2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Modern Hebrew Continuers
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Modern Hebrew. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2009 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 relevant syllabus, the 2009 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents which have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Modern Hebrew.
General Comments
Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may ask questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating their knowledge, understanding and skills developed through studying the course.
Candidates need to be aware that the mark allocated to the question and the answer space (where this is provided on the examination paper), are guides to the length of the required response. A longer response will not in itself lead to higher marks. Writing far beyond the indicated space may reduce the time available for answering other questions.
Candidates need to be familiar with the Board’s Glossary of Key Words which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how?’, ‘why?’ or ‘to what extent?’ may be asked or verbs may be used which are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.
Oral Examination
Conversation and Discussion
Part A – Conversation
Responses in the conversation were generally impressive. Candidates were well prepared and spoke with depth and a high level of grammatical accuracy, which included the correct use of smichut and prepositions. In the better responses, candidates used sophisticated vocabulary and a range of sentence structures. They were able to converse using all three tenses and demonstrated an ability to express and justify a point of view.
In the weaker responses, candidates did not answer questions with breadth and depth. They gave very brief answers and spoke with frequent pauses and a lack of fluency. They did not use the past and future tenses well and made frequent mistakes in grammar and sentence structure. In some cases, the influence of English syntax was evident: hahorim lo rotzim ani lalechet.
There was also incorrect usage of the infinitive. Some candidates used the infinitive without a preceding verb: kol hayeladim lilmod ivrit; in some cases, smichut was not used correctly, particularly when used with the definite article: hasfat hamoreshet, hashiurei bayit.
Mistakes were also made in noun–verb agreement: hamishpacha holchim; some candidates did not use verbs with the correct preposition: letapel et, la’azor et, liztpot et. Mistakes were also made in using the adverb mistadrim tovim. In some cases, students confused the verbs lilmod and lelamed.
Part B – Discussion
This section comprises a discussion between the examiner and the candidate on a topic that has been chosen by the candidate for in-depth study. In the discussion, candidates make reference to the texts they have studied.
In general, candidates were well prepared for this section and able to engage in a meaningful discussion. They chose a wide range of topics from the syllabus. In the better responses, the topics chosen were well defined, related directly to the syllabus, were not too broad and allowed candidates to explore their topics with the examiner and to justify and substantiate a point of view.
Candidates discussed their topics with insight and made appropriate reference to the texts studied. They spoke with a high level of grammatical accuracy and used a range of vocabulary and sentence structures. Their discussions demonstrated depth in the treatment of their chosen topic through the development of relevant information, ideas and opinions; they also used correct pronunciation and intonation.
In some cases, the topics chosen did not lend themselves to discussion and did not allow students to justify and substantiate a point of view. Only those candidates who are able to meet this requirement through the selection of a topic that allows for discussion are likely to earn high marks. In the weaker responses, candidates provided a superficial account of their research and their responses lacked depth. Candidates did not always understand the questions asked and were not always able to answer them with correct vocabulary or grammatical accuracy. In some cases, words were mispronounced and incorrect terminology was used. Candidates should ensure that they are familiar with the terminology related specifically to their topics.
Written Examination
Section l – Listening and Responding
General Comments
In general, candidates were well prepared and demonstrated a thorough understanding of the syllabus topics. In the better responses, students answered with depth and detail and demonstrated the ability to infer, evaluate and analyse information, emotions, points of view and attitudes from the texts.
Candidates should ensure that they write down as much detail as possible in the Candidate’s Notes column during the reading of the texts to enable them to provide a well-structured and detailed response. They should ensure that they read questions carefully to avoid giving irrelevant answers.
Specific Comments
Question 1
In the better responses, candidates included all relevant detail, ie that working in the house and the garden was only part of the payment.
Question 3
In the better responses, candidates identified the key points in the text and included only those points in their answer. In the weaker responses, students provided a lot of supporting information rather than the key points.
Question 4(a)
Most candidates answered this question well. However, in some cases, students did not read the question carefully and talked about Dr Levi’s ambitions later in life rather than his childhood ambitions.
Question 5
In the better responses, candidates identified the personality traits of the speakers and supported their answers with evidence from the text. However, in the weaker responses, candidates were unable to infer the personalities of Anna and Yossi from the text. They tended to focus on language techniques rather than on the personalities of the speakers. In some cases, candidates listed personality traits but did not provide evidence to support their views.
Question 7(b)
In the better responses, candidates understood that the effectiveness of the interview was due to the interviewer’s ability to draw out responses from Mrs Cohen, despite her reticence and lack of confidence. In the weaker responses, candidates focused on language techniques that often had little relevance to the question or to Mrs Cohen’s answers.
Section ll – Reading and Responding
Part A
Question 8(c)
In the better responses, candidates accurately inferred details about Rachel’s personality and provided examples from the text to support their answers. In the weaker responses, candidates identified the emotional state of the writer rather than her personality: Rachel feels sad, Rachel feels lonely.
Question 9(a)
In some cases, candidates found it difficult to infer information from the letters in order to describe the article. In the weaker responses, students did not identify key information and erroneously stated that the original article advocated that a woman’s role is in the home.
Question 9(b)
In the better responses, candidates made a judgement about Anna’s argument. In the weaker responses, however, candidates did not understand the meaning of the term ‘evaluate’ and while they spoke about the content of Anna’s letter and the language techniques used, they did not make a judgement about her argument.
Question 9(d)
Many candidates found this question challenging. In the better responses, candidates analysed both letters well and drew comparisons between the two, relating to their content and their language.
In the weaker responses, candidates did not understand the nuances and tone of the third letter correctly, understanding it to be ‘balanced and moderate’ rather than controlling, demeaning and chauvinistic.
Part B
Question 10
In the better responses, candidates made reference to all the main points in the text. Responses were clear and, for the most part, grammatically accurate. They demonstrated depth in the treatment of the task and were well organised to meet the requirements of the task. However, in some cases, candidates did not read the question carefully and referred to the Israeli army rather than to conscription in Australia. Candidates should take care to read the question and the text carefully. They should pay close attention to the gender of nouns and to verb–noun and noun–adjective agreement. Candidates should also take care to adhere to the word limit to ensure that their response has enough depth. Candidates are reminded that excessively long responses often lack structure, lack relevance and increase the frequency of incorrect language forms.
Section lll – Writing in Modern Hebrew
Question 11
Most responses were relevant, showing depth, a good knowledge of sentence structure and a range of vocabulary. For the most part, candidates structured their responses coherently, with the better responses showing clear planning and a knowledge of the conventions of text types. In most cases, responses were interesting and creative. In the weaker responses, candidates did not provide breadth and depth and did not manipulate language to meet the specific requirements of the task.
Candidates should try to adhere to the word limit, to ensure their writing has enough depth. However, they should avoid writing responses that are far in excess of the word limit. Such responses often lack structure and can be repetitive in terms of ideas. They also increase the likelihood of grammatical errors.
Candidates are advised to use any extra time they have to check spelling and sentence structure.
Common errors included confusion between words with similar meanings: chavayah and nisayon, lesaper, lomar and ledaber, eifo and lean. There were also errors in Smichut: hakontzert hamusika.
In some cases, candidates were not familiar with the correct preposition to use with certain verbs: la’azor et, pagati et; they were not always familiar with the conjugated prepositions: mi at instead of mimena and the preposition et was sometimes omitted.
2009970
NSW Government