A wide spectrum of the syllabus was covered. Students with a good overall knowledge of the subject would have done well in this section.
Q1 the obligatory question, required students to analyse a table, this task has appeared on the paper for the last 9 years. The nutrient examined in this question was carbohydrate, which was widely anticipated by students.
Question 2 was a departure from recent years in that it combined questions on a food group and another nutrient. Whereas it was unexpected, students were happy, as the question reflected the time devoted to studying nutrients over the last two years.
Question 4 was a challenging question. The examiners obsession with household finance, to the exclusion of equally valid sections of the syllabus is mystifying. The choice of questions in this section would have rescued many candidates for Q4.
Question 5 – A reasonable question, the Childcare Act 1991 was examined for the first time.
Since 2004 Housing has featured on Elective 1 – however this year the topic was not examined, which was a relief to many students. However in Q1 a) iii) the phrases ‘control’ and ‘thermal comfort’ may have caused some confusion among candidates.
The topic of household ventilation duly appeared in Q1 b) this topic had not appeared on the paper since 2004. The question itself was very accessible.
Q1 c) would have challenged students, the question was very broad, candidates were required to be very selective and disciplined in their answers.
The Unemployment question was topical and a sensibly presented. Parts b) and c) were both fair questions.
With a few exceptions the language used throughout the paper was very clear, there was no ambiguity. Students that had done the work, left the exam centre happy.
The Short questions were appropriate.
Overall it was a very accessible and reasonable examination of the candidate’s knowledge, with the minor exception of Q3 c) a question that would be more appropriate for Higher level candidates.