1. Home
  2. HSC
  3. HSC Exams
  4. 2012 HSC Exam papers
  5. 2012 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Modern Hebrew Continuers
Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

2012 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 2012 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 2012 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 that are not included in the glossary may be used, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.

Oral examination

Conversation and Discussion

The oral examination for Modern Hebrew Continuers consists of two sections: the Conversation and the Discussion. The duration of the oral examination is approximately 7 minutes for Conversation and approximately 8 minutes for Discussion.

In the Conversation, the examiner will ask the candidate questions about his or her personal world (for example his/her life, family and friends, interests and aspirations) as it relates to the prescribed topics in the syllabus. Neither the number of questions nor the number of topics covered by the examination is predetermined. The questions the examiner asks may relate to a previous response made by the student or introduce a new topic. Candidates should answer each question only with information related specifically to the question asked. Candidates are encouraged to respond in such a way that they demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a range of structures and vocabulary, but not through the inclusion of material irrelevant to the question asked. If they do not understand a question, candidates may ask for the question to be repeated, clarified or rephrased in the language being examined.

In the Discussion, the examiner will ask the candidate a series of questions relating to the student’s in-depth study. The subject of the study will relate to one or more of the prescribed themes or topics and involve 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. Students should be prepared to discuss issues related to the study as well as the texts/resources studied. Students must not bring objects such as photographs, posters or pictures to the examination.

Part A – Conversation

Responses in the conversation were generally of a high standard. In better responses, candidates demonstrated the ability to speak with depth and fluency in response to a range of questions. They responded with a high level of vocabulary and demonstrated a range of sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures. Candidates manipulated the language and conversed using all three tenses. In better responses, candidates expressed and justified a point of view.

In weaker responses, candidates did not respond to questions with depth. Responses were brief and lacked fluency. Candidates did not use the past and future tenses correctly and made frequent grammar mistakes. Candidates did not use the infinitive correctly, eg ani rotzah leshalemet, or ani lesachek kaduregel.

There were errors in the noun-adjective agreement, eg bayit gedolah, and noun-verb agreement, eg hamishpacha holchim. Candidates also used incorrect prepositions with verbs, eg la’azor et, lehishtamesh et, lehenot et.

Part B – Discussion

The discussions were generally impressive and candidates were well prepared. 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 were interesting and allowed for discussion. They provided candidates with opportunities to express and justify a point of view. Candidates made frequent and perceptive references to their sources, including a literary source.

In better responses, candidates demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of their topic area and responded to questions with detail and fluency. They provided insight into the usefulness of their sources and in some instances compared their sources.

Candidates spoke with a high level of grammatical accuracy, and used a range of sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures. They discussed and substantiated a point of view effectively and supported their opinions with reasons and evidence from their sources. They also used correct pronunciation and intonation.

In weaker responses, candidates did not provide enough depth about their research. They did not always understand the questions asked and did not answer them with sufficient depth and detail. They did not always use the correct vocabulary in relation to their topic. In some cases, candidates did not demonstrate the same level of sophistication and grammatical accuracy as they had used when presenting their topics.

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 provided relevant responses with enough details and were able to infer, summarise, evaluate, reach conclusions 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.

Specific comments

Question 1

In better responses, candidates compared the speakers’ plans with regard to different aspects.

Question 2

In better responses, candidates described the constantly changing attitudes of both speakers and provided reasons for the changes.


Question 6

In better responses, candidates provided a concise summary of only the main issues discussed in the text, using the dot points provided.

In weaker responses, candidates provided too much supporting information, included extra dot points or did not include the main issues.

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 indications of the required length of the response. Candidates should take careful note of the names of the characters in the texts to ensure that they provide information about the correct character in response to questions.

Question 8 (c)

In better responses, candidates provided a detailed explanation of how Rachel’s story relates to the saying in the last sentence of the text.

In weaker responses, candidates provided some information, but did not always provide enough detail, or explain how the saying related to the events of the text.

Question 9 (d)

In better responses, candidates expressed their views about David’s comments and justified them, referring to points made in David’s email.

In weaker responses, candidates confused David and Benjamin, expressing views about what Benjamin said and not about comments David had made.

Part B

General comments

Candidates should ensure that they respond to the main points raised in the text. They should take care to make close reference to the text and not confuse the task with creative writing. They should pay close attention to the correct use of grammar. They should ensure that they adhere to noun–adjective agreement and to noun–verb agreement and that they use tenses correctly. Candidates are reminded to pay close attention to the correct use of the infinitive. Candidates should also ensure that they use the correct preposition 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 accurate. They demonstrated depth in their treatment of the task and their responses were well structured.

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

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 plan and structure their written responses to meet the requirements of the task. This is far more important than writing beyond the word limit.

Material that has been prepared beforehand must be directly 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 is disregarded by markers.

Candidates are advised to read the questions carefully before writing their responses. They should also ensure that they edit their writing carefully to correct mistakes in grammar and spelling.

Common errors included 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 rotzim.

There were errors in the use of tenses, particularly the correct use of the verb haya, hayitah, hayu. In some cases, there were mistakes in the use of the infinitive and in the use of prepositions with verbs, eg mistamesh et, ozer et.

Question 11

Most responses were relevant, demonstrating depth of treatment, a good knowledge of sentence structure and a range of vocabulary. In general, candidates structured their responses coherently to meet the requirements of the task.

In better responses, there was evidence of planning and responses were relevant and to the point. Candidates used sophisticated vocabulary and accurate grammar.

In weaker responses, candidates did not provide breadth and depth, and did not manipulate language to meet the specific requirements of the task. Some candidates wrote responses well in excess of the word limit and tended to provide irrelevant information and increase the incidence of grammatical errors.

Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size