0471 Example Candidate Responses Paper 1 (for Examination From 2017)
0471 Example Candidate Responses Paper 1 (for Examination From 2017)
0471
Paper 1
We invite you to complete our survey by visiting the website below. Your comments on the quality and
relevance of Cambridge Curriculum Support resources are very important to us.
https://surveymonkey.co.uk/r/GL6ZNJB
Do you want to become a Cambridge consultant and help us develop support materials?
http://cie.org.uk/cambridge-for/teachers/teacherconsultants/
Cambridge International Examinations retains the copyright on all its publications. Registered Centres are
permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use. However, we cannot give permission
to Centres to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within a
Centre.
Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2
The main aim of this booklet is to exemplify standards for those teaching Cambridge IGCSE Travel and
Tourism (0471), and to show how different levels of candidates’ performance (high, middle and low) relate to
the subject’s curriculum and assessment objectives.
In this booklet candidate responses have been chosen to exemplify a range of answers. Each response is
accompanied by a brief commentary explaining the strengths and weaknesses of the answers.
Each response is annotated with clear explanation of where and why marks were awarded or omitted. This,
in turn, is followed by examiner comments on how the answer could have been improved. In this way it is
possible for you to understand what candidates have done to gain their marks and what they will have to do
to improve their answers. At the end there is a list of common mistakes candidates made in their answers for
each question.
This document provides illustrative examples of candidate work. These help teachers to assess the standard
required to achieve marks, beyond the guidance of the mark scheme. Some question types where the
answer is clear from the mark scheme, such as short answers and multiple choice, have therefore been
omitted.
The questions, mark schemes and pre-release material used here are available to download from Teacher
Support. These files are:
Other past papers, Examiner Reports and other teacher support materials are available on Teacher Support
at https://teachers.cie.org.uk
Candidates take:
Paper 1 2 hours
Core Paper
Short answer question paper
(60% of total marks) 100 marks
Teachers are reminded that the latest syllabus is available on our public website at www.cie.org.uk and
Teacher Support at https://teachers.cie.org.uk
Question 1
2
2 The candidate correctly
describes one correct benefit of
using a public transport
interchange: ‘it can transport you
3 anywhere in the city’.
(c) The candidate over-explained their answers for 2 and 3. Being more concise could have allowed more
time to be given to later or more challenging questions.
(d) The candidate over-explained their answer to 1 and could have improved by being more concise.
(e) This response was mostly descriptive, with some elements of weak analysis. The candidate needed to
develop their response more by analysing and evaluating more fully how the organisation and/or customer
would benefit from dealing with complaints effectively.
(c) The candidate needed to be more specific for point 1, for example, ‘build ring roads’. To improve points 2
and 3, the candidate should have kept their answer focused on the question. For point 2, the candidate
needed to state exactly how they would have limited numbers of people and ensured that their response was
relevant, for example, alternate-day travel. Again, point 3 needed to be more specific, stating and explaining
a specific strategy.
(d) All the points given here needed to be more specific and more focused on the question about avoiding
congestion at the entrances to visitor attractions.
(e) The candidate should have provided fuller evaluation of the benefits to an attraction of dealing with
customer complaints. This would have earned the response a full 6 marks (Level 3).
(c) The candidate needed to be more specific and relevant to the question (large city destinations and
reducing congestion and overcrowding). Point 2 could have been improved by making it more specific and
using the correct terminology, e.g. pedestrianizing. Point 3 suggested a way that cannot be controlled by a
large city/destination and is therefore not relevant.
(d) The response given was not relevant to the question. Carrying Capacity is determined by many factors,
many of which are not controllable by the attraction, e.g. fire and safety limits. Similarly, adherence to
Carrying Capacity does not reduce congestion at entrances, which was the subject of the question.
(e) The response was well structured and developed. However, the candidate also needed to evaluate or
conclude how methods of dealing with complaints would contribute towards a successful future for an
attraction.
Not using correct and specific terminology was also a common mistake.
In this question and overall in the paper, there was a lack of focused evaluation in questions requiring longer
answers.
Question 2
(b) The candidate’s knowledge of the climatic conditions was incorrect; the required response was
Equatorial.
(e) The candidate needed to offer some further evaluation or conclusion to earn full marks. One suggestion
for this would be to expand and develop the link to sustainable tourism.
14
14 The candidate goes on to
analyse the benefit of cultural
performances to the host country.
However, there is limited reference
to the rather vague chosen
example, which limits the analysis
marks awarded.
(c) The candidate needed to keep the whole of their answer focused on the question. They included some
valid explanation; however, most of the response was not relevant to the trend of Jamaica having become a
popular tourist destination attracting 1.5 million visitors from the USA and Canada.
(d) The candidate’s response for point 1 was not valid, as development is not a function of a tourist board.
To improve response 2, the candidate needed to explain how or why a website could promote Jamaica,
mentioning its benefits in terms of content and information.
(e) The candidate needed to be more specific to earn higher marks. The first half of the response is not
creditworthy as it does not answer the question. If a more specific example had been given, this could have
been avoided. The candidate could have assessed the characteristics of the cultural performances, for
example. Although the analysis at the end is similar to the analysis shown in the high response example, the
analysis marks were limited due to the vaguely referenced example. This highlights the need to give
accurate and specific examples when the question requires it.
10
11 The candidate identifies
another correct cultural
performance (‘music’), in the
context of the Brazil carnival.
(b) The candidate needed more thorough knowledge of climatic conditions and seasons.
(c) For response 1, the candidate needed to keep their answer focused specifically on the question. For
response 2, the candidate again needed to keep their answer focused on the question. The candidate does
not explain how its climate has influenced the trend of Jamaica being a popular tourist destination regularly
attracting 1.5 million visitors from the USA and Canada. For response 3, the candidate needed to explain
how the fact that Jamaica is an LEDC makes travel to and around Jamaica cheap for tourists from MEDCs
such as USA and Canada.
(d) The candidate’s response for 1 needed to be more specific with further development explaining how this
method would help JTB to fulfil their role. The candidate also needed to use the correct terminology.
(e) The candidate needed to develop their chosen example more to analyse exactly how the cultural
performance appeals to tourists. The command word in the question indicated what was required. The
candidate needed to do more than give a simple explanation or description of the cultural performance. They
then needed to evaluate the points raised, possibly offering some conclusion. As seen with the previous
examples, one obvious evaluative point is to make a link with the effect on the host population, e.g.
responsible tourism, or economic and social advantages and disadvantages.
Question 3
(c) For response 2, the candidate needed to provide more explanation of the advantage to passengers in
order to be awarded the second mark, for example passengers are able to visit two destinations in one trip
for the same price, thereby saving money. Point 3 is worded badly unfortunately and needed a more specific
explanation to make it correct. It is not true that replacement flights are easier to find only in hub airports.
The candidate also needed to make it clearer which flights they are talking about here: the initial flight from
the home departure airport (not relevant to the question) or the onward flight departing from a hub airport
(relevant)?
(d) The training methods are well explained. However, response 2 (customer service) and 3 (mathematics
and calculations) could have been more concise, saving valuable exam time for more challenging questions
and topic areas.
(e) The candidate would have benefited from planning the structure of their response before starting. It was
not until line 9 that any creditworthy comment was made, instead the candidate explained cheap flights,
which was not what the question required. Simple planning of the response will help the candidate to focus
and be more concise, allowing space and time for analysis and evaluation. Candidates should plan the
longer answer questions in three parts: identify, analyse and evaluate/conclude. Centres can refer to the
mark schemes for more detail on how ‘assess and discuss’ questions are marked.
i-fi is now a common feature in all classes of scheduled airlines. The candidate needed to state a feature of
this wi-fi that is specific or exclusive to business class travel, e.g. free wi-fi or a higher download speed.
Although the description is valid, a correct identification needs to be present to qualify for the second
description mark.
(c) Response 1 was too vague and needed to explain what is easier and faster to make it relevant to the
question. Point 2 also needed to be more specific to gain the second explanatory mark, explaining precisely
how a passenger will benefit, e.g. from duty-free prices or exclusive products before their onward journey.
Response 3 needed to be more specific and relevant to the question.
(d) The explanation for training method 2 could have been improved by being made more specific and direct
and using the correct terminology (satisfied and valued customer) rather than ‘feel like a king’.
(e) The candidate could have improved their response by stating a precise use of the Internet, e.g. website,
pop-up, advert, etc. The candidate successfully identified three promotional methods; however marks were
limited to the top of Level 1 as there was no analysis. The response could have been improved by analysing
the promotional methods in the context of a travel agent rather than merely describing them.
(b) For response 1, the candidate needed to develop their description, for example describing the benefit to
the customer of the feature.
(c) All three responses were too vague; the candidate needed to provide clear focus on the question in all
their responses. In this case, the question asked for the advantages to passengers of using hub airports for
international journeys.
(d) The candidate needed to be specific about each type of training, stating the overall type rather than
giving one aspect of the content. For example, facial expressions would form part of body language training.
When explaining the benefits to customers, candidates were advised to focus on the positives rather than
what could go wrong if the training was not in place. It is therefore better to say staff know how to be polite
and respectful towards the customer rather than customers will think it’s disrespectful.
(e) The candidate should have read the question more carefully to ensure that they were answering with the
right focus. In this case, the candidate needed to identify, analyse and evaluate methods of promotion used
by travel agencies.
Question 4
(b) Both responses were well explained and relevant, but the candidate would have benefited from being
more concise.
(c) The candidate needed to link both points to the positive socio-cultural impact, and specifically how this
impact would benefit the host population and the tourists alike.
(e) The response contained some good analysis and was focused, but it needed to include some evaluation
and conclusion to access the higher marks. Evaluation could have focused on the importance of the
shopping facilities or the role they have in attracting tourists or meeting tourists’ needs at the destination.
12
(a) The candidate needed to be more specific when naming tourist types, although they have been given the
benefit of the doubt here. Candidates are advised to be precise and use the correct terminology.
(b) In response 1, the candidate has misinterpreted the question and is describing the climate not the
vehicle.
(c) Candidates are advised to carefully read questions, use the Fig in the insert where applicable and
consider the context of the question before answering. In this part there were 2 elements of context that the
candidate needs within their response, that of the vehicle and the climate.
In response 2 the response is vague; to improve this, the candidate needs to explain how exactly the
vehicles are equipped to deal with the climate, for example transparent flaps to be used during a dust storm.
(d) All three points here would have benefited from being more concise. In response 1, the candidate
described the need well, but it was not until the end of the answer that they actually included a valid way (ski-
lifts). Candidates should state the way at the start so that the remainder of their response is focused and
relevant and earns the full marks available.
In response 2, the candidate has identified a valid way but only included it at the end, leaving the remainder
of the response unfocused and irrelevant, and losing any further marks.
Response 3 was too vague to be creditworthy; here the candidate should have identified a valid way
(helicopter landing pad) which would have earned a mark.
(e) The candidate’s response was unfocused at the start (first 7 lines) and merely described the destination.
Candidates were not required simply to describe a destination but to discuss the range of shopping facilities
in the destination. The response was awarded Level 2 marks for analysis, however the candidate lost focus
towards the end. In order to achieve Level 3 marks the candidate needed to include relevant and focused
evaluation and conclusions.
(b) Candidates are advised to use the figures as indicated in the questions. This candidate failed to use only
the information from Fig. 4 in their answer for 2.
(c) The candidate’s response in point 1 was not developed; to improve, they needed to explain more about
the impact they had identified, for example how exactly this had a positive effect. The answer in point 2 did
not use the information in Fig. 4.
(d) All three answers lacked relevance. The candidate needed to focus their answers on the question and to
describe specific features, for example roads, footpaths, viewing platforms.
(e) The candidate included some limited analysis; to improve they needed to analyse further the importance
of the shopping facilities, rather than the destination, and then evaluate or draw a conclusion.