2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Vietnamese Continuers
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Vietnamese 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 Vietnamese Continuers.
General comments
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
Section I – Conversation
All students were able to communicate information and ideas in Vietnamese to some degree across a range of syllabus topics. In the best responses, candidates were very fluent, able to sustain the conversation, were grammatically accurate and they used a range and variety of vocabulary and expressions.
In the weakest responses, candidates struggled to use appropriate vocabulary and demonstrated limited knowledge and understanding of grammar. These candidates tended to need a lot of prompting in their responses.
Section II – Discussion
Many candidates appeared under-prepared for the discussion. Some were unable to take part in a discussion and instead presented information, facts and figures. They appeared ill-equipped to present points of view, give two sides to an issue or debate or justify their own opinion or perspective.
Some candidates did not make detailed and perceptive references to the texts (Discussion marking guidelines) and – while most had some resources they could refer to as required – many found it difficult to relate their resources to their study. A number of candidates had not used a literary source. 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 or personal experiences, some of which cannot really be considered appropriate as texts for a discussion. It is suggested that candidates use novels, films, poems and short stories to support the in-depth study.
Written examination
Section I – Listening and responding
General comments
Most candidates made good use of the Notes column and selected appropriate and relevant information. In the best responses, candidates not only conveyed the gist of texts and identified specific information through summarising the main ideas, but also demonstrated a deep understanding of all aspects of the text and conveyed the information accurately and appropriately.
Candidates are reminded that simple translation of segments of texts that may appear to be related to the question – without responding specifically to the requirements of the task – is inadequate to access the high-range marks.
Part A
Question 1
In weaker responses, candidates had difficulty interpreting the school map and understanding the word tang tret (ground floor).
Question 2
In better responses, candidates identified the three purposes of the announcement. In weaker responses, candidates confused the purposes of the announcement with those of the ‘Food Festival’. Some weak responses summarised the announcement.
Question 4
- In better responses, candidates correctly identified the theme of the play. In weaker responses, candidates wrote a summary of the play.
- In better responses, candidates fully analysed the four ways in which Thu resembles the character in the play. In weaker responses, candidates identified just one or two similarities between Thu and the character in the play, without clear explanations. Some simply summarised the play.
Question 5
- In better responses, candidates identified the correct reason why the meeting was rescheduled. In weaker responses, candidates appeared not to have understood the word ‘rescheduled’.
- In better responses, candidates analysed the three reasons why the manager fired Ann, making close reference to the text. In weaker responses, candidates identified only one or two reasons and did not provide evidence from the text to back up their arguments.
Part B
Candidates are reminded that responses must be written in Vietnamese.
Question 6
In better responses, candidates identified the three reasons why Yen decides to give up her singing career. In weaker responses, candidates identified only one or two reasons.
Question 7
In better responses, candidates wrote a speech demonstrating an excellent understanding of the conversation, including a full description of Hung and Lan’s relationship. In weaker responses, candidates did not demonstrate an understanding of the whole text nor of the task requirements.
Section II – Reading and responding
General comments
In weaker responses, candidates did not refer to the texts and often included a great deal of irrelevant information and repetition.
Part A
Question 8
- Better responses identified information from all three diaries’ entries. Weaker responses focused on the first diary only.
- Better responses identified relevant information for both the city of Sydney and its people. Weaker responses referred only to Sydney and not the characteristics of its people.
- Better responses demonstrated a perceptive understanding of the reasons why Thanh wrote the third diary entry. Coherent answers included her reflection on the past and what it was that made her confused about her identity. Weaker responses tended to include only some isolated information or consisted of a translation of some segments of the text.
Question 9
- Better responses correctly identified who Dr Ha was whereas weaker responses referred to some irrelevant information about Dr Ha.
- Better responses identified all the main points Dr Ha made about cloning (animals, plants and humans). Weaker responses referred to only one or two points about cloning.
- Better responses identified the areas where the writer agreed with Dr Ha’s views about cloning and analysed language techniques that the writer used. Weaker responses listed some isolated information or translated sections of the text. Candidates are advised that if quoting from the text, they must do more than simply list citations but link these to the question, in this case explaining the effects of the language techniques on the reader.
Part B
Question 10
In better responses, candidates wrote a well-structured email with an appropriately serious and convincing tone, including the reasons why Tuan should (or should not) stay in Vietnam with his sick grandfather. In weaker responses, candidates demonstrated a limited understanding of the task requirements and responded with insufficient or irrelevant information.
Recommendations
Candidates should read the question and text and take down relevant information first, then compose their response. Candidates should identify the important elements and then compose a text, without using language taken directly from the stimulus text. Candidates should avoid writing a lengthy response that includes irrelevant information.
Section III – Writing in Vietnamese
In better responses, candidates:
- specifically addressed the requirements of the task
- used the correct text type
- structured their response
- included their personal opinion for each issue raised in the forum
- demonstrated the ability to manipulate language authentically and creatively.
In weaker responses, candidates:
- misinterpreted the task
- did not demonstrate a good understanding of the conventions of text type
- repeated ideas or structured them poorly
- did not include relevant ideas and information
- focused too much on one idea or, on the other hand, provided many ideas without sufficient analysis, expansion or elaboration
- relied on pre-learned rather than relevant material.
Question 11
- In better responses, candidates wrote a well-structured article with relevant information and personal evaluation and opinion about the issues raised in the forum (from parents and/or students). Weaker responses merely wrote a general presentation of the issue(s) (parents’ intervention) with what appeared to be irrelevant pre-learned material.
- In better responses, candidates wrote a well-structured article with relevant ideas and information – including their personal opinion – to evaluate the new inventions based on the current developments in technology and science and how these would contribute (negatively or positively) to human life in the year 2112. Weaker responses tended to list possible inventions with or without mentioning the current developments in science and technology, but did not provide a personal viewpoint or an evaluation as required by the task.
Recommendations
It is recommended that candidates should:
- read the question carefully so that they can identify the requirements of the task and plan their responses within the word limit of 250 words
- ensure the quality of the text by allowing sufficient time to edit their work
- organise their ideas logically to avoid repetition or poor sequencing
- use the correct text type and write creatively, using a variety of vocabulary and sentence structures.
NSW Government