2014 Notes from the Marking Centre – Indonesian Beginners
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 Indonesian Beginners course. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2014 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 Beginners Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2014 Higher School Certificate Indonesian Beginners examination
- the marking guidelines
- Advice for students attempting HSC languages examinations, and HSC Languages oral examinations – advice to students
- Advice to 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:
- candidates provided a direct response that included relevant information
- conjunctions which allowed for a more logical connection of ideas
- a variety of vocabulary with a wide range of affixes such as eg me-kan, ter-, di-, pe-, -an, ke-an, pe-an was used accurately
- language forms and word order were controlled.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates used basic sentence structure and relied on simple verbs (suka, ke), familiar ber- verbs (belajar, bermain) and simple nouns
- candidates included rehearsed sentences with no direct connection to the specific question asked
- there were errors in intonation, for example kadang-kadang, and pronunciation, for example karena, keluarga
-
common errors included:
- tidak instead of belum
- daerah
- berlibur
- pindah
- SIM
- lebih suka
- question words (kapan, mengapa, bagaimana, berapa kali)
Written examination
Section I – Listening
Characteristics of better responses:
- ideas were synthesised with justification from the text
- attention was paid to the mark allocations and the appropriate amount of detail was provided
- candidates demonstrated global comprehension of the texts
- responses were well-constructed and succinct
- information from the candidates notes section was included in the answer
- incorrect multiple-choice options were eliminated, often using a cross to delete an answer.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- there was understanding of the general gist of questions but the supporting detail required for higher marks in questions worth 3, 4 or 5 marks was not provided
- in conversations involving reference to a third person, candidates often ascribed information or attributes to the wrong person
- candidates often did not answer the specific question asked
- some candidates did not write in the candidates notes section as they listened.
Section II – Reading
Characteristics of better responses:
- candidates identified, explained, justified where necessary and demonstrated a perceptive understanding of the texts
- the most appropriate definition of words that were looked up in the dictionary was applied
- responses made sense in English and directly addressed the question being asked
- high order inference skills were displayed in questions worth 4 and 5 marks.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates experienced difficulty in justifying their responses with supporting detail from the text
- candidates experienced difficulty identifying the varying purposes of the text
- some candidates made no attempt to answer some questions – at the very least, candidates should try to identify a piece of relevant information from the text
- knowledge of common vocabulary from the wide range of topics in the syllabus was limited.
Section III – Writing in Indonesian
Characteristics of better responses:
- the text type specified was used
- candidates wrote cohesive and logical texts that met the suggested word count
- connectives and sophisticated structures were used
- an apology with appropriate reasons and suggestions for going to the movies at another time were given (Q.17)
- detailed responses containing a variety of post-graduation plans were provided (Q.18)
- candidates wrote sustained texts that contained logically developed creative ideas (Qs.19 and 20).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- the text type specified was not used
- responses did not address or engage the audience
- common errors included incorrect use of ke followed by a verb, incorrect understanding of me … i verbs and difficulties expressing ‘to have fun’
- the incorrect register was used, for example using Anda to a friend instead of kamu (Q.17)
- the use of preposition with time was also problematic, as was the use of bisa and boleh to indicate modality
- a literal translation from English was evident (Q.18)
- ideas were not sequenced logically and the suggested length was not met (Qs.19 and 20).