1. Home
Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

2013 Notes from the Marking Centre – Italian Continuers

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 Italian Continuers 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:

Section I – Listening

Characteristics of better responses:

  • full explanations were provided without simply translating
  • tone was understood
  • idiomatic expressions were understood
  • a global understanding was provided rather than a translation
  • a sophisticated comparison was provided with relevant details to support opinions when required.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

  • pronouns were confused
  • verbs such as trattare and sopportare were misunderstood
  • verb tenses were confused
  • irrelevant information for the question was provided
  • candidates provided limited evidence to support their answers.

Section II

Reading and Responding – Part A

Characteristics of better responses:

  • answers were supported with relevant details from the text
  • candidates referred to literary techniques used, for example rhetorical questions
  • a global understanding was demonstrated where required
  • supporting detail from the text was provided.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

  • sections of information were just translated
  • the meaning of cucina italiana (Question 9) was misunderstood in the context of the passage, giving a literal translation
  • both blogs were not referred to (Question 9d)
  • ideas about the topic area that were unrelated to the text were included
  • the word parentesi was misinterpreted.

Reading and Responding – Part B

Characteristics of better responses:

  • language was manipulated authentically and creatively to show empathy towards Mirella
  • hypothetical phrases were used competently
  • all the cues were responded to
  • language was controlled, with grammatical structures and vocabulary appropriate to the syllabus
  • ideas were structured and linked effectively.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

  • scripts were short and underdeveloped and lacked both creativity and understanding of the text as a whole
  • candidates focused on a limited number of cues, responding only to questions or isolated elements of the text
  • candidates used prepared material which did not relate to the text/context
  • there were frequent errors in grammar (such as noun agreements, possessive adjectives, subject/verb agreements), vocabulary and spelling.

Section III – Writing

Question 12

Characteristics of better responses:

  • gratitude for the support and guidance received was conveyed effectively
  • a range of verbs in the subjunctive was used effectively.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

  • some candidates wrote a letter rather than a note
  • the opening address and the closing of the note were often inappropriate
  • there was inconsistency with choice of register – many candidates went from Lei to tu
  • candidates resorted to anglicisms rather than authentic phrases, such as fare una decisione instead of prendere una decisione
  • spelling and agreements were often incorrect.

Question 13

Characteristics of better responses:

  • candidates wrote within the word limit
  • the correct text type was applied
  • candidates expanded well on their reflections rather than merely recounting an event or a contribution
  • language was manipulated authentically.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

  • candidates struggled with agreements, tenses, pronouns, application of the correct text type and, in particular, spelling.
Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size