Notes from E-Marking Centre on SSC-II Computer Science Annual Examinations 2025

Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of Secondary School
Certificate (SSC) Part II Computer Science. It contains comments on candidates’ responses to
the 2025 SSC-II Examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their
relative strengths and weaknesses.
E-Marking Notes
This includes overall comments on candidates’ performance on every question and some
specific examples of candidates’ responses that support the mentioned comments. Please note
that the descriptive comments represent an overall perception of the better and weaker
responses as gathered from the e-marking session. However, the candidates’ responses shared
in this document represent some specific example(s) of the mentioned comments.
Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may ask questions that address the
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) in a manner that requires candidates to respond by
integrating knowledge, understanding and application skills they have developed during the
course of study. Candidates are advised to read and comprehend each question carefully before
writing the response to fulfil the demand of the question.
Candidates need to be aware that the marks allocated to the questions are related to the answer
space provided on the examination paper as a guide to the length of the required response. A
longer response will not in itself lead to higher marks. Candidates need to be familiar with the
command words in the SLOs which contain terms commonly used in examination questions.
However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one
of the command words. Words such as ‘how’, ‘why’ or ‘what’ may also be used. It is imperative
to refer to the command word guide available on AKU-EB website for understanding the
expectations of the command word.

General Observations
Most candidates succeeded in constructing better responses, particularly on the topics of
identifying the symbols of a flowchart, applying relational operators, identifying the logic
circuit expression and truth table, applying loops in different scenarios, and computer security
& ethics. However, teachers should focus on the following areas and provide more drills and
practice to foster a solid understanding:

• Interconversion in loop types.

• Different types of programming logics.

Note: Candidates’ responses shown in this report have not been corrected for grammar,
spelling, format, or information.
 DETAILED COMMENTS
Constructed Response Questions (CRQs)
Question No. 1
Question Text Write the name and draw the flowchart symbol in front of each description in the given
table.

SLO No. 7.3.3

SLO Text Identify the flowchart symbols for the following: a. input b. process c. decision making d.
outputs e. terminator/ terminal point f. connectors;
Max Marks 2
Cognitive Understanding
Level
Checking 1 mar1 mark for each correct identification of name and symbol (TWO required).
Hints 1 mar1 mark will be awarded if only names are written.
1 mar1 mark will be awarded if only symbols are drawn.
Overall The question was well answered by the candidates. Most of the candidates correctly
Performance identified the symbols and drew them.
Description of In better responses, candidates accurately identified and placed the correct names and
Better corresponding symbols by using the descriptions. For example, in the description ‘All the
Responses decisions appear inside this symbol’, candidates wrote the name decision box and drew a
diamond symbol in their respective columns. Similarly, in the description ‘it is used to
represent input and output in a flowchart’ candidates wrote the name input/ output box and
drew a parallelogram symbol in their respective columns. These candidates showed
familiarity with standard diagram conventions and applied their knowledge effectively.
Image of
Better
Response

Description of In weaker responses, it was observed that candidates often managed to write either the
Weaker correct name or the correct symbol, but not both. A common error was the incorrect
Responses identification of shapes, with many candidates labelled parallelograms and diamonds as
names rather than recognising their symbolic meaning. In several cases, candidates were
unable to identify either the correct name or the corresponding symbol, indicating a lack of
conceptual clarity with standard conventions.
 Image of
Weaker
Response

Suggestions for improvement (Highlight all that apply)

Maximising SLO Preferred Pedagogy** Assessment Strategies

Achievement Used for this SLO
• Identify the expectation • Story Board • Past paper questions
of command words (use • Cause and Effect • Discussion on E-Marking Notes
Command Word Guide) • Fish and Bone • AKU-EB Digital Learning Solution
• Ensure the content is • Concept Mapping powered by Knowledge Platform
taught at the relevant • Audio Visual [Link]
cognitive level Resources
• Identify necessary • Think, Pair and Share
content required (skills • Knowledge Platform
+ concepts) videos
• Review past paper • Questioning Technique
questions on the (Socratic approach)
concept • Practical
• Utilise the resource Demonstration
guide for additional
materials
Any Additional Suggestion: Teachers are recommended to encourage candidates to pay attention to the
command words as well as focus on improving students' conceptual clarity through clear explanations and
real-life examples related to the topic. Incorporating visual aids, such as diagrams and flowcharts, can help
candidates better understand and differentiate between names and symbols.

Question No. 2
Question Text A ‘C’ program is written to take three integers with different values as an input and identify
the largest number amongst them.
Write the missing code in the given box to achieve the mentioned task.

SLO No. 10.1.8

SLO Text Write C programs for the problems mentioned in 7.2.3 involving the use of if-else-if
statements.
Max Marks 3
Cognitive Application
Level
Checking Give ONE mark for writing each conclusion (THREE required).
Hints
Overall The candidates attempted the question effectively, and many candidates completed the
Performance required task. However, some candidates compared only two numbers or used incorrect
operators. A few candidates unnecessarily attempted to use a loop for this question.
Description of In better responses, candidates accurately compared all three numbers by using the if-else-
Better if structure and printed the largest number. For example, 1st number with the other two
Responses numbers, similarly, 2nd number, and 3rd number with the other two numbers. Their code
demonstrated a solid understanding of conditional logic, and the syntax was written
precisely without any errors.
Image of
Better
Responses

Description of In weaker responses, candidates used incorrect comparison operators, leading to flawed
Weaker logic, and failed to include the third variable in their comparisons or used improper syntax
Responses for statements such as printf, if, and else-if. In several cases, it was evident that candidates
lacked a clear understanding of how to apply conditional statements correctly, indicating
a need for further reinforcement of fundamental programming concepts.
Image of
Weaker
Responses
Suggestions for improvement (Highlight all that apply)

Maximising SLO Preferred Pedagogy Used Assessment Strategies

Achievement for this SLO
• Identify the expectation of • Story Board • Past paper questions
command words (use • Cause and Effect • Discussion on E-Marking Notes
Command Word Guide) • Fish and Bone • AKU-EB Digital Learning Solution
• Ensure the content is • Concept Mapping powered by Knowledge Platform
taught at the relevant • Audio Visual [Link]
cognitive level Resources
• Identify necessary content • Think, Pair and Share
required (skills + concepts) • Knowledge Platform
• Review past paper videos
questions on the concept • Questioning
• Utilise the resource guide Technique (Socratic
for additional materials approach)
• Practical
Demonstration
Any Additional Suggestions:
Teachers are encouraged to conduct regular practical sessions to help candidates strengthen their
understanding of programming concepts through hands-on experience. Additionally, focused practice on
structuring and implementing if-else-if conditions will help candidates to develop confidence and accuracy in
writing decision-making code.

Question No. 3
Question Text Convert the following for loop into do-while loop.

SLO No. 11.1.6

SLO Text Write the do-while loop structure in C language.
Max Marks 3
Cognitive Application
Level
Checking 1 ma11 mark for initialisation of counter variable.
Hints 1 mar1 mark for writing the correct condition using a do-while statement.
1 mar1 mark for writing the correct increment statement.
Note: No mark deduction if the increment is done anywhere inside the body of the loop
Overall The overall response to this question was not satisfactory. It highlighted the need for
Performance candidates to develop a deeper understanding of loop structures, particularly while and
do-while loops. Many candidates appeared unfamiliar with the correct syntax for the do-
while loop.
Description of In better responses, candidates correctly applied the do-while structure to the given for
Better loop code. They initialised the counter variable before the loop, placed the print and
Responses increment statements within the body of the do-while loop, and appropriately applied the
loop condition outside the braces using the while( ) statement.
 Image of
Better
Response

Description of In weaker responses, candidates were confused regarding the structure of the do-while
Weaker loop. They initialised the counter variable inside the loop body and placed the increment
Responses statement outside the loop, which led to logical errors in execution. A significant number
of responses also showed that the candidates directly copied the syntax of a for loop into
a do-while construct without adapting it to the correct format.
Image of
Weaker
Response

Suggestions for improvement (Highlight all that apply)

Maximising SLO Preferred Pedagogy Used Assessment Strategies

Achievement for this SLO
• Identify the expectation • Story Board • Past paper questions
of command words (use • Cause and Effect • Discussion on E-Marking Notes
Command Word Guide) • Fish and Bone • AKU-EB Digital Learning Solution
• Ensure the content is • Concept Mapping powered by Knowledge Platform
taught at the relevant • Audio Visual Resources [Link]
cognitive level • Think, Pair and Share
• Identify necessary • Knowledge Platform
content required (skills + videos
concepts) • Questioning Technique
• Review past paper (Socratic approach)
questions on the concept • Practical Demonstration
• Utilise the resource guide
for additional materials
Any Additional Suggestions:
Teachers are suggested to conduct practice sessions on all three loop types, as candidates struggle with while
and do while loops. They can practice inter-conversions of one loop structure to another loop structure.
 Question No. 4
Question Text Consider the following logic circuit.

i. Write the logic expression to represent the given logic circuit.

ii. Fill the given truth table for this problem.

SLO No. 12.2.7 and 12.2.6

SLO Text Construct logic circuit to solve a given real-life problem; & construct a truth table for
logic circuits.
Max Marks 5
Cognitive Application
Level
Checking i. 1 mark for correctly writing a logical expression
Hints ii. 4 marks for correctly filling the truth table (1 mark will be given to fill two possible
outputs)
Note: round off marks to the nearest whole number
Overall It was observed that candidates performed satisfactorily on this question. Many of the
Performance candidates responded proficiently by accurately writing the required expression and
presenting a correct and well-structured truth table.
Description of In better responses, candidates accurately wrote the correct logical expression. They
Better correctly identified the logic gates and combined the variables with logic gate symbols
Responses given in the circuit diagram. Also, they correctly applied the method that solved the truth
table and determined the correct output of the truth table. They successfully generated all
eight possible input combinations.
Image of
Better
Response

Description of In weaker responses, it was observed that some candidates struggled to provide the correct
Weaker logical expression and were unable to accurately complete the truth table for the given
Responses circuit. For example, they wrongly identified or put the wrong symbol of the logic gate(s)
that led to the incorrect logical expression. While a few candidates managed to write the
correct expression, but they failed to fill in the truth table correctly. Additionally, some
responses included incorrect variable names or used improper logical operators.
Image of
Weaker
Response
Suggestions for improvement (Highlight all that apply)
Maximising SLO Achievement Pedagogy Used for that Assessment Strategies
SLO
• Identify the expectation of • Story Board • Past paper questions
command words (use • Cause and Effect • Discussion on E-Marking Notes
Command Word Guide) • Fish and Bone • AKU-EB Digital Learning
• Ensure the content is taught • Concept Mapping Solution powered by Knowledge
at the relevant cognitive level • Audio Visual Resources Platform
• Identify necessary content • Think, Pair and Share [Link]
required (skills + concepts) • Knowledge Platform m/login
• Review past paper questions videos
on the concept • Questioning Technique
• Utilise the resource guide for (Socratic approach)
additional materials • Practical Demonstration

Any Additional Suggestion: To improve performance on such questions, candidates require more extensive
practice in circuit design and constructing corresponding truth tables. Teachers are encouraged to regularly
provide candidates with various logic circuits and guide them in deriving the correct logical expressions as
well as completing accurate truth tables.
 Extended Response Questions (ERQs)
Extended response questions offered a choice between parts ‘a’ and ‘b’

Question No. 5a
Question Text Write a ‘C’ program to take table number and range as an input and print the table of
inputted number till the inputted range using while loop.
SLO No. 11.1.6
SLO Text Write the do while loop structure in C language;
Max Marks 06
Cognitive Application
Level
Checking 1 mar1 mark for declaring correct variables.
Hints 1 mar1 mark for taking input.
1 mar1 mark for writing the correct condition of the while loop.
1 mar1 mark for writing the formula for calculating multiple.
1 mar1 mark for the increment in the counter variable.
1 mar1 mark for writing the output.
Overall The candidates who attempted Question 5(a) of the ERQ generally performed fairly well,
Performance demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the basic logic required. However, several
common issues, such as incorrect loop syntax, faulty logic, and wrong calculation and
formatting issues, were observed in the weaker responses.
Description of In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of how to generate a
Better multiplication table. They correctly took all required inputs, including the number and the
Responses range, applied the correct formula to calculate the multiplication of numbers as specified in
the question, and successfully printed the times table in the expected format.
Image of
Better
Response
Description of In weaker responses, candidates struggled with the basic structure of the while loop, used
Weaker the incorrect syntax that led to compilation errors, or had faulty logic. Many programs
Responses received incorrect or incomplete inputs and frequently misused the printf and scanf
functions, which affected both the functionality and output format of their programs.
Additionally, some candidates applied an incorrect formula for multiplication or improperly
initialised the counter variable, which resulted in an inaccurate or incomplete multiplication
table.
Image of
Weaker
Response

Suggestions for improvement (Highlight all that apply)

Maximising SLO Preferred Pedagogy Used Assessment Strategies

Achievement for this SLO
• Identify the expectation • Story Board • Past paper questions
of command words (use • Cause and Effect • Discussion on E-Marking Notes
Command Word Guide) • Fish and Bone • AKU-EB Digital Learning Solution
• Ensure the content is • Concept Mapping powered by Knowledge Platform
taught at the relevant • Audio Visual [Link]
cognitive level Resources
• Identify necessary • Think, Pair and Share
content required (skills + • Knowledge Platform
concepts) videos
• Review past paper • Questioning Technique
questions on the concept (Socratic approach)
• Utilise the resource guide • Practical
for additional materials Demonstration
Any Additional Suggestions:
Teachers are encouraged to provide students with regular hands-on practice of practical questions in the
computer lab to strengthen their coding skills. Alongside coding exercises, students should also be guided to
write algorithms and pseudocode for each program.
 Question No. 5b
Question Text Write a ‘C’ program to take a character as an input and print whether the character is a
vowel or a consonant.
SLO No. 10.1.8
SLO Text Write C programs for the problems mentioned in 7.2.3 involving the use of if-else-if
statement.
Max Marks 6
Cognitive Application
Level
Checking 1 mark for taking input.
Hints 1 mark for printing output
2 marks for checking vowel using if condition (five operators/ cases required)
1 mark for checking a consonant
1 mark for checking invalid character (default in switch)
Overall Majority of the candidates attempted this question. However, from the ones who
Performance attempted this question, the performance was not up to the mark. Only a few candidates
successfully implemented conditions to identify vowels and consonants; however,
many overlooked the need to handle invalid characters.
Description of In better responses, candidates effectively checked whether the input character was a
Better vowel, a consonant, or an invalid character. They applied the correct syntax of if-else
Responses statements and compared the input character through relational and logical operators
accurately to construct appropriate conditions.

Image of
Better
Response
Description of In weaker responses, candidates were unable to correctly identify vowels and
Weaker consonants, often using incorrect syntax within the if-else structure for condition
Responses checking. A common mistake was the improper use of logical operators or missing
conditions. Additionally, some students failed to take input correctly by using the int
data type instead of char.
Image of
Weaker
Response

Suggestions for improvement (Highlight all that apply)

Maximising SLO Preferred Pedagogy Used Assessment Strategies

Achievement for this SLO
• Identify the expectation • Story Board • Past paper questions
of command words (use • Cause and Effect • Discussion on E-Marking Notes
Command Word Guide) • Fish and Bone • AKU-EB Digital Learning Solution
• Ensure the content is • Concept Mapping powered by Knowledge Platform
taught at the relevant • Audio Visual Resources [Link]
cognitive level • Think, Pair and Share
• Identify necessary • Knowledge Platform
content required (skills videos
+ concepts) • Questioning Technique
• Review past paper (Socratic approach)
questions on the concept • Practical Demonstration
• Utilise the resource *K =
guide for additional
materials
Any Additional Suggestion: Teachers are suggested to provide students with focused practice on the use of
the char data type to strengthen their understanding of character handling in programming. In addition, more
emphasis should be placed on conditional and control statements, such as if-else and switch, to help students
construct accurate logic by practicing example programs in labs and in multimedia classes.
 Extended Response Questions (ERQs)
Extended response questions offered a choice between parts ‘a’ and ‘b’
Question No. 6a
Question Text Explain the following terms.
i. Worm
ii. Adware
iii. Trojan Horse
SLO No. 14.1.4
SLO Text Differentiate among the types of malware, i.e., virus, worm, adware, spyware, Trojan
horses;
Max Marks 06
Cognitive Level Understanding
Checking Hints 2 marks for the explanation of each term. (THREE required)
Overall Though part a of the question was not opted for by the majority, from the ones who
Performance attempted it, only some of the candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of the topic.
They explained the required terms accurately using the correct definitions supported with
suitable examples, whereas others confused the characteristics of malware, missed key
points like the self-replication of worms, and gave vague or incorrect statements about
adware and Trojans.
Description of In better responses, candidates provided clear and well-structured explanations of the
Better terms worm, adware, and Trojan horse. For example, a worm transmits itself over a
Responses network to infect other computers. Adware displays advertisements to users. Trojans are
covered as legitimate or desirable software to trick users into executing them. They
accurately identified the key characteristics of each type of malware, elaborating on how
they spread within systems and networks.
Image of Better
Response
Description of In weaker responses, candidates confused the characteristics of different types of malware
Weaker and were unable to clearly state the key definitions. For example, in the case of worms,
Responses they frequently missed essential points such as the worm’s ability to self-replicate and
spread automatically across computer networks without user intervention. Adware used to
send data to others, and Trojans are used to destroy the computer system. Many responses
included only a single, vague point or provided incorrect characteristics.
Image of
Weaker
Response

Suggestions for improvement (Highlight all that apply)

Maximising SLO Preferred Pedagogy Used Assessment Strategies

Achievement for this SLO
• Identify the expectation • Story Board • Past paper questions
of command words (use • Cause and Effect • Discussion on E-Marking Notes
Command Word Guide) • Fish and Bone • AKU-EB Digital Learning Solution
• Ensure the content is • Concept Mapping powered by Knowledge Platform
taught at the relevant • Audio Visual [Link]
cognitive level Resources
• Identify necessary • Think, Pair and Share
content required (skills + • Knowledge Platform
concepts) videos
• Review past paper • Questioning Technique
questions on the concept (Socratic approach)
• Utilise the resource guide • Practical
for additional materials Demonstration
Any Additional Suggestions:
Teachers are encouraged to facilitate classroom discussions or debates focused on the definitions,
characteristics, and differences between various types of malware. Engaging students in comparative
discussions will help reinforce their understanding and clarify misconceptions, ensuring they can clearly
distinguish between threats like worms, adware, and Trojan horses.
 Question No. 6b
Question Text Describe the following types of hackers.
i. Script Kiddie
ii. Blue Hat Hacker
iii. Red Hat Hacker
SLO No. 14.1.3
SLO Text Differentiate among the types of hackers, i.e., script kiddies, white hat hackers, black
hat hackers, grey hat hackers, green hat hackers, red hat hackers, blue hat hackers.
Max Marks 6
Cognitive Level Understanding
Checking Hints 2 marks each for the description of script kiddie, blue hat hacker, and red hat hacker.
Overall Majority of the students attempted this question. Yet, the overall performance was not
Performance satisfactory. Some candidates succeeded by giving accurate definitions with examples,
such as describing script kiddies as lacking technical skills and Blue Hat Hackers as
experimenters. However, many showed confusion by mixing up hacker types,
especially Blue Hat with Green Hat, and failed to clearly separate ethical from
unethical hackers.
Description of In better responses, candidates effectively defined the distinct characteristics of the
Better three types of hackers. For example, a script kiddie lacks technical expertise or skills
Responses but uses pre-made scripts to conduct cyberattacks. Blue hat hacker is neither a white
hat nor a black hat, but experimenting with hacking techniques, demonstrating a clear
understanding of how each type differs in intent and behaviour.
Image of Better
Response
Description of In weaker responses, candidates did not perform well on this question and struggled
Weaker to differentiate between the various types of hackers, particularly Blue Hat Hackers.
Responses Some confused them with Green Hat Hackers, while others mixed up the definitions
of Red Hat Hackers and Black Hat Hackers. Additionally, several responses failed to
distinguish between ethical and unethical hackers.
Image of
Weaker
Response

Suggestions for improvement (Highlight all that apply)

Maximising SLO Preferred Pedagogy Used Assessment Strategies

Achievement for this SLO
• Identify the expectation • Story Board • Past paper questions
of command words (use • Cause and Effect • Discussion on E-Marking Notes
Command Word Guide) • Fish and Bone • AKU-EB Digital Learning Solution
• Ensure the content is • Concept Mapping powered by Knowledge Platform
taught at the relevant • Audio Visual Resources [Link]
cognitive level • Think, Pair and Share
• Identify necessary • Knowledge Platform
content required (skills videos
+ concepts) • Questioning Technique
• Review past paper (Socratic approach)
questions on the concept • Practical Demonstration
• Utilise the resource *K =
guide for additional
materials
Any Additional Suggestion: Teachers can incorporate interactive activities such as role plays, PowerPoint
presentations, or group-based class presentations to enhance students' understanding of different types of
hackers. By assigning each group a specific type of hacker to research and present as if they were that hacker,
students can engage more deeply with the content in a fun and memorable way.
 Annexure A: Pedagogies Used for Teaching the SLOs
Pedagogy: Storyboard
Description: A visual pedagogy that uses a series of illustrated panels to present a narrative,
encouraging creativity and critical thinking. It helps learners organise ideas, sequence events,
and comprehend complex concepts through storytelling.
Example: In a Literature class, students are tasked with creating storyboards to visually retell
a novel. They draw key scenes, write captions, and present their stories to the class, enhancing
their reading comprehension and fostering their imagination.

Pedagogy: Cause and Effect

Description: This pedagogy explores the relationships between actions and consequences. By
analysing cause-and-effect relationships, learners develop a deeper understanding of how
events are interconnected and how one action can lead to various outcomes.
Example: In a History class, students study the causes and effects of the Industrial Revolution.
They research and discuss how technological advancements in manufacturing led to significant
societal changes, such as urbanisation and labour reform movements.

Pedagogy: Fish and Bone

Description: A method that breaks down complex topics into main ideas (the fish) and
supporting details (the bones). This visual approach enhances comprehension by highlighting
essential concepts and their relevant explanations.
Example: During a Biology class on human anatomy, the teacher uses the fish and bone
technique to teach about the human skeletal system. Teacher presents the main components of
the human skeleton (fish) and elaborates on each bone’s structure and function (bones).

Pedagogy: Concept Mapping

Description: An effective way to visually represent relationships between ideas. Learners
create diagrams connecting key concepts, aiding in understanding the overall structure of a
subject and fostering retention.
Example: In a Psychology assignment, students use concept mapping to explore the various
theories of personality. They interlink different theories, such as Freud’s psychoanalysis, Jung’s
analytical psychology, and Bandura’s social-cognitive theory, to see how they relate to each
other.

Pedagogy: Audio Visual Resources

Description: Incorporating multimedia elements like videos, images, and audio into lessons.
This approach caters to different learning styles, making educational content more engaging
and memorable.
Example: In a General Science class, the teacher uses a documentary-style video to teach about
the solar system. The video includes stunning visual animations of the planets, interviews with
astronomers, and background music, enhancing students’ interest and understanding of space.

Pedagogy: Think, Pair, and Share

Description: A collaborative learning technique where students ponder a question or problem
individually, then discuss their thoughts in pairs or small groups before sharing with the entire
class. It fosters active participation, communication skills, and diverse perspectives.
Example: In a Literature in English class, the teacher poses a thought-provoking question
about a novel’s moral dilemma. Students first reflect individually, then pair up to exchange
their opinions, and finally participate in a lively class discussion to explore different
viewpoints.
Pedagogy: Questioning Technique (Socratic Approach)
Description: Based on Socratic dialogue, this method stimulates critical thinking by posing
thought-provoking questions. It encourages learners to explore ideas, justify their reasoning,
and discover knowledge through a process of inquiry.
Example: In an Ethics class, the instructor uses the Socratic approach to lead a discussion on
the meaning of justice. By asking a series of probing questions, the students engage in a deeper
exploration of ethical principles and societal values.

Pedagogy: Practical Demonstration

Description: A hands-on approach where learners observe real-life applications of theories or
skills. Practical demonstrations enhance comprehension, skill acquisition, and problem-solving
abilities by bridging theoretical concepts with real-world scenarios.
Example: In a Food and Nutrition class, the instructor demonstrates the proper technique for
filleting a fish. Students observe and then practice the skill themselves, learning the practical
application of knife skills and culinary precision.

(Note: The examples provided in this annexure serve as illustrations of various pedagogies. It
is important to understand that these pedagogies are versatile and can be applied across subjects
in numerous ways. Feel free to adapt and explore these techniques creatively to enhance
learning outcomes in your specific context.)
Acknowledgments
The Aga Khan University Examination Board (AKU-EB) acknowledges with gratitude the
invaluable contributions of all the dedicated individuals who have played a pivotal role in the
development of the Computer Science SSC-II E-Marking Notes.
We extend our sincere appreciation to Syed Muhammad Waqas, Specialist Computer Science
at AKU-EB, for taking the subject lead during the entire process of e-marking.
We particularly thank Ms. Sumaira Farhan, PECHS Girls School, Karachi, for evaluating each
question’s performance, delineating strengths and weaknesses in candidates’ responses, and
highlighting instructional approaches along with recommendations for better performance.
Additionally, we express our gratitude to the esteemed team of reviewers for their constructive
feedback on overall performance, better and weaker responses, and validating teaching
pedagogies, along with suggestions for improvement.
These contributors include:
• Munira Muhammad, Manager, Assessment, AKU-EB
• Zain Muluk, Manager, Examination Development, AKU-EB
• Dr. Naveed Yousuf, CEO, AKU-EB