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

2014 Notes from the Marking Centre – Indonesian Extension

Introduction

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

• candidates addressed the question and gave a point of view
• they included relevant examples to support an argumentpoint of view
• candidates used fluent, accurately pronounced, authentic Indonesian
• the answer was delivered consistently throughout.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• candidates lacked consistent delivery and often repeated information in order to reach the time limit
• responses were poorly structured and sequenced
• the evidence given to support an opinion was often irrelevant.

Written examination

Section I – Response to Prescribed Text

Part A

Characteristics of better responses:

• Bu Muslimah’s commitment to the school was correctly explained (Q.1a)
• Pak Harfan’s contributions to the scene were clearly identified and how these contributions reflected his character explained (Q.1b)
• the significance of the statement in reference to the scene and the film as a whole was clearly explained by providing an example of another scene from the film that reflected the same theme (Q.1c)
• the atmosphere of the scene was correctly identified and clear examples of different film techniques used to create this atmosphere were given (Q.1d)
• Bakri’s views on the value of education were compared with those of Pak Harfan
• responses were supported with clear examples from the film (Q.1e).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• candidates did not identify Bu Muslimah’s family ties as part of her commitment to the school (Q.1a)
• some general characteristics of Pak Harfan were described, but how Pak Harfan demonstrated these characteristics through his contribution to the scene was not explained (Q.1b)
• candidates did not make reference to another scene from the film (Q.1c)
• some candidates referred to lighting as an example which was not a significant film technique in this particular scene (Q.1d).

Part B

Characteristics of better responses:

• candidates made reference to the characters and events in the film which reflected the film’s themes
• some candidates commented on characters and incidents in the film outside of the extract given in the stimulus, which further illustrated Lintang’s feelings about the day’s events
• authentic colloquial language was used.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• the day’s events at the school were recounted without reflection on Lintang’s feelings, views or opinions
• unnecessary quotes from the given extract were included
• candidates often made vague, general references rather than referring to other incidents or characters in the film
• some candidates incorrectly referred to other events or characters from the film, for example, Rumahku dekat sekali dengan sekolah
• there was confusion over the correct register to use and/or inconsistencies in the use of the correct colloquial register were demonstrated
• candidates used kapan instead of ketika; for example, Kapan aku tiba di sekolah … rather than the correct Ketika aku tiba di sekolah …

Section II – Writing in Indonesian

Characteristics of better responses:

• candidates demonstrated a thorough understanding of the question by explaining what school teaches us and how one can use those skills to overcome obstacles in life, rather than simply discussing a range of skills that one is taught at school
• candidates understood the requirements of a speech, for example Ibu-Ibu dan Bapak-bapak yang terhormat, including a consistently correct formal register when directly addressing the audience throughout the speech, ie Anda sekalian
• a range of vocabulary and literary functions, such as the use of rhetorical questions, was used to engage and reach out to the audience
• candidates demonstrated a thorough understanding of the object-focus construction in all its forms.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• only one part or key word of the question was focused on
• candidates did not address or thank an audience of a speech correctly and included inappropriate phrases such as sekian dulu
• colloquial language and phrases were mixed with more formal vocabulary, resulting in an inconsistent register throughout the speech, for example, kamu rather than Anda sekalian
• frequent errors with the object-focus construction were made as well as obvious confusion about the difference between pe-an nouns and ke-an nouns
• candidates used siapa rather than the correct yang, ie Guru siapa mengajar … as opposed to the correct Guru yang mengajar …
• mengerjakan was used frequently rather than menempuh when referring to the sitting of an examination.