The performance of candidates in the different centres ranged from very good for some to fairly good for many and quite poor for a few. There was a wide range of scores.
It was encouraging to note that some candidates presented a good standard of work. The dishes selected were skilful and they met the requirements of the tests. Some candidates did not choose sufficient dishes to fill the allocated time. In some cases the dishes chosen did not show a variety of processes and skills.
Some candidates still do not
know how to use the carbonised sheets correctly. They must be briefed not to place the different carbonised sheets
(p1, p2, p3) on top of each other while writing. They should also avoid separating the carbonised sheets before
writing. It is only at the end of the
planning session, after completing their work, that the sheets should be
separated – that is the top sheets must be clipped together, the pink sheets
together. The candidates take only the
duplicate copy of the P3 (the shopping list) with them.
Many centres have a very
good kitchen layout, which are spacious, well aerated with proper lighting and
all the necessary facilities to conduct the practical examination.
Labour saving appliances
such as mixer/blenders, processors, electric beaters as well as a wide variety
of specific tools and small equipment were available.
A few discrepancies noted
were cracked bowls, broken blenders fixed with tape, poorly arranged tables,
serving tables too small.
Choice of Dishes:
In this section, the
candidates should show a clear list of dishes meeting the requirements of the
test allocated to them.
It was pleasant to note that
some candidates produced a list of dishes which were well labelled and well
indicated. In many cases, the
candidates just wrote a list of dishes without any labelling. Some others chose irrelevant/inappropriate
dishes – for example orangeade served instead of a dessert.
The dishes should be
labelled as part (a) or (b) and listed in the correct order of courses. It was also noted that some candidates did
not mention the dish from part (a) to be served as part of a meal in (b).
Recipe Section:
This section carries 5 marks
and candidates are expected to list the ingredients for each dish, stating
specific types and amounts.
A good number of candidates
wrote this part clearly.
The instructions state that
dishes should be sufficient for 2-3 servings.
It was noted that many candidates in different centres, brought
excessive amount of ingredients. For
example pizza was prepared with 500 gms of flour. Some recipes/basic proportions of ingredients were inaccurate. For example for pulao – 200gms rice, 2 tsp
turmeric. One or two candidates wrote
down the method in detail instead of listing the ingredients. The ingredients must be neatly listed – for
example
Pastry: 200gms
flour, 100 gms margarine
Filling: ………gms chicken, …..gm, ….
Garnishes: tomato slices, spring of parsley.
The order of work should
show a sensible sequence of work from the beginning to the end, indicating
methods briefly and the other special points namely oven temperature, cooking
time, washing ups at convenient points, details about garnishing and adequate time
for serving.
In general, the performance
of the candidates ranged from good and fairly good to poor and quite poor.
Some candidates presented a good plan of work with a logical sequence and good timing. The dishes could be followed from the start to the end. Washing up was included at convenient points. Many students wrote a lengthy and detailed timeplan without any dovetailing. Some prepared the dishes one after the other, which reflected a very poor notion of writing an order of work.
Most candidates indicated
the oven temperatures for the different dishes but in some instances incorrect
baking temperatures were given or 2 dishes requiring different baking
temperatures were baked at the same time, on the same shelf. Candidates must be
aware that this practice definitely affects the ‘quality’ of the dishes.
In general this part was
clearly written by most candidates except for a few who did not have time to
complete the list. Some candidates
still do not enter the ingredients under the correct headings. It was also
noted that many candidates ordered/brought excessive amounts ingredients. For example one candidate who needed 200 gms
flour brought 1 kg of flour.
Ø
Manipulation of tools & equipment:
Many candidates
demonstrated a fair manipulation of most tools. Some were not familiar with the use of specific/appropriate
equipment for specific processes.
In some centres,
some specific tools were not available (apple corer, flourdredger, palette
knife and deep frying pan with basket among others).
Ø Some common
errors:
·
Using big knife to peel a potato when a potato peeler was available
·
Potato masher used to remove deep fried chicken
·
Hot tomato mixture in blender
·
Hot mixture in refrigerator
·
Shallow frying pan used for deep frying
·
Metal spoon used to stir food in nonstick pan while cooking
·
Mixing bowl used either too big or too small for quantity of
mixture/ingredients used.
·
Electric beater not used even when available
·
Creaming with metal spoon
·
Too much oil used in non-stick pan
Judgement of Consistencies:
A good number of candidates
demonstrated deftness of skills while handling mixtures like rubbing in,
creaming and whisking. On the other
hand many candidates lacked basic skills while handling different flour mixtures.
Some common errors noted
are:
Ø Pizza dough too
dry and stiff or too sticky.
Ø Lumpy white sauce
Ø Creamed cake
mixtures either too heavy or curdled
Ø Liquidy whisked
mixture – insufficiently whisked.
Ø Macaroni
overcooked and sticky.
Hygiene
& Economy:
The standard of hygiene
varied from good/fairly good to quite poor/poor and very poor in some
cases. Many candidates maintained a
good standard of hygiene at the beginning of the test but later on, they seemed
to overlook this aspect. Food covers
were used once the dishes were served but many failed to keep cooked food
mixtures/fillings covered. Left over
mixtures/fillings were left uncovered near sink area. Very often baked items were allowed to cool in baking tins,
uncovered near the sink.
Numerous cases of overhandling
foods while preparing and cooking were noted.
In many cases everything was done with hands. For example sprinkling of grated cheese, adding of salt,
spreading vegetable on pizza. Although
some candidates were fairly economical and not many ingredients/cooked mixtures
were left over, quite a lot of wastage of ingredients and fuel were noted. A lot of ingredients were left unused or
very little used. It was noted that
some candidates prepared large servings but served only part of it.
Oven management &
control of heat:
Many candidates showed a
good knowledge of correct oven temperatures for different mixtures, but it was
noted that some baked 2 dishes requiring different baking temperatures, at the
same time, on the same shelf, thus showing poor timing and poor oven
management. A few candidates did not
preheat the oven. They just placed the
dish in the oven, then turned on the thermostat. Another candidate baked pizza at 1000c for 1
hour. Control of heat while cooking
different mixtures was fairly good. In
some centres, the candidates systematically cooked all dishes on high
heat. It was also noted that some used
small saucepans on big gasrings.
Tidiness:
Only few candidates managed
to keep a tidy table throughout the test and do the washing up as per
timeplan. Most of them start with a
tidy table but later on the table turns messy and overcrowded. Few candidates managed to complete their
washing up.
Serving and Appearance:
The very able candidates presented neatly decorated/garnished dishes. The garnishes/decorations were tasteful, appropriate and colourful. In general many candidates tend to used the same garnishes/decorations for all the dishes for example spring of parsley or cherries. In some cases, too much of colouring was used in the preparation of milkmousse and milkshakes.
Ø Many candidates
paid attention to the correct serving dish.
In some cases the serving dishes used were either too big, or too
small. In some cases they were
inappropriate.
Ø It was also noted
that many candidates served only 1 glassful of the drink required for the test
(milkshake/fruitjuice/orangeade). At
times a lot more is prepared but is left on the work table.
Ø Some slow
candidates who did not manage to complete the test on time served their dishes
without any decorations/garnishes – at times cakes were served in the caketin.
Suggestions
Ø Candidates should
pay attention to the correct temperature of the dishes while serving – cold
dishes must be nicely chilled and hot dishes must be hot at the moment they are
served.
Ø Dishes forming
part of a meal should be served in the
correct order of course.
In many centres the tables
were well set with clean and crisp table cloth, attractive flower arrangements
and menu cards.
A few candidates did not
have menu cards, thus making it difficult to identify certain dishes. In some cases, the table setting was too
plain – plastic table covers were used.
Effort must be made to
improve the table setting.
COMMENTS ON TESTS
(1,4,5,6,8)
Test 1:
Many candidates chose
suitable dishes including a cold drink.
But this year also, a good number of candidates did not understand the
term ‘2 course meal’. A few completely
ignored the requirements of the test.
The keywords seem to have been ignored: (friends who have been playing
sports all day.)
They just chose a list of
dishes, irrelevant to the test. For
part (b) some candidates chose dishes which were not suitable to take on a walk
next day. A few examples of wrong
choices stated were soup, and fried rice.
Test 4
Some candidates chose skilful dishes rich in Vitamin C such as lemon soufflé. Others attempted to include fresh fruits and vegetable in the meal, in the form of salads and desserts. Part (b) was fairly well interpreted on the whole.
This was a straightforward question. The majority of candidates attempting this question chose a selection of dishes illustrating 3 different methods of cooking. Some of the dishes were quite simple. However, many did not indicate the methods of cooking. In many cases, the meal for part (b) was either incomplete or the accompaniments were inappropriate.
This question was fairly easy. Most of the candidates attempting this question chose relevant dishes as the requirements were straightforward.
The 5 ingredients listed in
the question were used in the preparation of 5 dishes. Nevertheless a few chose oversimple dishes -
for example citrus fruit was used to prepare orangeade.
This question was fairly
well interpreted. Some candidates chose
skilful dishes with a sauce like
macaroni cheese or stuffed pancakes with cheese sauce. A few failed to plan a well balanced
meal. Part (b) was well interpreted –
some candidates prepared attractive fruit tarts and small cakes.