2013 Notes from the Marking Centre – Indonesian Extension
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 Indonesian Extension course. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2013 Higher School Certificate examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.
This document should be read along with:
- the Indonesian Extension Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2013 Higher School Certificate Indonesian Extension examination
- the marking guidelines
- Advice for students attempting HSC languages examinations, and HSC Languages oral examinations – advice to students
- Advice for HSC students about examinations
- other support documents developed by the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards NSW to assist in the teaching and learning of Indonesian in Stage 6.
Oral examination
Characteristics of better responses:
- well-structured responses which addressed the question
- inclusion of relevant examples to support argument
- use of fluent, accurately pronounced, authentic Indonesian
- consistent delivery throughout
- demonstrated a good use of preparation time by including a wide range of information.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- lack of consistent delivery and all information provided before the end of the examination time
- repetition of question and arguments
- poorly structured and sequenced responses
- irrelevant or poorly chosen evidence to support opinion.
Written examination
Section I – Response to Prescribed Text
Part A
Characteristics of better responses:
- correctly outlined Rena’s reaction to Yudha’s invitation and accounted for the reaction (Q.1a)
- clearly explained how two references to water reflected the relationship between Rena and Yudha (Q.1b)
- different languages such as Japanese and dialects were identified as well as the different styles of language used (Q.1c)
- provided specific examples from the film to show how these different languages and styles represented a modern-day Indonesian society (Q.1c)
- compared Yudha’s priority before his visits to the Rumah Matahari and reconnecting with Rena to show his priorities had changed since venturing into Rena’s world. Statements were supported with clear examples from the film which were discussed in a perceptive manner (Q.1d).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- outlined the reaction without correctly identifying the reason for the reaction or accounted for the reaction without outlining what the reaction was (Q.1a)
- failure to outline a specific reference to water in the film other than the one in the given extract or explain how it reflected Rena and Yudha’s relationship (Q.1b)
- failure to identify different languages and language styles used throughout the film. Did not provide specific examples of how these different languages and styles represented a modern-day Indonesian society (Q.1c)
- limited, vague and general references to the film which did not analyse how Yudha’s priorities had changed (Q.1d).
Part B
Characteristics of better responses:
- specific references to the characters and events in the film used to support response
- referenced and perceptively commented on characters and incidents in the film outside of the extract given in the stimulus, which further illustrated Rena’s influence on Hamdani
- use of authentic colloquial language.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- recount of the ‘hamster’ incident without reflecting on the outcomes of the incident for the characters of Rena and Hamdani and their relationship
- did not address the second part of the task which was to reflect on Rena’s influence on Hamdani
- little attempt to reference other incidents in the film aside from the ‘hamster’ incident; making only vague, general references to other characters or events which were lacking in detail
- confusion over the correct register to use and/or demonstrated inconsistencies in the use of the correct colloquial register
- errors of ‘when’ in the past tense, using ‘kapan’ instead of ‘ketika’, ie ‘Kapan kita anak kecil …’ rather than the correct ‘Ketika kita anak kecil …’.
Section II – Writing in Indonesian
Characteristics of better responses:
- thorough understanding of the question demonstrated by focusing on persuading the reader of the ‘benefit’ rather than simply discussing a range of issues pertaining to technology/multiculturalism
- use of a range of persuasive vocabulary and literary functions to reach out to the reader and persuade them of their argument
- understanding the requirements of a formal letter, for example ‘Kepada Ibu yang terhormat’. This also included a consistent register when directly addressing the receiver throughout the letter
- thorough understanding of the object-focus construction in all its forms
- a range of sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures in the correct formal register.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- lack of persuasive language and irrelevant information resulting in a weak argument that failed to persuade the reader of their viewpoint
- did not demonstrate the correct way to address and farewell the receiver of a letter, using inappropriate phrases such as ‘Kepala sekolah yang tersayang’
- mixed colloquial language and phrases with more formal vocabulary resulting in an inconsistent register throughout the letter
- frequent errors with the object-focus construction as well as obvious confusion about the difference between ‘pe-an’ nouns and ‘ke-an’ nouns
- frequent use of the word ‘siapa’ rather than the correct ‘yang’, ie ‘Guru siapa mengajar …’ as opposed to the correct ‘Guru yang mengajar …’.
NSW Government