2015 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 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 Modern Hebrew Continuers Stage 6 Syllabus
- the 2015 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 Continuers in Stage 6.
Oral examination
Part A – Conversation
Characteristics of better responses:
- effective communication skills were demonstrated
- responses were elaborated using a variety of tenses, when required
- a high level of vocabulary, including a range of sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures, was evident
- the language was effectively manipulated, using the correct intonation
- a point of view was expressed and justified.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- depth and fluency was lacking
- responses were brief with the occasional use of English syntax
- past and future tenses were not used correctly or not used at all
- frequent grammar mistakes were made, including incorrect use of the infinitive (for example, ani ohevet mesachek or Anchnu rotzim lelechet l’ israel ) and incorrect preposition after certain verbs (for example, doeg al )
- harbe and meod were confused
- the preposition et before a proper noun and definite article was not used
- verbs lifgosh and lehipagesh were confused
- mitanyan and meunyan were mixed up.
Part B – Discussion
Characteristics of better responses:
- topics that related directly to the syllabus topics were well defined, allowed for discussion and provided opportunities to express and justify a point of view
- detailed and perceptive references were made to three texts, including a literary source, and insight into linking the sources to the topic was demonstrated
- a point of view was discussed and substantiated effectively, supported by evidence from sources
- in-depth knowledge of the topic was demonstrated by giving fluent and elaborated responses to questions
- a high level of grammatical accuracy, use of a range of sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures, and correct pronunciation and intonation were demonstrated
- conclusions were drawn from the in-depth study.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- research lacked depth
- questions were not always understood, or were answered with insufficient depth and detail
- an inability to elaborate was evident
- resources were mentioned briefly but not effectively linked to topic
- ideas and a point of view were not coherently expressed
- knowledge of specific vocabulary relating to the topic was lacking
- inaccuracies in grammatical structures were evident.
Written examination
Section I – Listening and Responding
Characteristics of better responses:
- responses were not simply a translation of the text
- responses had depth and included all the relevant detail needed
- answers were supported by clear references to the texts
- responses were well structured and clearly articulated
- evidence from the text was connected with direct reference to the content and language of the text.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- quotes from the texts were given in Hebrew without giving an explanation
- translations of the text were given and the question was not addressed
- parts of the question were not addressed
- insufficient evidence was provided to support an answer
- details in the texts were referred to without linking them to the question.
Section II – Reading and Responding
Characteristics of better responses:
- relevant details from the text were included to support responses
- in-depth detail was provided
- main points of the text were identified and all the relevant information was included
- conclusions were inferred and drawn, with supporting evidence from the text provided.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- a detailed response was not provided
- only a translation of the text was given
- conclusions were not inferred or drawn from the text
- neither accurate grammar nor correct vocabulary was used
- parts of the question were not addressed.
Section III – Writing in Modern Hebrew Continuers
Characteristics of better responses:
- a range of vocabulary, language and grammatical structures was used correctly
- relevant detail was provided
- a logical sequence and good structure were evident
- conventions of text types were appropriately applied
- appropriate language was used (for example, persuasive language, evaluative language) to meet the requirements of the task.
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- the requirements of the task in terms of content, language and/or text type were not met
- English syntax and translation were evident
- frequent errors in language structures and vocabulary were made, including:
- incorrect use of tenses, eg haya instead of yiheyeh
- incorrect use of prepositions, eg ozer, et
- incorrect use of prepositions in conjugation, eg shelo instead of shelcha, la instead of lach
- incorrect agreement of irregular nouns and adjectives, eg miktzo'ot tovot, mekomot yafot
- the word limit was not met and there was repetition and irrelevant information provided.
NSW Government