2014 Notes from the Marking Centre – Indonesian Background Speakers
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 Indonesian Background Speakers 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 Background Speakers Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2014 Higher School Certificate Indonesian Background Speakers 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.
Section I – Listening and Responding: Part A
Characteristics of better responses:
- answers demonstrated an understanding of the text and included such features as changes in tone and the use of humour
- answers were supported with relevant references to the text
- understanding was demonstrated by paraphrasing rather than translating the text.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- answers repeated information already given in responses to other questions
- answers demonstrated a poor understanding of the text
- use of pronouns was incorrect (ie by using both he and she to refer to the female speaker)
- there was limited understanding of language features used
- candidates did not link identified language techniques to how they were used
- answers were not supported by reference to the text.
Section I – Listening and Responding: Part B
Characteristics of better responses:
- close reference was made to both texts
- candidates synthesised both texts into the new email, the text type required
- candidates compared and contrasted all the aspects of the issues raised in both texts
- the contemporary issues contained in the listening texts were understood.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates focused on only one of the texts
- both texts were referenced but not in detail
- the information in the listening texts was misunderstood and/or misquoted
- candidates listed details from the texts rather than comparing and contrasting the issues.
Section II – Reading and Responding: Part A
Characteristics of better responses:
- candidates demonstrated an understanding of the question in relation to the prescribed texts (Q.4)
- a thorough knowledge of the prescribed texts and the contemporary issues was shown (Q.4)
- candidates composed an argument with detailed and correct reference to the literary techniques (Q.3 and Q.4)
- the language and literary techniques used were analysed and linked back to the question (Q.3 and Q.4)
- candidates displayed individual flair and imagination in the answer and made close reference to the text (Q.4).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates did not fully understand the question in relation to the prescribed texts (Q.4)
- candidates displayed little or no knowledge of one or both of the prescribed texts (Q.3 and Q.4)
- candidates displayed little or no knowledge of the literary techniques contained in the prescribed texts (Q.3 and Q.4)
- isolated details from the prescribed texts were quoted but not linked back to the question, the theme and the contemporary issues (Q.4).
Section II – Reading and Responding: Part B
Characteristics of better responses:
- candidates responded to both the positive and negative aspects of the stimulus text
- the contemporary issues in the stimulus text were understood
- candidates referred closely to the stimulus text
- responses contained original and/or interesting ideas which were linked to the contemporary issues in the stimulus text
- arguments were convincing and supported with relevant facts and examples
- sophisticated language was used.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates responded to only one aspect of the stimulus text
- the contemporary issues in the stimulus text were misunderstood
- the response did not address the question
- responses were not supported with relevant facts and examples
- there was little or no elaboration of candidate’s ideas.
Section III – Writing in Indonesian
Characteristics of better responses:
- the requirements of the questions were fully understood
- candidates demonstrated the ability to reflect on the changes in family ties and the many challenges faced by youth (Q.6 and Q.7)
- original ideas were expressed and supported by relevant examples
- responses were written in a sophisticated manner and with flair.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates did not reflect as required in the questions
- a superficial understanding of the contemporary issues and the questions was shown
- a narrow range of ideas with examples that were stereotypical were used.
NSW Government