COMPUTER-SCIENCE-1CP2 · Pearson Edexcel GCSE (9–1)
COMPUTER-SCIENCE-1CP2/21
Paper 2
Computer Science · June 2022 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: Pearson Edexcel
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.5 / 5
150
210 min
Algorithms & Practical Problem Solving
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
150
Duration
210 min
Session difficulty
3.5 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
This exam carries a medium-to-hard overall difficulty.
Paper 1 requires precise technical vocabulary, and Paper 2 demands excellent syntax familiarity and rigorous debugging logic under timed conditions.
Rather than merely writing short scripts, candidates have to actively refactor existing structures, debug turtle drawings, and handle multi-dimensional linear searches.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
No data available in official reports
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
Skill weighting
Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.
Theoretical Comprehension
Weight: 7100%Algorithmic Analysis
Weight: 571%Debugging &
Weight: 343%Creative Programming
Weight: 229%
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
Report type
Examiner report — national grade boundaries and question-level commentary
Level 9
Approx. 82% of maximum mark
Level 8
Approx. 71% of maximum mark
Level 7
Approx. 61% of maximum mark
Level 6
Approx. 51% of maximum mark
Level 5
Approx. 40% of maximum mark
Level 4
Approx. 30% of maximum mark
Level 3
Approx. 21% of maximum mark
Level 2
Approx. 13% of maximum mark
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
No data available in official reports
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
Match the expected response style for “State” questions.
State features in sequence or list observable properties — do not explain causes unless asked.
Give reasons and link mechanism to outcome; each point needs a because/so chain.
Name or point to the specific feature asked for — avoid extra explanation.
Match the expected response style for “Convert” questions.
Present multiple perspectives with evidence; balance breadth and depth.
Match the expected response style for “Draw” questions.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
Min per mark: 1.7
Min per mark: 1.3
Min per mark: 1.1
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Algorithms
36 marks this session
Data types and structures
16 marks this session
Networks
11 marks this session
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
Develop code
Algorithms
Networks
Data types and structures
Data representation
Binary
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 1: Principles of Computer Science:
Paper 2: Application of Computational Thinking:
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Algorithms
36 marks this session
Practise in RevuiData types and structures
16 marks this session
Practise in RevuiNetworks
11 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
This exam carries a medium-to-hard overall difficulty.
- 2Message
Paper 1 requires precise technical vocabulary, and Paper 2 demands excellent syntax familiarity and rigorous debugging logic under timed conditions.
- 3Message
Rather than merely writing short scripts, candidates have to actively refactor existing structures, debug turtle drawings, and handle multi-dimensional linear searches.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
June 2022 2022
Computer Science
This exam carries a medium-to-hard overall difficulty. Paper 1 requires precise technical vocabulary, and Paper 2 demands excellent syntax familiarity and rigorous debugging logic under timed conditions. Rather than merely writing short scripts, candidates have to actively refact
This exam carries a medium-to-hard overall difficulty.
Paper 1 requires precise technical vocabulary, and Paper 2 demands excellent syntax familiarity and rigorous debugging logic under timed conditions.
Rather than merely writing short scripts, candidates have to actively refactor existing structures, debug turtle drawings, and handle multi-dimensional linear searches.
- Total marks
- 150
- Duration
- 210 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.5 / 5
Session analysis
This exam carries a medium-to-hard overall difficulty. Paper 1 requires precise technical vocabulary, and Paper 2 demands excellent syntax familiarity and rigorous debugging logic under timed conditions. Rather than merely writing short scripts, candidates have to actively refactor existing structures, debug turtle drawings, and handle multi-dimensional linear searches.
Updated Jun 14, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 1: Principles of Computer Science:
Paper 2: Application of Computational Thinking:
Top chapters
Exam structure insights
Marks by chapter
See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.
Mark accessibility
Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.
73% within easy or medium reach
Command word frequency
Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.
Question type mix
Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.
Theoretical / Short Answer
51·34·34%
Practical Code Correction & Refactoring
35·3·23%
Original Code Construction
34·3·23%
Calculations & Representation
12·5·8%
Algorithmic Flowcharts & Tracing
12·2·8%
Extended Discuss / Essay
6·1·4%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Time vs marks
Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.
Paper 1 Theory Basi
0.88 m/minPaper 1 Complex Alg
0.80 m/minPaper 2 Code Optimi
0.60 m/minTotal marks
105
Total time
140 min
Avg pace
0.75
Cumulative marks ladder
The line is your running mark total question by question; dashed lines are the estimated grade cut-offs. See which question the line crosses your target grade at, so you know how far you must answer cleanly and which questions decide a band.
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
Truth Tables and Boolean Logic
5%5%
Subprograms and Parameter Passing
4%4%
Environmental Impacts of Technology
4%4%
Difficulty Verdict
This exam carries a medium-to-hard overall difficulty. Paper 1 requires precise technical vocabulary, and Paper 2 demands excellent syntax familiarity and rigorous debugging logic under timed conditions. Rather than merely writing short scripts, candidates have to actively refactor existing structures, debug turtle drawings, and handle multi-dimensional linear searches.
Where the Marks Are
Marks are heavily concentrated in practical application. In Paper 1, multi-step trace tables, flowchart logical mapping, and complex calculations (such as image file sizes in Mebibytes) carry significant weight. In Paper 2, Question 5 (File I/O) and Question 6 (2D List Search) contain the highest concentration of marks, prioritizing robust solution designs and adherence to the Program Language Subset (PLS).
Examiner notes & key calculations
- Vague Network Explanations: Examiners consistently penalize simple descriptions like "LAN is smaller than WAN." Accurate descriptions must reference geographic ownership or third-party infrastructure.
- Object Hierarchy in Code: In Paper 2's Turtle graphics question, a frequent source of lost marks was using the library default turtle.method() instead of referencing the instantiated variable theTurtle.method().
- Math Unit Conversions: For image resolution calculations, writing base-10 metrics (1000) instead of binary prefix values (1024) is a common mistake.
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.