SSABSA

SENIOR SECONDARY ASSESSMENT BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

BIOLOGY
2000
ASSESSMENT REPORT

Science Learning Area

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CERTIFICATE OF EDUCATION

BIOLOGY
2000 ASSESSMENT REPORT

The 2000 examination was the first examination on the new syllabus. The mean score for the
examination was 53.7%, which compares with previous means of 59.6% (1999), 54.1% (1998), 57.0%
(1997), and 58.2% (1996). The mean mark or higher was obtained by 51.5% of the candidates and the
range of examination marks was from 9 to 192 out of 200. The slightly lower than normal mean could
be attributed to a number of factors such as:

the level of difficulty of the examination;

the degree of familiarity with the syllabus;

changes made to both the structure and the marking of Section D.

The mean marks for Sections A, B, C, and D were 57.6% (Section A), 53.1% (Section B), 62.8%
(Section C), and 46.7% (Section D).

SECTION A: MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS

Six candidates scored full marks in Section A. The facility for a question is the percentage of
candidates who gave the correct response. The mean facility for the multiple-choice questions was
57.9%. The mean of facilities and range of facilities for each of the last five years are shown in the
table below:
Year

2000
1999
1998
1997
1996

Mean
Facility
(%)
57.9
58.7
68.3
56.8
56.8

Range
(%)
24 to 95
33 to 88
23 to 90
19 to 87
20 to 84

It was the intention of the setters to include a variety of questions, from the simple recall of definitions
(e.g. Question 21) through to problem-solving questions in which candidates were required to apply
their biological knowledge to solve an unfamiliar situation (e.g. Questions 5 and 11). Most questions
were intentionally discriminating so that the poorer candidates would be likely to choose the four
responses with equal frequency, whereas the more capable candidates would show a distinct preference
for the correct response. A very pleasing aspect of Section A in 2000 was that the top 10% of the
candidates chose the correct response to every question and the top 60% or more of the candidates
chose the correct response to nearly all the questions.
The table on page 2 indicates the correct response to each of the questions in Section A and the
percentage of responses to each alternative in each question.

COMMENTS ON SELECTED MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS

Question 5
The strong support for response L indicated that many candidates either did not read the definition of
the term marker given under the diagram or were unable to interpret the information provided in the
diagram.

Biology 2000 Assessment Report

Question 6
The difference between the terms accuracy and precision seemed to be well understood, as
relatively few candidates selected response J. However, the significance of the intended student
outcome Record data from an experiment to an appropriate degree of precision seemed to be well
understood only by the very best candidates.
Question 11
This proved to be a good discriminating question: the top 50% of the candidates correctly chose
response K, whereas the bottom 50% preferred either J or M. Candidates are expected to recognise the
chemical formulae that appear in the syllabus.
Question 12
Did the relatively high percentage of candidates who incorrectly chose response L ignore the bolded
and italicised incorrect in the stem of the question, or did they simply not know that specific gene
products inside cells regulate the onset of division?
Question 18
This question was tackled surprisingly well, with only the bottom 10% of candidates preferring a
response other than K. The terms mitosis, meiosis, fertilisation, crossing over, and independent
assortment have been confused by many candidates in previous years.
Question 20
The principles that underlie natural selection continue to elude the poorer candidates, with the bottom
30% having a preference for response K.
Multiple-Choice Analysis
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Correct
Answer
L
L
K
M
J
K
M
L
L
K
K
J
L
J
L
L
M
K
M
M
J
M
K
J
K

Percentage of Responses for Each Alternative

J
K
L
M
11
19
65
4
2
25
70
3
26
58
6
10
12
26
11
51
24
6
61
9
12
36
3
50
2
2
1
95
4
18
72
6
9
13
66
12
11
47
14
28
23
35
16
26
36
19
33
13
13
17
51
19
91
4
1
4
8
11
73
8
14
16
47
24
15
20
5
60
13
72
3
13
27
16
21
35
6
27
9
58
55
16
27
2
8
21
7
64
7
70
10
13
58
5
20
17
10
58
4
28

Biology 2000 Assessment Report

SECTION B: SHORT-ANSWER QUESTIONS

In general in this section 2 marks are allocated for one well-expressed piece of information. Questions
that require an explanation are worth 4 marks and therefore, in order to obtain full marks, candidates
must supply two relevant and connected pieces of information.
Questions that require candidates to state the name of a syllabus term often have a communication
mark associated with them. A candidate who provides a correct answer but misspells a syllabus term is
penalised by the loss of 1 mark.
The mean marks for the questions in Section B are shown in the table below:
Question
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Total

Mean Mark / Maximum Mark

6.62/10
4.83/8
3.33/8
2.16/4
2.94/6
3.18/10
2.78/8
3.53/6
3.33/6
5.35/12
4.45/6
5.34/8
5.30/8
53.14/100

Mean Mark (%)

66.2
60.4
41.6
53.9
49.0
31.8
34.8
58.8
55.5
44.6
74.2
66.7
66.2
53.1

Question 26
Most students knew the structure of DNA, and understood DNA replication and the structure of a gene.
Common errors included matching the A with a U or omitting the sugar-phosphate spine in the
complementary DNA strand. Many candidates had only vague notions about the function of a gene.
Question 27
This question was generally answered well, with most students showing some understanding of
molecular biology.
Answers to part (a) were spelt accurately.
There were some excellent descriptions of membrane receptors in answers to part (b).
Candidates expression tended to be poor in answers to part (c), but they understood the concept.
Question 28
The induced-fit model of enzyme-substrate binding was not well understood. Most candidates
described how the binding occurs at the active site of the enzyme but were unable to proceed further.
Only the better candidates were able to use the induced-fit model of enzyme-substrate binding to state
how enzymes lower the activation energy required for a reaction.
Question 29
It was not clear from many of the responses whether or not candidates understood that cancer is
uncontrolled cell growth. Only the better candidates linked the study of cell death to cancer.
Question 30
Most candidates knew the equation for photosynthesis but fewer were able to demonstrate
understanding of the conversion of light energy into chemical energy.

Biology 2000 Assessment Report

Candidates explanation of the dependence of heterotrophs on photosynthesis was not well developed
or very sophisticated. Responses ranged from energy considerations to trophic levels, oxygen
production, and organic molecule production.
Question 31
Candidates generally had a sound understanding of the role of the cytoskeleton in a cell but a very poor
understanding of the process of osmosis. When answering this type of problem-solving question,
students are advised to try to visualise the situation, and then to apply their biological knowledge to the
context of the question. This question involves water movement, and that should have given candidates
a clue that they should examine concentration gradients in order to explain the increase in water in the
large intestine.
Part (b)(ii) was answered slightly better, but many candidates failed to use the blood as a connecting
medium between the exchange surfaces in the digestive system and the excretory system.
Question 32
This question was not answered well; many students confused mitosis and meiosis, and haploid and
diploid. Part (b) responses indicated a lack of problem-solving skill, and only the better candidates
were able to see the context of this question. The details of binary fission were not known well.
Question 33
This relatively straightforward question involved the interpretation of data. The weaker candidates
expression and interpretation of the situation were inadequate.
Poor expression and lack of understanding of ethical views prevented many students from gaining full
credit for their answers.
Question 34
Part (a) was generally answered well. Candidates who wrote incorrect responses commonly referred to
giving strength or structure to the alveoli. Common responses to part (b) included words such as thin,
moist, and large surface areas, usually with an appropriate explanations of function. Inappropriate
responses given by candidates often included references to semi-permeability or some aspect of active
transport.
Question 35
Incorrect responses to part (a) were commonly 2 or 8, showing candidates lack of understanding of the
term diploid. Most candidates knew that homologous chromosomes have the same size and shape but
their knowledge of the genetic composition of homologous chromosomes was less satisfactory. Many
candidates suggested that the homologous chromosomes were genetically identical. Candidates
obviously confused homologous chromosomes and sister chromatids.
A common error made by candidates in part (c) was to show two sets of paired chromatids that were
apparently the same size and shape. Of the two acceptable explanations of why the products of meiosis
are haploid, a discussion of the process of formation of haploid cells by meiosis was the more
successfully handled. Those candidates who discussed gamete formation and fertilisation often omitted
to mention the need to maintain chromosome number from generation to generation. There is a widely
held view among candidates that haploid means 23 and diploid means 46.
Question 36
Part (a) was answered well, except that some candidates only mentioned the term resource and did
not give an example. Most responses to part (b) included appropriate discussion of
increased life span, decreased mortality rate, and so on. Incorrect responses often
included comments about the lack of birth control in Third World countries. Some
responses, such as improved technology, were too general to receive full credit. Part (c)
was answered well.

Biology 2000 Assessment Report

Question 37
Very few candidates seemed to understand the term range. Of those who recognised the term, many
correctly identified either the upper limit or the lower limit, but not both. Part (b) was done well
except by candidates who confused abiotic and biotic factors.
Most answers to part (c)(i) were appropriate, although few candidates related the
information in the graph to their answer. Many candidates discussed predators or other
animals, specifically mountain goats. Part (c)(ii) was generally answered well, although a
number of candidates failed to connect the biotic factor chosen in part (i) to the low
number of blackberries at 1200 metres.
Question 38
Most candidates were aware of different reproductive strategies used by different species
and referred to large numbers of offspring, and many gave an appropriate second
feature. Part (b) was generally answered well although several candidates discussed the
impact of locusts on producers, without discussing the effect on other first-order
consumers, as specified by the question. Other candidates showed little understanding of
the term first-order consumers.

SECTION C: PRACTICAL QUESTION

This was the first Biology examination to include a practical response section. This section had the
highest mean of the examination, suggesting that candidates generally were familiar with experimental
skills. It is interesting to note that the performance of candidates in this section of the paper was often
significantly different from their performance in the other sections.
Most candidates were able to state a hypothesis by making a specific and testable statement that related
the concentration of ATP to the rate of its breakdown. However, in some parts of the question, as well
as in a number of hypotheses, candidates confused independent and dependent variables. The most
common incorrect response to part (b), concentration of ATP, was an indication of this
confusion.
Most candidates were able to identify a quantity that would have to be kept constant in the
experiment, but had difficulty in correctly answering the more general part (c)(ii). Many
candidates gave vague answers such as so that the experiment is done correctly, and did
not discuss the importance of eliminating unwanted variables. Some desperate answers
included references to accuracy or precision.
Part (d) was also answered poorly. The better answers included reference to the
reduction of random errors or to the replication of procedures. Many candidates gave
partially correct answers by discussing the advantages of averaging results. The graph in
part (e) was done fairly well. Candidates commonly made errors such as reversing axes,
giving incorrect scales, and ignoring the instruction to draw a curve of best fit.
Curiously, a number of candidates tried to explain the results, rather than describe the
pattern, as requested in part (f). The latter task should be the easier of the two. As with
part (d), many answers to (g) were of a general nature. Students who mentioned
systematic errors often spoilt their answers by also mentioning random errors. Answers to
parts (d) and (g) suggested a poor understanding of these terms.

SECTION D: EXTENDED-RESPONSE QUESTIONS

Significant changes were made to both the structure and the marking of Section D this year. In
Section D there is no longer a choice of questions and candidates are now required to answer both
questions. This change seemed to be understood well because each question was attempted by about
98% of the candidates. This participation rate is consistent with that for questions in other sections of
the paper.

Biology 2000 Assessment Report

Despite the requirement for candidates to answer two separate questions, the total length of the
responses should be similar to that of the two parts of an essay in previous years. As a guide, 2 to 3
pages of writing should be sufficient for candidates to obtain maximum marks.
Changes were made to the way in which Section D questions are marked. These changes were
described to teachers at the in-service conferences held during 2000. Each question was marked out of
15, with 12 marks allocated for content and 3 marks for communication. To increase consistency with
the marking of other sections of the paper, each well-made point was worth 2 marks, with 1 mark
awarded for a partial point.
For marking purposes, and to help candidates to plan their answer, the content of each question was
divided into two or more parts. Each part was weighted and the marks allocated accordingly. For
example, for a question with two equal content parts, each part would be marked out of 6. For a
question with three equal parts, each part would be marked out of 4. It was possible for candidates to
obtain full marks by making a total of six content points in appropriate parts of the question and
expressing themselves well.
Candidates received no credit for introductory or concluding paragraphs, or for irrelevant information.
It was therefore in the interests of candidates to write concise and relevant answers.
The removal of the choice component from Section D and the allocation of 6 content points to each
well-expressed part of the question may have had a significant impact on the mean mark for the section
and the mean mark for the examination. Question 40 had a mean of 42.1% and Question 41 a mean of
51.2%, compared with 69.5% and 60.0% for the Section D questions in the 1999 paper.
Question 40
This question had two major content parts, each of which was allocated a mark out of 6. The first part,
how the many specialised cells in the human body are formed from the fertilised egg cell, gave
candidates the opportunity to describe mitosis and differentiation. Many candidates began their answer
with irrelevant discussion of meiosis, and unfortunately overlooked the opportunity to gain marks for
the discussion of mitosis. The concept of differentiation seemed to be understood, with many
candidates gaining credit for the discussion of mechanisms underlying differentiation and for examples
of specialised cells. Candidates who used information about Oct-3/4, referred to in Section B of the
paper, received no credit for that information.
The second part of the question, give examples of the ways in which the specialised cells are
organised into different hierarchical structures, was also allocated 6 marks. This part gave candidates
the opportunity to write about the organisation, and give examples, of cells, tissues, organs, and organ
systems. The word hierarchical, despite being a keyword in the syllabus, was misinterpreted by many
candidates.
Question 41
This question was based on the human awareness strand of the syllabus. Not surprisingly, the
performance of many candidates in this question was quite different from (usually better than) their
performance in Question 40. Most candidates were able to identify harmful chemicals and beneficial
chemicals but, in order to gain credit, they needed to discuss the biological effects of the chemicals.
The beneficial effects of fertilisers, herbicides, and insecticides were commonly mentioned. The
harmful effects of ozone depletion, global warming, and eutrophication were often referred to, although
there was often confusion about which chemicals are responsible for each effect.

Chief Examiner
Biology