2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Serbian Continuers
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Serbian Continuers. 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 Serbian.
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 giving mature responses involving expanding on ideas and opinions using a high level of grammatical accuracy and sophistication of expression. Weaker responses were characterised by a lack of understanding of the question, limited vocabulary and simple sentence structures and expressions, little expansion and a lack of ability to provide ideas or opinions. To gain the highest marks candidates need to go beyond a minimal response, expand on ideas, provide detail and give and justify opinions.
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 answer effectively some of the questions. Weaker responses showed attempts to use a set response, even when it did not satisfactorily answer the question.
Discussion
Candidates presented a variety of appropriate studies, most of which were relevant to the syllabus topics.
The best responses demonstrated both sophistication and depth in a discussion of their study. These candidates made specific and detailed references to texts and offered opinions based on these, and presented and justified arguments. Weaker responses were characterised by a lack of in-depth understanding of the topic and limited ability to present and discuss issues, opinions and/or arguments. A discussion requires more than simply describing or presenting facts and figures. In choosing the topic for the in-depth study, candidates are advised to consider the aspect of the topic that will enable them to take part in a discussion. A topic such as a town or city needs to be researched from the point of view of its strategic significance for example, rather a simple presentation of its historical landmarks or a candidate’s personal experiences in the place.
Most candidates were able to demonstrate that they could make appropriate references to ‘at least three texts, one of which is a literary text, such as a novel, play, film or poem’ (Assessment and reporting in Serbian continuers, p 9). This year, these included poetry, novels and films. Candidates need to be reminded that a literary text enables them to bring different perspectives to the study and provides a better platform for a discussion than webpages, conversations with family members, travel brochures and personal experiences.
Written examination
Section I – Listening and Responding
Part A
General comments
Some candidates experienced difficulties in responding to questions which required analysis rather than just identifying information. Some who provided a good analysis failed to support their answer with relevant textual references. Candidates need to consider the value of the question (how many marks it is worth) when giving their response. For example, a question worth 3 marks would usually entail a response that mentioned reference to more than one detail in the text. Candidates often failed to support their answers with relevant textual references, even when it was specified in the question.
Advice to candidates
Candidates should:
- read all questions and instructions carefully
- consider the value of the question (how many marks it is worth)
- ensure that ALL relevant information is transferred from the Candidate’s Notes column to the lines provided for the response
- ensure their answers are given in the appropriate language
- ensure they support their answer with relevant textual reference wherever appropriate
Question 1 (b)
Most candidates demonstrated good understanding of the differences between last year’s event and this year's event.
Question 3 (a)
Some responses retold the story rather than identifying the issues.
Question 3 (b)
Better responses showed a perceptive understanding of the language Marko used to reveal his feelings and supported their answer with relevant textual references. Weaker responses described Marko’s feelings without referring to the language Marko used to express these feelings.
Question 4 (b)
Most candidates correctly recognised how Mr Kovacevic responded to Suzana’s comments. The better responses showed a perceptive understanding of this, providing relevant references to the text to support their ‘how’ Mr Kovacevic responded. Some students unnecessarily elaborated on Suzana’s comments.
Section II – Reading and Responding
Part B
Question 9
Candidates generally responded to the information of the text and included relevant points. Responses demonstrated a satisfactory to extensive knowledge and understanding of vocabulary and sentence structures.
The majority of candidates used the required text type; however, some responses failed to use the tone appropriate to the task, mentioning verbs such as ‘lies’ instead of for example ‘not completely correct’, or similar expressions. Some candidates used ti instead of vi, or both of them in different parts of the response.
A number of ‘new’ words were evident, taken from English vocabulary and adjusted to Serbian, such as fanovi, mimikira. Sometimes the vocabulary used did not match its true meaning (fijasko used instead of uspeh). English syntax influenced some candidates’ Serbian, particularly the word order of prepositions (u mom misljenju).
Better responses demonstrated depth in the treatment of the task and used language creatively to express their own ideas and reflections.
Section III – Writing
Candidates were familiar with the issue of global warming.
Responses to Question 10, the speech, were generally better in terms of content and the treatment of information. Some of the responses to Question 11 seemed to struggle to produce quality content as a number of candidates did not appear to understand the expression ‘a volunteering job’ (volonterski posao). Some of them thought that it was ‘an interesting job, though not as well paid’, or ‘a way to achieve another goal’.
In terms of language, the most frequent errors were case endings, and some English influences in vocabulary and syntax. Most candidates chose Cyrillic over Latin script in their responses, with some candidates having problems in writing u instead of y in some of the Cyrillic written texts.
Responses generally demonstrated an ability to sequence and structure information and ideas.
20110113
NSW Government