2013 Notes from the Marking Centre – Japanese Continuers
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 Japanese 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:
- the Japanese Continuers Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2013 Higher School Certificate Japanese Continuers 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 Japanese in Stage 6.
Oral examination
Characteristics of better responses:
- language was manipulated effectively and questions were responded to with relevant information and in some depth
- candidates could respond from a range of perspectives
- a wide range of vocabulary and sentence structures was used and responses were not repetitive
- ideas and information were communicated with a high level of accuracy
- confident and fluent responses with excellent pronunciation and appropriate intonation; use of authentic expressions such as sou desu ne, zannen desu ga, jitsu wa.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- use of prepared answers that did not address the question
- aizuchi was overused
- incomplete sentences and inconsistent use of tense and register
- candidates confused goro/gurai, nihongo/nihon, tsukurimasu/tsukaimasu, koto/mono, yasashii/yasui, chuugaku/chuugoku, arimasu/imasu, ikimasu/kimasu, eiga/eigo, itta koto ga arimasu/ikimashita
- incorrect use of particles, incorrect formation of te and tari forms
- incorrect use of plain form before to omoimasu and kara
- incorrect conjugation of i and na adjectives
- use of particle ni after a general time word
- omission of kara when using nazenara
- omission of negative ending when using amari.
Written examination
Section I – Listening
Characteristics of better responses:
- responses were not simply a translation of the text
- there was evidence of analysis, synthesis and evaluation where required
- responses were concise and not repetitive
- all relevant details were provided, including specific examples of language use and tone where required
- audience, purpose and context were identified where applicable.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates confused the days of the week, otouto/ototoi, byouki/byouin, warui/ii
- candidates were unfamiliar with the vocabulary shichigatsu (Q.1), hatsuka (Q.2), seibutsu (Q.7), musuko (Q.7)
- mistranslated ji as words
- missed nakareba naranai (obligation) in Question 9
- answers were simply translations of text and did not fully address the question
- information that was not in the text was included
- opinions were not supported by evidence from the text
- examples of language use were not provided.
Section II – Reading and Responding
Characteristics of better responses:
- relevant details from the text were included to support opinions, including specific examples of language use where required
- there was excellent understanding of the vocabulary, grammatical structures and kanji in the passages
- answers were concise and not repetitive.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates did not know the meaning of te shimau and no ni (Q.10), tokai (Q.11)
- confusion of kashite kureta with katte kureta (Q.10)
- mistranslation of kimono as clothes (Q.10)
- garden village as garden bridge (Q.11)
- koutsuu as traffic (Q.11)
- misunderstanding of ooya as a person’s name rather than landlady
- examples of language use/language features not provided
- candidates did not use the glossed items at the bottom of the passage.
Section III – Writing in Japanese
Characteristics of better responses:
- a wide range of vocabulary, language structures and kanji was used
- highly relevant and original ideas that fully addressed the question were presented
- ideas and information communicated with a high degree of accuracy, and structured and sequenced logically and fluently
- appropriate text-type conventions were used.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- inconsistent and/or incorrect use of tense, register and text-type conventions
- particle errors
- misspelling of isshoni, kyoumi, yuumei, shumi, sakkaa, basuketto booru
- confusion of daigaku/daigakkou, kougakkou/koukou, ryuugaku/ryokou, ikimasu/kimasu
- incorrect use of kara (because), agemasu/kuremasu/moraimasu, transitive/intransitive verbs mitsukeru/mitsukaru and hajimeru/hajimaru, noni and kedo/ga, adjectives before naru/to omou and joining adjectives
- use of Chinese simplified characters
- pre-learned responses not relevant to the question; inability to explain reasons for wanting to host (Q.12)
- responses were not persuasive (Q.14a)
- responses were not reflective (Q.14b)
- there was limited use of prescribed kanji.
NSW Government