2010 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 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 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 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 and Discussion
Part A – Conversation
Responses in the conversation were, for the most part, impressive.
In the better responses, candidates were well prepared and spoke with depth, providing detailed and relevant information to a range of questions. Questions were answered with a high level of grammatical accuracy. In the better responses, candidates used sophisticated vocabulary and a range of sentence structures. They conversed using all three tenses and demonstrated an ability to express and justify a point of view. They spoke with fluency and confidence.
In the weaker responses, candidates did not provide depth and they did not always respond with relevant information. They provided very brief answers and spoke with 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, candidates did not understand the questions that were asked. Some candidates confused singular and plural within a response, eg zeh chashuv leben adam lalechet letnuat no'ar ki hem yecholim lehakir yeladim yehudim.
Some candidates did not use the infinitive correctly, eg Anachnu ohavot ro'ot. In some cases, smichut was not used correctly, particularly when used with the definite article, eg hashi'urei bayit. Nouns and adjectives did not always agree, eg hamispacha gadol. There were also instances where nouns and verbs did not agree, eg hamishpacha holchim. Some candidates did not use verbs with the correct prepositions, eg lehishtamesh et, la’azor et, liztpot et.
Part B – Discussion
Candidates were generally well prepared for this section and able to engage in a meaningful discussion. They chose a wide range of subjects drawn from topics in the syllabus. In the better responses, the topics chosen were well defined and related directly to the syllabus. They allowed for discussion and provided candidates with opportunities to justify and substantiate a point of view.
In the better responses, candidates provided detailed information, demonstrating understanding and insight into their topics. They responded to a wide range of questions with depth and detail. They made detailed and perceptive references to sources used, providing information about their reliability and usefulness.
In the better responses, candidates spoke with a high level of grammatical accuracy and used a range of vocabulary and sentence structures. They discussed and substantiated a point of view effectively and consistently, supporting their opinions with reasons and/or examples. They also used correct pronunciation and intonation.
In the weaker responses, candidates provided a superficial account of their research and their responses lacked depth. They did not always understand the questions asked and were not able to answer them with sufficient depth and detail. In some responses, candidates were not able to answer questions with the same degree of grammatical accuracy and sophistication of vocabulary as that used in the presentation of their topic. Candidates should expect to be asked questions that require them to discuss and justify a point of view related to all aspects of the subject selected and not just at a narrow or superficial level.
Written Examination
Section I – Listening and Responding
General comments
Candidates are reminded to answer the questions fully and include all relevant information to support their point of view. 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. Candidates are also advised to include information they have written in the ‘Candidate’s Notes’ column as this cannot be taken into account if not transferred into their response.
In the better responses, candidates 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 are advised to read the questions carefully and focus on the key words in each question and address the answer from this perspective; for example, ‘describe’, ‘how’, and ‘summarise’.
Specific comments
Question 1
In the better responses, candidates included all relevant details, ie the Cohens from Ramat Gan, Caspi family and the Goldberg children.
Question 2
In the better responses, candidates described all the aspects of the changing tone and provided examples from the text. In the weaker responses, candidates provided only one aspect of the tone.
Question 3
Most candidates understood the gist of the text. In the better responses, candidates provided details about equality in the workplace, in education and in the home.
Question 4
In the better responses, candidates used the information about Rivka provided in the text to respond to questions about her personality.
Question 5
In the better responses, candidates provided relevant examples of how the speaker creates and maintains interest. In the weaker responses, candidates did not provide enough detail about content and language.
Question 6
In the better responses, candidates identified the main points in a precise and clear summary. In the weaker responses, candidates provided too much supporting information and did not always identify the main points.
Candidates are reminded that a summary, by nature, should be concise.
Question 7
In the better responses, candidates had a better understanding of Rafi’s predicament and provided many relevant details. Their responses were also well structured and comprehensible.
Section II – Reading and Responding
Part A
Question 9 (b)
In the better responses, candidates highlighted Shula’s changing attitude towards Yaron and supported their answers with evidence from the text. In the weaker responses, candidates referred to Shula’s attitude but did not provide details about her change in attitude.
Question 9 (c)
In the better responses, candidates provided information about the influences of background and experiences on both Dan and Yaron and referred to both texts as stated in the question. In the weaker responses, candidates provided more information about Yaron than Dan, and referred to only one of the texts.
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 their responses were well organised.
In the weaker responses, candidates omitted references to some of the main points and their responses lacked grammatical accuracy. When a question relates to two texts, candidates are advised to read both texts carefully before they write a response.
Candidates should pay close attention to the gender of nouns and to verb–noun and noun–adjective agreement. They should also ensure that they use the infinitive correctly and pay close attention to the use of tenses. Some candidates confused the negative command al lidog with al tidag. They should ensure that they use the correct preposition with verbs and not translate directly from English: lidog al rather than lidog le, shimush shel instead of shimush be.
Section III – Writing in Modern Hebrew
Question 11
Most responses were relevant, demonstrating 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.
In Question 11 (a), some candidates did not write from the perspective of a student, writing instead as a guest speaker. In Question 11 (b), some candidates described a hobby that was not unusual. They then found it difficult to write persuasively about the hobby as required by the task.
Candidates are advised to read the questions carefully before writing their responses. They should also ensure they use their time effectively and check spelling and sentence structure.
Common errors included confusion between words with similar meanings, eg chavayah and nisayon, lishol and levakesh. There were also errors inthe use of the double negative, eg af echad yoshev baheder. In some instances, candidates used verbs in the plural instead of using the singular, eg kol echad ohavim.
There were errors in the use of conjugated prepositions, mimkem instead of mikem and otchem instead of etchem, andthe preposition et was sometimes omitted. Some candidates were unable to use the verb hiheyot correctly, eg liheyot mefached, hatalmidim hayinu meanyenim, anachnu hayu morim.
NSW Government