Home

2013 Notes from the Marking Centre – Heritage Japanese

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 Heritage Japanese 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 Heritage Japanese Stage 6 Syllabus
the 2013 Higher School Certificate Heritage Japanese 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:

candidates demonstrated an in-depth understanding of the issue chosen for their Personal Investigation
candidates discussed and substantiated their points of view effectively, giving supporting reasons and examples
references were made to a range of texts, including oral, print, visual and multimedia texts and sources chosen from more than one context
responses to questions were fluent, confident and well structured and sequenced
candidates demonstrated a high level of grammatical accuracy and sophisticated vocabulary.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

candidates demonstrated superficial understanding of their chosen topic
candidates used prepared responses which were not tailored to the question being asked
candidates made limited references to the texts studied
the chosen topic was not linked to a syllabus issue
colloquial language and/or unsophisticated vocabulary and structures were used.

Written examination

Section I – Responding to texts

Characteristics of better responses:

summaries included all relevant details and were written using the appropriate conventions of the text type (Q.1)
information was taken from both texts and used to write a convincing application letter, including culturally appropriate expressions and conventions of the text type (Q.2)
original ideas/suggestions were supported with reasons and examples (Q.3)
the appropriate language register was used, showing an understanding of the situation (Q.4)
all four criteria were identified, the two entries were compared and a judgement, supported by evidence from the text, was made about which entry better met the criteria (Q.5).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

the spoken text was simply translated (Q.1)
some vocabulary was omitted or misunderstood , for example kaigan and boushi (Q.1)
responses did not refer to the information provided in Text 3 (Q.2)
candidates did not write for the specified audience (Q.3)
candidates wrote their own ideas with little or no reference to the text (Q.3)
candidates did not respond to the detailed points in Text 5 and simply translated Text 6 (Q.4)
candidates referred to criteria without supporting evidence from the text (Q.5).

Section II – Creating texts in Japanese

Characteristics of better responses:

a wide variety of vocabulary, sentence structures and prescribed kanji was used
highly relevant ideas were presented
candidates wrote persuasively, giving reasons (Q.6)
culturally appropriate knowledge of traditional Japanese festival events was demonstrated (Q.7).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

responses were not effectively structured
candidates did not use prescribed kanji or wrote non-prescribed kanji incorrectly
colloquial language was used inappropriately for the context/audience
candidates used only simple sentence structures, not demonstrating an ability to write persuasively.