2015 Notes from the Marking Centre – German Extension
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 German 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 German Extension Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2015 Higher School Certificate German 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 German in Stage 6.
Oral examination
Characteristics of better responses:
- a well-structured response with an introduction, main body and conclusion was presented
- the time limit was adhered to and there was a lack of repetition
- a clear stance was taken, either agreeing or disagreeing with the statement, or stating both sides of the argument
- a range of examples was presented to illustrate the stance taken.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- ideas were repeated or too few examples were given
- poor use of language and grammar was demonstrated, and anglicisms were used
- opinions and illustrations were poorly structured
- an introduction, main body and conclusion were lacking
- the time requirement of 3 minutes was not met.
Section I – Response to Prescribed Text
Part A
Characteristics of better responses:
- sound understanding of the extracts and the film as a whole, as well as the connection to the prescribed issue(s) was demonstrated
- in-depth understanding of the characters and their motivations was demonstrated
- an ability to describe and perceptively interpret film techniques, analyse and draw valid conclusions was demonstrated
- relevance to the question was maintained and knowledge was adapted accordingly.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- sketchy knowledge of the details of the storyline was evident
- superficial understanding of events and subtleties of the film was demonstrated
- irrelevant information was included; for example, padding or retelling the story
- some inaccurate information was provided
- relevant and appropriate film techniques were not utilised.
Part B
Characteristics of better responses:
- a perceptive and sensitive understanding of the film as a whole was demonstrated
- an ability to effectively interpolate both elements of the extract was demonstrated
- the appropriate text type was used (letter) and the scenario of the letter was set well
- the appropriate register was used consistently
- texts were written within the parameters of the film, reflective language was used and the question was addressed in depth
- appropriate linking words were included to make the texts more authentic
- ideas were communicated clearly with only minor errors in grammar.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- superficial knowledge and understanding of the film as a whole was demonstrated
- both elements of the extract were not woven well into the response
- the story was re-told rather than reflecting on the question
- ‘back stories’ beyond the parameters of the film were created
- the register was inconsistent, and moved between du, ihr and Sie
- organisation of the text through punctuation and paragraphing was problematic
- English syntax was a heavy influence.
Section II – Writing in German
Question 3
Characteristics of better responses:
- the question was clearly addressed with regard to how the pressure to achieve limits the development of meaningful relationships
- a very clear understanding of the purpose of the text and its audience was demonstrated
- tying varying perspectives together was achieved effectively
- the language and vocabulary used was varied, rich and under control
- the logical flow of the thesis was supported by clear paragraphing, punctuation and the inclusion of appropriate linking expressions
- the arguments were clearly linked to the question
- the insights were perceptive, sensitive and engaging.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- the question was understood but not addressed clearly and effectively
- maintaining the logical flow of the argument was not achieved
- insights were superficial and limited
- strong influence of English syntax obscured the meaning and the relevance of supporting material was unclear.
Section II – Writing in German
Question 4
Characteristics of better responses:
- the question was clearly addressed with regard to how today’s society places too little value on meaningful communication
- a very clear understanding of the purpose of the text and its audience was demonstrated
- an ability to define effectively the concept of meaningful communication was demonstrated, and varying examples of how today’s society places too little value on communication were given
- texts were not necessarily limited to technology and its impact on communication
- vocabulary and language structures were varied and rich
- the logical flow of the thesis was supported by clear paragraphing, punctuation and the inclusion of appropriate linking expressions
- the arguments were clearly linked to the question
- the insights were perceptive, sensitive and engaging.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- meaningful communication was not defined
- a coherent and sustained thesis in response to the question was not developed
- evidence was tied together loosely in an attempt to answer the question
- strong influence of English syntax obscured the meaning
- verbs were used for nouns and vice versa, and the use of the dictionary was poor.
NSW Government