2015 Notes from the Marking Centre – Indonesian Continuers
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 Indonesian Continuers 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 Indonesian Continuers Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2015 Higher School Certificate Indonesian 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 Indonesian in Stage 6.
Oral examination
Characteristics of better responses:
- a high level of reflection and evaluation was demonstrated
- a variety of vocabulary and broad use of sophisticated structures and phrases were evident; for example, memperlakukan saya sebagai orang dewasa
- overall use of the object focus construction and conjunctions has improved.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- problems with word order and object focus construction was evident
- words such as apa, siapa, kapan were not understood
- the meaning of Surat izin mengemudi was not known, and Anda was used rather than saya
- some use of rote-learned answers was evident
- a range of vocabulary and language structures was not demonstrated
- specific problems were encountered with pronunciation of karena, kalau and sekarang
- confusion between di and ke was evident
- confusion between bosan and membosankan was evident.
Section I – Listening and Responding
Characteristics of better responses:
- Hendri's deception was identified (Q1)
- information in the text was linked in order to explain the suitability of the hotel's name (Q4)
- a strong global understanding of the presented information was displayed (Q3, Q5, Q6 and Q7)
- an understanding of tense was displayed (Q5 and Q7)
- an understanding of the concept of wisatawan yang berkelakuan kasar/turis yang bersikap kurang sopan was displayed (Q6)
- information from the text was linked to a range of emotions (Q8).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- knowledge of the following vocabulary items was lacking and these were not referenced in the dictionary: berpegangan tangan, terang, sederhana, air, ditunda, dikembalikan, berkelakuan, kasar, terasing, idaman, halangan
- minimal use of the Student's Notes section was evident
- knowledge of the purpose of the phone call was lacking (Q3)
- the main points in the announcement were either not identified at all or were not identified correctly (Q5)
- pergaulan was associated with the wrong speaker (Q7)
- that there were two universities being discussed was not understood (Q8)
- the subject of the conversation was described without link to any emotions (Q8).
Section II – Reading and Responding Part A
Question 9
Characteristics of better responses:
- Rudi's role within the sports exchange program was identified
- the differing reasons for the popularity of each sport were identified
- Rudi's feelings about the status of Indonesian sportspeople were identified
- the status of actors/pop stars with that of sportspeople was contrasted.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- knowledge of the following vocabulary items was lacking and these were not referenced in the dictionary: melatih, kebanggaan, pemuda, mendukung, ketrampilan tinggi, dihargai, piagam penghargaan, sesuai dengan
- badminton as a source of national pride was not identified
- a generalisation about both sports being popular for the same reason was made
- that sporting competitions in Australia are more competitive was not identified
- that Rudi was contrasting Australia with Indonesia was not understood (10c)
- the connection between the Australian government/Australian businesses and sport training programs was not understood.
Section II - Reading and Responding Part A
Question 10
Characteristics of better responses:
- Pak Hendro's connection with the region was identified
- both the physical/environmental changes as well as the changes in community attitude/spirit were identified
- Pak Hendro's expectation that the business leaders should provide financial support was identified
- an understanding of the given statement was displayed and its significance was explained
- a range of language techniques was identified and how the techniques were used to persuade the audience was explained.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- knowledge of the following vocabulary items was lacking and these were not referenced in the dictionary: kampung halaman, dibesarkan, pelabuhan, bangunan, modal, pemimpin, semangat gotong royong, untung, warisan
- the changes in the community's attitude/spirit was not identified
- the concept of gotong royong was not understood
- the meaning and/or significance of the statement was not explained
- an over-reliance on explaining how Pak Hendro persuaded his audience through his arguments rather than through language techniques was evident.
Section II – Reading and Responding
Part B
Characteristics of better responses:
- each comment or question in the text was addressed
- sophisticated structures were used accurately
- information was paraphrased when repeating information from the text
- several cues from the text were elaborated in a relevant manner.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- not all elements of the text were addressed, in particular the details about the film and whether Alex had seen the first film
- irrelevant information was included; for example their future plans
- membintangi/dibintangi were confused
- lihat/melihat/dilihat was used instead of kelihatan
- bekerja/pekerjaan were confused
- inconsistency in the use of pronouns was evident, for example saya/aku
- the required word limit was not achieved.
Section III – Writing in Indonesian
Characteristics of better responses:
- a range of vocabulary and language structures was used, including prefixes and suffixes
- reflective language was used effectively (Q13)
- the question and text type were addressed adequately and relevantly
- some detail about the particular cultural event attended (Q13a), or the job offer received was given (Q13b).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- unsuitable phrases for a diary entry text type were used, for example Seperti kamu sudah tahu, or retelling events as if writing a letter or email to someone else were included (Q13)
- sufficient reflection was not included (Q13)
- dictionaries were used without cross-checking meanings, resulting in wrong word choice
- bosan/membosankan, lelah/melalahkan were confused
- difficulty expressing ‘I was offered a job’ using the passive voice was evident, for example ditawar/menawar instead of Saya pernah ditawari pekerjaan or Pekerjaan baru ditawarkan kepada saya (Q13b)
- difficulty in asking questions was evident; for example, using Apa kamu pikiran? instead of Bagaimana pendapatmu?
- direct translation from English was evident.
NSW Government