2014 Notes from the Marking Centre – Korean Background Speakers
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 Korean 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 Korean Background Speakers Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2014 Higher School Certificate Korean 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 Korean in Stage 6.
Section I – Listening and Responding
Characteristics of better responses:
- responses were not simply a translation of the text
- relevant, detailed examples were provided to support opinions
- information from both texts was used to compare and contrast the issues raised in the texts
- a well-developed understanding of language techniques, tone, context and audience was demonstrated
- responses were within the word limit
- there was evidence of good control of vocabulary and language structures
- the main ideas presented in both texts were incorporated into a school newspaper article targeting high school students.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates showed a limited understanding of four-character idiom
- candidates presented a few ideas from the texts to express opinions but used the incorrect text type
- responses were often simply a translation of the text
- responses focused on factual information without providing detailed explanation
- a limited understanding of context and audience was demonstrated, and the incorrect text type was often used
- responses included poor spelling and inappropriate use of vocabulary and grammatical structures
- insufficient textual references were used.
Section II – Reading and Responding
Characteristics of better responses:
- relevant details from the poem were included to support opinions
- there was excellent synthesis of poetic language which related to the atmosphere or mood
- opinions were expressed with close reference to the text
- there was a good analysis of the way in which language was used to convey meaning
- a thorough explanation was provided with reference to both texts
- a sophisticated understanding of the texts was demonstrated (Q.4).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- poetic language was identified without commenting on how it was used to evoke the mood or atmosphere
- no relevant details from the poem were included
- the poetic expressions were not supported with examples from the text and in some cases the poetic techniques mentioned were irrelevant to the text
- there was not a balanced analysis of both texts
- there was limited control of language and absence of structure in their writing
- some responses were a summary of the unseen text
- candidates referred to general or pre-learnt knowledge about environmental issues, and either did not refer to the texts or used only isolated references from the text.
Section III – Writing in Korean
Characteristics of better responses:
- a range of vocabulary and language structures was included
- ideas were effectively expressed according to context, purpose, audience and text type
- the essay included an introduction, a body with in-depth analysis of the issues, and a convincing conclusion
- a variety of information and ideas was presented logically
- a good understanding of issues was demonstrated and some solutions were provided
- responses were the appropriate length of 350 words.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- use of register was inconsistent
- personal opinions were presented without using them to form a persuasive or coherent argument
- responses included inaccuracies in written expression, poor sequencing, a lack of cohesiveness, and irrelevant ideas
- language was manipulated poorly
- ideas were not structured and sequenced correctly
- the correct text type was not used
- responses were not the appropriate length of 350 words.
NSW Government