceptable, as these people would not be included on the electoral register until many years after their birth. (b) Indirect sources given were often inexact or wrong. Question 2 The question was generally well answered, although there was sometimes some confusion between private and public keys. The majority of candidates were aware that the process involved a single, private key and that this was shared between the sender and the receiver, with a few achieving an extra mark for a suitable description of encryption. However, having completed an introductory paragraph on symmetric encryption, many candidates then went on to compare symmetric and asymmetric encryption, despite this not being the question. Question 3 This question required candidates to compare two key concepts within the syllabus in an almost academic exercise. Typically, candidates knew that batch processing collected data together and then dealt with groups of data, although some candidates attempted to describe this by referring to the term ‘batch’ which was not accepted. This was then compared to online processing, which was recognised as being a more immediate process. Occasionally, candidates discussed error handling, or focused on the direct communication between the user and a central computer. Where they did so, explanations of these points tended to be lacking in detail. Question 4 This question was intended to explore reasons why personal data should be kept confidential. Whilst the question was presented within the context of the use of personal media, this was of secondary importance, but still relevant. Some candidates answered this question well, however, there were answers which required more details. For example, candidates who wish to argue that sharing bank card numbers and associated details can be
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology June 2023 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2023 problematic, need to be precise in their terminology. Referrals to ‘card details’ are too vague, as this could be anything, including colour and size of such cards. Most candidates identified identity theft as a consequence of personal data loss, whilst others focused on the consequence of a person’s address becoming known. Whilst there is an answer based on an address being known – specifically when one also comments that one is also on a foreign holiday – many highly inventive consequences were wrongly claimed as being a potential direct consequence of sharing an address on social media. Question 5 Most marks were achieved for identifying that a device driver is a piece of software that allows communication between the printer and the computer, without which the printer would not be able to carry out its allotted task, but few answers went beyond this. Where candidates did progress beyond these introductory points, their answers focused on the role of a device driver in acting as a translator between the device and the computer. The most common mistake here is to consider a device driver to be a piece of hardware. Question 6 (a) Few candidates answered this question well, and they understood what infrared and ultrasonic sensors measured. Other learners mentioned a burglar alarm for the infrared sensor use, which indicated they were aware of it but not in the detail needed to answer the question. A few learners were able to state that an ultrasonic sensor is used to measure distance. Many incorrectly quoted they are used in scanning unborn babies. A few thought that the sensors were emitting sound or heat. (b) This was another question where an awareness of context was vital to candidates achieving higher marks. Candidates could see this question as having two separate foci. Firstly, the focus was on the replacement of human beings by control technologies, whilst the second focus was on the use of control technology to operate car park barriers and traffic lights. Candidates generally appreciated that control technologies are expensive to install and maintain, and that they were able to work 24 hours a day without a break, but then answers became quite vague. For example, there was a great deal of reference to workers being made unemployed, with no indication as to which workers would be affected. Clearly, for some workers, the widescale introduction of control technology would lead to an increase in employment and so generalised reference to unemployment without any identification of the workers affected, was not awarded. Other candidates focused on traffic accidents, or accuracy of movement around a car park, both of which were irrelevant. Question 7 This question proved to be confusing for some candidates. Some of their answers were not focused on different socioeconomic groups. A lot of answers were on comparing urban and rural areas, old and young and different classes. Some candidates did mention rich and poor people and access to technology, but then failed to expand on this to discuss types of technology affected by differing levels of income. Question 8 (a) This was another question that relied heavily on a technical understanding of the syllabus and could realistically be expected to be answered from definitions learnt as part of the course overall. Most candidates achieved a mark for identifying forms of normalisation and their answers missed other details. Some candidates were aware that normalisation reduced duplication of data within a database, but many candidates simply identified a reduction in duplication, without referring to ‘data’. Other candidates stated that normalisation broke data up into separate tables and then attempted to describe the atomisation of data, but such answers were frequently not detailed enough to get all the marks.
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology June 2023 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2023 (b) Candidates struggled with this answer. Some candidates identified that a normalised database would require reduced storage space and gave good answers. Other candidates identified this, but then gave vague answers that were not awarded. Where candidates confused ‘memory’ and ‘storage’, marks were not awarded. Candidates were allowed to again state that there was no redundant/duplicate data, and many did. Quite a few candidates identified that if data is changed in one table, the related field is updated in other tables, but this answered again suffered from a lack of clarity. Question 9 The topic of expert systems is frequently assessed in this paper, albeit in different guises and with different foci. Most learners attempted this question and scored marks, so it was generally well answered, and the theme understood. Common answers stated that doctors entered the symptoms into the system; the system asked questions and then gave a diagnosis. Many were also successful in correctly identifying a number of the components of an expert system, although some had issues with their spelling of inference engine, mistaking it for an interference engine. A good number of candidates were aware of the If... then... rules and were able to explain how these were used to come to a reasoned conclusion. However, many mistakes were made in trying to explain how the diagnoses are output to the doctor and what the doctor does to choose or reject the answer. Where candidates stated that the expert system only producing one diagnosis, this was not awarded. A few learners discussed this as a general answer and failed to go into any detail, so therefore gained few marks if any. Question 10 Where candidates had a fair degree of knowledge about algorithms, this question was fairly accessible and was generally answered well. For the other candidates, this question proved to be difficult. Of those who did attempt the question with a degree of understanding, common mistakes were: • Repeating the code from the start. Whilst this did not affect marks overall, this was not required. • Placing items in the wrong order, so, for example, the OUTPUT not being the final statement. • Confusing variables, so that the variable smallest, identified in the given section of code, was not used as the value holder for the smallest value. • Failure to close IF statements with ENDIF statements. • Failure to use mathematical reasoning in the pseudocode.
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
No data available in official reports
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
No data available in official reports
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
No data available in official reports
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
No data available in official reports
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
No data available in official reports
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
No data available in official reports
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Self-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
At this level of study, candidates are expected to demonstrate more than just general knowledge and should be able to provide more detailed answers than would be expected at GCSE.
- 2Message
Most questions require a better technical understanding of the ICT terms and their applications than at the GCSE level.
- 3Message
Some of the questions proved to be more challenging this year for all candidates, although the paper's difficulty level was similar to previous years.
- 4Message
It is important that the correct technical terms are used appropriately, and the correct steps are used in analysing the ICT processes.
- 5Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology June 2023
- 6Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology June 2023
- 7Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology June 2023
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
June 2023 2023
Information Technology
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9626 Information Technology June 2023 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2023 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Paper 9626/11 Theory 11 Key messages At this level of study, candidates are expected to demonstrate more than
At this level of study, candidates are expected to demonstrate more than just general knowledge and should be able to provide more detailed answers than would be expected at GCSE.
Most questions require a better technical understanding of the ICT terms and their applications than at the GCSE level.
Some of the questions proved to be more challenging this year for all candidates, although the paper's difficulty level was similar to previous years.
Examiner insights
General comments
- •Candidates are reminded that brand names for software and other items should not be used in responses.
- •This is unlikely to change, and therefore candidates should be learning the proper terms for software and specialist items of hardware.
- •Where trade names are found, these are ignored.
- •This often resulted in marks being lost, as, without the trade name, answers often made no sense.
- •The use of brand names by candidates remains one aspect of candidates’ performance that has a disproportionally high impact on candidates’ performance.