2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Filipino
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Filipino. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2010 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 2010 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 Filipino.
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 marks 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 in excess of the space allocated 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
In the best responses, candidates responded fluently to the questions and demonstrated depth of treatment by expanding on ideas and opinions. The language used demonstrated a high level of grammatical accuracy with little interference from English or Spanish. Weaker responses were characterised by simple sentences, with little expansion and a lack of ability to provide ideas or opinions. There was evidence of interference from English in these responses, particularly to explain or justify ideas. Candidates need to go beyond a minimal response and provide detail, expand on ideas, and give and justify opinions to be placed in the highest mark range.
Candidates need to be prepared to manipulate language and respond to questions that are from all topics in the syllabus, within the bounds of their personal world. Candidates who had rote-learned responses found difficulty manipulating language to effectively answer some of the questions. Weaker responses showed attempts to use a rote-learned response, even when it did not satisfactorily answer the question.
Discussion
Candidates presented a variety of mostly appropriate topics with no evidence of a prepared common topic by candidates. Some topics were not relevant to the syllabus.
The best responses demonstrated an ability to present both sophistication and depth to a discussion of their study. These candidates made specific and detailed references to texts, offered opinions based on these, and presented and justified arguments. Weaker responses were characterised by a lack of in-depth understanding of the topic with limited ability to present and discuss issues, opinions and/or arguments. A discussion requires more than describing or presenting facts and figures.
Some candidates were unable to demonstrate an ability to ‘make detailed and perceptive references’ (Discussion marking guidelines) to the texts they were to have used in researching the in-depth study. Candidates need to reminded that preparing a topic for the Discussion requires ‘the in-depth study of at least three texts, one of which will be a literary text, such as a novel, play, film or poem’ (Assessment and reporting in Filipino Continuers, page 9). A literary text enables candidates to bring different perspectives to the study and provides a better platform for a discussion than WebPages, conversations with family members, travel brochures and the like.
Written Examination
Section I – Listening and Responding
Part A
Questions 1, 2 and 3 (a)
Most candidates answered these questions well.
Question 3
- Candidates found this question harder because of the inferential skills necessary to identify the voice and tone of the speaker.
Question 4
Most candidates answered some or all parts of this correctly.
Question 4
- Candidates were required to provide all relevant details. The better responses connected traffic with the noise it created and the build-up of the crowd.
The question required a comparison of the personalities involved as well as their views. The best responses summarised the personalities and established their relationship.
Weaker responses only provided one description of each of the personalities involved. They simply stated the ‘host and caller’ relationship without extending the response, and without providing relevant reference to the text.
Part B
Question 6
- The correct answer required candidates to specifically state ‘shoe store’, rather than ‘store’. Most candidates provided the correct answer.
- This question proved difficult for some candidates, as it required good contextual understanding and prediction based on the textual clues.
Question 7
A number of candidates focused on describing the personalities of the characters or on the relationship of ‘aunt and nephew’. Establishing that it was a conversation between the aunt and nephew was not enough to describe the bond between them.
In good responses, candidates described both the personalities and the relationship of the characters, giving evidence from the text.
Section II – Reading and Responding
Part A
Question 8
- and b
The majority of the candidates responded well, demonstrating depth and thorough understanding of the text.
- Most candidates had difficulty making comparisons.
Question 9
- Most candidates answered by stating ‘friend’. The better responses answered ‘old friend’ which was the full response required.
- Most candidates satisfactorily responded to this question. Some candidates overlapped and interchanged their answers between 9(c) and 9(d).
- Some responses showed assessment of the positive or negative rather than presenting both sides. Some responses were confused, describing the qualities of Tony as asked in Question 9(c).
Part B
Question 10
Most candidates responded to the stimulus text, referring to some of the ideas, and writing coherently. The best responses were exemplified by clarity of responses to the main issues with references to politics, democracy and rights and responsibilities. These showed both a depth of understanding and a link to relevant responses. They were supported by opinion, statistics and metaphor. They were able to draw responses from their general knowledge and personal experiences.
Some responses did not use the correct text type – that of a speech (missing the opening and closing remarks). Others did not respond to the main points in the text. Some responses used the correct text type but lacked the vocabulary and skills to manipulate the language and therefore express their ideas effectively.
The characteristics of the weakest responses were a retelling rather than responding to the text, weaknesses in language, a lack of analysis and limited information.
Section III – Writing in Filipino
Question 11 was more popular than Question 12.
In good responses, candidates drew from their personal experiences, wrote with creativity and displayed an ability to manipulate the language, using a colloquial and familial tone. Most candidates referred to issues of the environment in their diary entries. Most responses demonstrated an ability to sequence and structure the change from the first diary entry to the second diary entry.
Candidates responded to Question 12 effectively, although many were unable to use the appropriate conventions of the text type. All responses expressed objection with the price hike, and most listed in their letter the major concerns to the changes in the stadium. Some responses were unable to justify their opinions.
20110102
NSW Government