2015 Notes from the Marking Centre – French Extension
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 French Extension course. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2015 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 French Extension Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2015 Higher School Certificate French 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 French in Stage 6.
Oral examination
Characteristics of better responses:
- a logical and well-structured argument was developed and presented within the three minutes, and was supported with a well-chosen range of ideas, and clearly explained evidence, which linked back to the question
- ideas were communicated confidently and fluently, with authentic intonation and pronunciation, and with only minor inaccuracies
- a high level of linguistic competence was demonstrated, with sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures as well as a high level of accuracy, which was used to manipulate the argument concisely
- the crux of the argument was established straightaway, before getting into the body of the discussion
- the plan of the argument and examples were outlined concisely and clearly linked to the question by using appropriate linking words and explaining ‘how’ and ‘why’ the conclusion was reached.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- the French version of the question was not read, and introductions/statements were lengthy, pompous and formulaic with no connection to the question. As a final statement, a solution to an unrelated problem was suggested , wasting precious time
- statistics and ‘findings’ from survey companies were very loosely used or made up
- pre-learned material, which often did not address the question or went off topic, was heavily relied on, and the idea of social class was misunderstood
- clear links to the question were lacking and did not refer to ‘how’. The question was merely restated as the link, rather than pursuing/explaining the idea. A new question was created rather than answering the one given
- contradictions were present in the arguments, with the introduction not matching the conclusion, as well as referencing the prescribed text or making references to popular culture such as characters in TV programs
- English syntax and anglicisms were used, and poor pronunciation and many inaccuracies were evident, such as verb and adjective agreements, tenses and gender. Some common errors were: la divorce, le change, assumer, relevant
- the personal world was dealt with rather than the contemporary world.
Question 1
Characteristics of better responses:
- clear arguments about how children adapt to change in the structure of the family were presented. This question was approached in a more original manner, delineating under which circumstances and for what reasons children could or could not adapt to change in the family structure
- evidence was provided on how the children are coping with the change to family structures, as well as the positive and negative impact of the change and supported with current and well-selected examples, such as health issues and child behaviour
- a balanced view was given, with examples of how the change of family structure, such as through divorce or a death, could have a negative impact on a child, or how children deal with the move from nuclear families to other forms of families.
Question 2
Characteristics of better responses:
- how visible or not the social class is was constantly referred to and a balanced and in- depth view was given
- clear examples of social class were discussed, and examples of how social differences are visible through the lack of money, possessions, clothes, cars and education were well linked to the question and explored in depth.
Section I – Response to Prescribed Text
Part A
Characteristics of better responses:
- paraphrasing of the quote demonstrated understanding, and the explanation of Sami’s surprise was clearly expressed (Q1 a)
- the quote cette horreur was successfully paraphrased and contextualised. The significance was linked to the insensitivity/offensive/dismissive nature of the remark with regards to Sami and Nadia, as well as Caroline’s preoccupation with environmental foods. The link to her privileged class at being able to pick and choose her food was also made (Q1 b)
- several instances of irony in the extract were successfully identified, particularly the disparity between words and actions. This was especially applicable to Caroline and/or Sami. Caroline’s manifestation of professing one thing and wearing or doing another was a frequent source of irony commented on (Q1 c)
- the impact of social class was explored by direct reference to the relationship between Caroline and Chow Yung Fi in the given extract and elsewhere in the film. An analysis of the evolution of the relationship from one of master–servant to the one of seeming equality with the proposal of marriage, while recognising the mutual exploitation by both Caroline and Chow Yung Fi, was provided (Q1 d).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- the Arabic and/or Chinese was not mentioned or the quote was paraphrased inaccurately (Q1 a)
- neither the ‘insensitivity’ of Caroline’s remark, nor that cette horreur referred to the cake, was mentioned (Q1 b)
- an understanding of irony was not shown or irony was confused with social class. The use of clothing as an example of irony was not successfully explained (Q1 c)
- neither the relationship between Caroline and Chow Yung Fi, nor the progression of this relationship was shown with regard to the given extract and at least one other scene (Q1 d)
- social class was discussed but not in terms of any relationship
- film technique was discussed (although it was not required) but it did not explain the impact of social class through the relationship of Caroline and Chow Yung Fi.
Part B
Characteristics of better responses:
- a perceptive and sensitive understanding of the prescribed text was shown by writing in the true voice of Stan and correctly identifying key elements of the film and the characters through his text
- Stan’s relationship to his children and his wife, and also to his mother, were effectively demonstrated
- a good range of tenses and language, including the subjunctive mood, and complex structures, such as si clauses using the conditional perfect were utilised
- flair and creativity when reflecting on Stan’s past and comparing it to that of his children was clearly demonstrated
- humour was sometimes used with great effect, reflecting the comical nature of Stan’s character in the film and his poor relationship with his ex-wife
- concise and succinct diary entries were provided, which fully answered the question without verbosity.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- the text type of a diary entry was not always clear
- the length was well above the required number of words
- key elements from the dinner scene were not identified; for example, Sami using his knife to cut his salad, and the ensuing fight between Caroline and Charles
- the question was not addressed, with too much spent on recounting and reflecting on Stanislas’ childhood without comparing it to that of his children
- the voice of Stan was not always true to his character in the film; for example, super, chouette, chier. A recount of events in the film in the voice of the candidate was presented
- confusion about Sami’s table manners and French etiquette was evident, such as claiming that Sami should not have cut his salad with his fork
- frequent weaknesses in expression and language were evident; for example, poor execution of tenses (reflexive verbs in the perfect tense); confusion between words (lever and enlever versus élever, supporter versus soutenir, couter versus couper); incorrect genders (la dîner, la problem, ma ex-femme); poor structures (je suis partie de versus je fais partie de); the conjugation of the verb devoir; poor execution of the subjunctive.
Section II – Writing in French
Characteristics of better responses:
- grammatical accuracy, use of sophisticated vocabulary and grammatical structures and effective manipulation of language were demonstrated to a high level
- the thesis was clearly stated in the introduction and outlined the arguments to be presented, demonstrating evidence of good planning
- the argument was clearly linked back to the question
- the structure of a speech with relevant opening and closing formula, as well as speech conventions (eg rhetorical questions, imperatives, addressing the audience and linking the argument back to the question) was evident
- a range of two to three different ideas were included to support the argument and each idea was developed and linked back to the question.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- a lot of anglicisms were included, as well as basic grammatical errors with incorrect verb conjugations and prepositions and spelling mistakes
- not all parts of the question were addressed and pre-learnt material that was not linked or relevant to the question was included
- an essay or an article rather than a speech was presented, completely ignoring the text type
- the use of the imperative (réfléchir, affaiblir, enrichir and réussir) proved challenging
- statistics were used incorrectly
- the word length was not adhered to, resulting in long and repetitive answers
- tolerance was confused with diversity
- clichéd expressions were used incorrectly.
NSW Government