2014 Notes from the Marking Centre – Modern Hebrew Continuers
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 Modern Hebrew 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 Modern Hebrew Continuers Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2014 Higher School Certificate Modern Hebrew 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 Modern Hebrew in Stage 6.
Oral examination
Part A – Conversation
Characteristics of better responses:
- responses were elaborated using a variety of tenses, when required
- a range of sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures were used
- the language was manipulated effectively using the correct intonation
- a point of view was expressed and justified.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- responses to questions lacked depth and fluency
- English syntax was occasionally used
- past and future tenses were not used correctly or not used at all
-
there were frequent grammatical mistakes, including:
- incorrect use of the infinitive (eg ani ohevet mesachek, or Anchnu rotzim lelechet l’ israel )
- incorrect preposition after certain verbs (eg doeg al )
- candidates confused harbe and meod
- the preposition et was not used before proper noun and the definite article
- candidates confused verbs such as lifgosh and lehipagesh
- candidates confused mitanyan and meunyan.
Part B – Discussion
Characteristics of better responses:
- candidates chose well-defined topics that were interesting, related directly to the syllabus, allowed for discussion and provided opportunities to express and justify a point of view
- detailed and perceptive references to sources were made, including mention of a literary source, the usefulness of the sources and also, in some cases, a comparison of sources
- in-depth knowledge of the topic area was demonstrated
- responses to questions were detailed and fluent
- there was a high level of grammatical accuracy; a range of sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures were used; and pronunciation and intonation were correct
- a point of view was established and substantiated effectively, supported by reasons and evidence from sources.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- research lacked depth
- questions were not always understood or not answered with sufficient depth and detail
- rote-learnt material was evident in responses and there was no elaboration
- resources were mentioned briefly but not discussed in reference to their contribution to the in-depth study
- some candidates presented a wealth of information relating to the topic, but could not translate it into coherent ideas and a point of view
- specific vocabulary relating to the topic was not always used
- lower levels of grammatical accuracy were used than when presenting their topics.
Written examination
Section I – Listening and Responding
Characteristics of better responses:
- responses were not simply a translation of the text
- responses had depth and detail and included all the relevant information from the texts
- candidates supported their answers with references to the texts
- in the longer responses, answers were well structured and clearly articulated
- where appropriate, candidates evaluated and inferred effectively, making reference to the content and language of the texts to support their answer.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates quoted from the texts in Hebrew, which did not demonstrate their understanding
- responses were simply a translation of the text
- candidates did not respond to all aspects of the question as required
- candidates did not provide enough evidence to support their answer when evaluating and inferring
- candidates referred to details in the texts without linking them to the question
- candidates provided evidence from the text that did not support the answer given.
Section II – Reading and Responding
Characteristics of better responses:
- relevant details from the text were included to support opinions
- responses provided depth and detail
- evaluations were comprehensive
- sufficient relevant evidence was provided from the text to support the candidates’ responses
- when comparing, candidates clearly demonstrated differences and similarities and drew conclusions from the comparison.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- candidates did not provide a detailed response
- responses were simply a translation of the texts
- candidates did not use accurate grammar or correct vocabulary
- candidates did not make sufficient reference to the main points raised in the text.
Section III – Writing in Modern Hebrew
Characteristics of better responses:
- a variety of vocabulary and a range of language structures were used
- candidates provided relevant depth and detail in response to the topics
- responses were well structured
- candidates used grammatical structures accurately
- responses were relevant and coherent.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- responses did not always fully meet the requirements of the task
- responses showed evidence of English syntax and translation
- there were frequent errors in language structures and vocabulary
-
candidates did not meet the word limit and responses were repetitive with frequent errors in sentence structure, including:
- use of infinitive: ani leholech
- incorrect use of tenses: mitragashti
- incorrect use of the verbs makir and yodea
- incorrect use of prepositions: ozer et
- incorrect use of prepositions in conjugation: shelo instead of shelcha, la instead of lach.
NSW Government