1. Home
  2. HSC
  3. HSC Exams
  4. 2011 HSC Exam papers
  5. 2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Modern Hebrew Continuers
Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

2011 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 Continuers. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2011 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 2011 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents 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 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 that 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 better responses, candidates were well prepared and spoke with depth, providing detailed and relevant information for a range of questions. Questions were answered with a high level of grammatical accuracy. 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 weaker responses, candidates did not provide depth or relevant information. They gave extremely 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, students did not understand the questions 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 in which 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 engaged in a meaningful discussion. They chose a wide range of subjects drawn from topics in the syllabus. In 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 and, importantly, to make references to a range of texts including literary ones.

In better responses, candidates provided information that demonstrated understanding and insight into their topics. They responded to a wide range of questions in depth and with detail. They made detailed and perceptive references to the sources used, providing information about their reliability and usefulness. Candidates included a literary source among their sources. Candidates spoke with a high level of grammatical accuracy, and used an extensive vocabulary and a range of 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 weaker responses, candidates provided a superficial account of their research. Their responses lacked depth. They did not always understand the questions asked and were not able to answer them in sufficient depth and detail. In some responses, candidates were not able to answer questions with the same degree of grammatical accuracy and sophistication in their vocabulary as that used in the presentation of their topic. Candidates should expect to be asked questions that require them to discuss their topics broadly and justify their points of view in relation to all aspects of the subject selected and not simply on a narrow or superficial level.

Written examination

Section l – Listening and Responding

General comments

Candidates are reminded to take careful note of the mark allocation to ensure that they provide enough detail when answering questions. They should make comprehensive notes in the Notes column during the reading of the texts to enable them to provide a well-structured and detailed response. Candidates must ensure all relevant information contained in the Notes column is transferred to the lined section of the examination paper if they want this information to be considered part of their response.

In better responses, candidates answered with depth and detail and were able to infer, evaluate, reach conclusions on and analyse information from the texts.

Candidates are advised to read the questions carefully and focus on the key words in each question to ensure they provide the information required.

Question 1(a)

In better responses, candidates provided two pieces of information regarding the damage caused by the flooding, ie to the bus and the bridges.

Question 4

Most candidates understood the gist of the text. In better responses, candidates made detailed references to Dr Adler’s radical views and provided supporting evidence from the text to justify their view that she was an appropriate choice as a guest on the program.

Question 5

In better responses, candidates provided a detailed analysis of the way in which Dan engaged his audience.

In weaker responses, candidates simply paraphrased what Dan said rather than how he said it. In some cases, candidates did not provide enough detail or support their answer with enough evidence from the text.

Question 7

In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of the text and provided relevant detail. Their responses were also well structured and comprehensible.

Section ll – Reading and Responding

Part A

General comments

The mark allocation and the number of lines in the short answer questions provide candidates with an indication of the required length of the response. Questions sometimes require direct translation of material, while other questions ask for information to be interpreted in some way. In every case, it is essential that candidates answer the question and refrain from including large amounts of extraneous material.

Question 8 (c)

In better responses, candidates provided a detailed explanation of the references to the kibbutzim.

In weaker responses, they explained some of the references, but did not always explain the changes in the kibbutzim that were referred to in the text.

Question 9 (b)

In better responses, candidates analysed the way in which Ruth expressed her opinion, explaining what was said and how the language she used and her tone conveyed her views.

In weaker responses, candidates paraphrased what was said by Ruth but did not analyse the way in which she said it or how her opinion was conveyed by what she said.

Question 9 (c)

In better responses, candidates gave a detailed comparison of Noam and Gill’s views. 

In weaker responses, candidates described Gill’s views and Noam’s views without really comparing them or stating to what extent Gill and Noam agreed. In some cases, candidates did not pay attention to the mark allocation and did not provide enough depth and detail.

Part B

General comments

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 and tenses correctly. Some candidates confused the words nachon and tzodek. They should ensure that they use the correct prepositions with verbs and do not translate directly from English, eg la’azor et rather than la’azor le.

Question 10

In better responses, candidates made reference to all the main points in the text. Responses were clear and, for the most part, grammatically correct. They demonstrated depth in their treatment of the task and their responses were well organised.

In weaker responses, candidates omitted references to some of the main points and their responses were not grammatically correct. 

Section lll – Writing in Modern Hebrew

General comments

Candidates are reminded that it is possible to gain full marks within the prescribed word limit for a writing task. Nothing is gained by providing unnecessarily long responses that often contain irrelevant material, and are poorly structured and repetitive. Candidates are reminded of the importance of taking time to prepare and structure their written responses in Modern Hebrew. This is far more important than writing beyond the word limit.

Careful and intelligent inclusion of pre-prepared material directly relevant to the writing task can be very effective. However, material must be relevant to the task’s purpose, context and audience. The inclusion of material that is irrelevant is a waste of a candidate’s time and disregarded by markers.

Candidates are advised to read the questions carefully before writing their responses. They should also ensure that 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 in the use of the double negative, eg af echad rotzeh. In some instances, candidates used verbs in the plural instead of using the singular, eg kol echad ohavim and hamishpacha holchim.

There were errors in the use of the preposition et and, in some cases, candidates had difficulty with the use of tenses, particularly the correct form of the future tense and with the conjugation of prepositions, eg shelcham, shelahem, etchem and otam.

Question 11

Most responses were relevant, demonstrating depth of understanding, a good knowledge of sentence structure and a range of vocabulary. In general, candidates structured their responses coherently, with better responses showing clear planning and a knowledge of the conventions of text types. In most cases, responses were interesting and creative.

In 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 develop their arguments to support their opinions. In Question 11 (b), some candidates did not discuss their expectations of the job. They merely described their jobs and the reasons why it is good to work part-time. 

Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size