1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. 2014 HSC Exam papers
5. 2014 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Indonesian Continuers

2014 Notes from the Marking Centre – Indonesian Continuers

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 Indonesian Continuers 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 Continuers Stage 6 Syllabus
• the 2014 Higher School Certificate Indonesian 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 Indonesian in Stage 6.

Oral examination

Characteristics of better responses:

• questions were answered directly using relevant information, rather than material
• in-depth responses to the topic being explored were provided
• good intonation and pronunciation were maintained
• a range of sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures were used
• a high level of grammatical accuracy was maintained throughout the conversation
• candidates demonstrated skills in manipulating the language such as replacing a cognate with another term, for example kesayangan for favorit.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• some candidates recognised a key word in the question and gave a broad rehearsed answer instead of addressing the specific question
• candidates sometimes failed to grasp the focus of the question when it referred to a third person, for example, when asked Teman Anda belajar apa?, they answered with Saya belajar …
• candidates used duplication after plural expressions such as banyak, for example banyak teman-teman instead of banyak teman
• there was incorrect pronunciation and intonation of the words dengan, karena, pengalaman and sekolah and Indonesian terms were not used for countries and school subjects
• there was confusion between biasa and biasanya, sudah and sesudah
• incorrect word order was used, for example, saya favorit guru instead of guru favorit saya
• misused concepts included:
  • siapa or bahwa rather than yang
  • kita (we: myself and others, including the examiner) rather than kami (we: myself and others, but not including the examiner)
  • sambil/sementara/sedangkan
  • kapan (the question word) rather than waktu/ketika/kalau to express ‘when’
  • perjalanan (noun) rather than berjalan (verb) and vice versa
  • bosan (bored) rather than membosankan (boring) and vice versa
  • senang to express ‘like’ rather than suka
  • menikmati (to enjoy) rather than menyenangkan (enjoyable)
  • lucu (funny) for ‘fun’
  • menarik (interesting) rather than tertarik akan/pada … (interested in …)
  • adalah/ialah before a verb or an adjective
  • bekerja (to work) rather than mengerjakan/melakukan (to do)

Note: Students should not identify themselves or their school by mentioning their name, teacher's name or school name. They should also avoid naming the area in which they live giving the name of specific places which could identify the area in which they live.

In order to talk about places in their area without disclosing specific information students should use the phrase setempat or dekat, for example, pantai setempat, mal setempat

Students must use appropriate phrases when asking for questions to be repeated for example, bisa diulangi is not followed by terima kasih.

Written examination

Section I – Listening and Responding

Characteristics of better responses

• relevant details from the text were included to support their opinions (Qs5, 7 and 8)
• information from the text was linked to support their opinions (Qs5, 7 and 8)
• the change in attitude was identified (Q 6)
• the context was identified (Qs 4 and 6)
• the advertised position was identified and the significance of the club’s sponsorship of orang-utans was explained (Q8).

Characteristics of weaker responses

• the following vocabulary items; pijat, kenang-kenangan, pertunjukan, gratis, hormat, sopan, suci, tepi, servis antar-jemput, tukang masak, binatang liar, binatang piaraan, dokter hewan, pecinta alam were not known
• the Student’s Notes section was not used
• the context of the announcement was either not identified correctly or not identified at all (Q4)
• candidates lacked understanding of the promotion on offer (Q5)
• little or no reference to animals was made (Q8).

Section II – Reading and Responding

Part A

Question 9

Characteristics of better responses:

• the concept warga dunia was understood
• candidates identified that the text presented both the positive and negative impacts of social networking and a range of people’s opinions about social networking
• the reasons for each group’s opinions on the impact of social networking were understood.

Characteristics of weaker responses

• the following vocabulary items were not known: warga dunia,kapan saja, di mana saja, kelas menengah, terasing, ketinggalan zaman, berInternet-ria, orangtua
• answers lacked detailed
• the scope of opinions was not identified.

Question 10

Characteristics of better responses:

• candidates weighed up the suitability of each prospective travel companion with supporting evidence from the text
• several differences between the language used by Esti and the other respondents were identified and supported by relevant examples
• the significance of the notice board in finding a travel companion was identified
• the use of the word aman was understood in the context of the text.

Characteristics of weaker responses

• the following vocabulary items were not known: aman, ngobrol, berkeberatan, Jawa Timur, papan pengumuman
• candidates did not discuss language features.

Section II – Reading and Responding

Part B

Characteristics of better responses:

• global understanding of the text was demonstrated
• sophisticated structures were used accurately
• some original ideas and language were expressed
• an appropriate context for how the diary was found was provided
• the response engaged with the audience and had a personal tone

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• the content of the diary entry was retold
• time words were confused, for example kapan/ketika
• candidates showed difficulty in expressing ‘to find/found’ for example mendirikan or lihat instead of menemukan
• candidates had difficulty with ‘diary’ for example using surat or huruf instead of buku harian
• candidates showed difficulty in expressing direct and indirect speech for example Dia kata or Dia bicara instead of Dia berkata (Q.11).

Section III – Writing in Indonesian

Characteristics of better responses:

• a range of vocabulary and language structures including prefixes and suffixes were used
• reflective language was used effectively (Q13)
• the correct text type was used
• candidates phrased questions correctly (Q13)
• the correct salutation and pronoun were used to address the teacher (Q12)

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• inconsistent register was used, particularly for the interview text type (Q13)
• irrelevant information was included which did not focus on aspects of the school visit (Q13a)
• candidates had poor knowledge of geography and specific cultural characteristics of places visited in Indonesia (Q12 and Q13a)
• dictionaries were used without crosschecking meanings
• nouns and verbs were confused, for example makan/makanan, mengalami/pengalaman
• active and passive verb forms were confused
• there was evidence of direct translation from English.