2014 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 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 Heritage Japanese Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2014 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:
- an in-depth understanding and treatment of the issue chosen for their Personal Investigation were demonstrated
- a point of view was discussed and substantiated effectively with 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
- candidates spoke fluently and confidently and gave well-structured and sequenced responses to questions
- a high level of grammatical accuracy and sophisticated vocabulary was demonstrated.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- a superficial understanding of their chosen topic was demonstrated
- some candidates gave prepared responses that were not tailored to the questions being asked
- limited references to texts studied were made
- there was an inability to link the chosen topic 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:
- effective English expression, including all relevant details and speech conventions, was used (Q.1)
- the underlying issues were clearly identified with detailed reference to the text (Q.2)
- the diary entry included a decision and an explanation of how the decision was made, using information from the text (Q.3)
- the speech included detailed references from both texts and was explicitly written for the parent audience (Q.4)
- the appropriate language register was used and a decision was made and supported through referencing the email and both advertisements (Q.5)
- An opinion was clearly articulated and supported with detailed reference to the text (Q.6).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- vocabulary and expressions were omitted or misunderstood, for example hatsuka made ni and otoshidama hagaki (Q.1)
- the spoken text was simply translated into a written text (Q.2)
- a decision and/or references to the principal’s speech were not included in the diary entry (Q.3)
- rather than drawing on references from the texts, candidates wrote their own ideas or drew on their general knowledge of the internet (Q.4)
- little or no reference was made to the email and both advertisements (Q.5)
- few references to the text were made and candidates wrote a letter to the mayor rather than to the newspaper editor (Q.6).
Section II – Creating texts in Japanese
Characteristics of better responses:
- a wide variety of vocabulary, sentence structures and prescribed kanji was used accurately
- relevant ideas were effectively structured and sequenced
- appropriate vocabulary and expressions were used to engage the audience (Q.7)
- candidates wrote persuasively, supporting their responses with many examples and reasons (Q.8).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- responses were not effectively structured and sequenced
- they included descriptive writing rather than persuasive writing (Q.8)
- an inappropriate language register was used
- incorrect text type conventions were used.
NSW Government