1. Home
  2. HSC
  3. HSC Exams
  4. Pre-2016 HSC exam papers
  5. 2009 HSC Notes from the marking centre
  6. 2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Classical Hebrew
Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Classical Hebrew

Contents

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Classical Hebrew. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2009 Higher School Certificate examinations, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.

This document should be read along with the relevant syllabuses, the 2009 Higher School Certificate examinations, the marking guidelines and other support documents which have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Classical Hebrew.

Teachers and students are advised that, in December 2008, the Board of Studies approved changes to the examination specifications and assessment requirements for a number of courses. These changes will be implemented for the 2010 HSC cohort. Information on a course-by-course basisis available on the Board’s website.

Continuers

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 a guide 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 ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.

Most candidates were well prepared for this examination and their responses reflected a sound understanding of the material covered. However it was evident in responses to the grammar questions that some candidates did not approach the examination as the study of an ancient language. Some candidates misread the more detailed questions and provided irrelevant responses.

Section I – Prescribed text – Tanakh

Part A – Torah

Question 1

  1. Many ‘subject’ and ‘object’.
  2. Most candidates found this very challenging. They referred to the translations provided and did not refer to the Hebrew words from the text. Candidates were required to analyse the Hebrew words and explain the difficulty faced by translators of the Torah. Most candidates simply re-translated and did not infer or analyse the question or the translations. Some seemed unfamiliar with ‘Account for …’ which is in the Board of Studies glossary.
  3. This was a straightforward question that was answered well by most candidates, although some responses were too brief.
  4. This question was well answered.

Question 2

  1. Many candidates parsed this verb well but the meaning of the verb was often not stated. Candidates were required to provide all four components for the mark.
  2. This question was generally well answered.
  3. Good knowledge of the commentary was demonstrated.
  4. This question required candidates to carefully read the exact provided and to make reference to ‘the original Hebrew text’. Many candidates did not refer to the extract. Some did not fully answer the question: ‘What is gained by studying …?’

Question 3

    1. This question was generally well answered.
    2. Many candidates demonstrated detailed knowledge of the commentary.
  2. Many candidates simply translated these verses without referring to the actual question. There were two parts to the question – ‘linguistic’, which means that candidates had to refer to the Hebrew text and quote Hebrew examples; and reference to the ‘thematic qualities’. Most answered the thematic section quite well but many overlooked the linguistic aspects of the verses and omitted this section altogether. Those who did attempt to find linguistic aspects named them but did not provide examples from the extract.

Part B – Nevi’im

Question 4

  1. (i) and (ii) While the majority of the candidates parsed the verb well, giving the correct root, binyan and tense/aspect, the meaning of the verb was also required to be awarded the mark.
  2. Most candidates did not answer all aspects of the question. It would be advantageous to analyse the question before responding. Most candidates did not refer to the historical context.

Question 5

  1. Few candidates found this question difficult.
  2. This question was well answered and good knowledge of the commentary was evident.
  3. Better responses approached the question logically. It required candidates to refer to five things: the political (1) and the military structures (2) of the Israelites (3) and the Canaanites (4), with reference to the text and commentary (5). It would be advisable to tackle each section separately, referring to the text and commentary for each item. When asked to refer to the text, candidates should provide examples in Hebrew from the extract.

Question 6

  1. Some candidates confused the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges and wrote contradictory statements. Better responses gave a full answer and referred to the events. Weaker responses compared tenses, vocabulary and other linguistic features, demonstrating a misreading of the question.
  2. This question was answered well by most candidates.

Part C – Ketuvim

Question 7

This question was answered well.

Question 8

The candidates responded well and in detail to this question.

Question 9

Both essays were handled well. Candidates seemed well prepared, and the responses were of a good standard. In 9(a), some candidates focused more on the ‘religious structures’ and their responses to ‘social structures’ were too brief. In 9(b), some candidates focused more on the ‘outcomes’ rather than on the ‘implications’.

Section II – Prescribed text – Mishna

Most candidates handled the Mishna section was very well.

Question 10

  1. (i) and (ii) These questions were generally well answered.
  2. Most candidates answered this question very well and in detail.
  3. This question was very well answered. The candidates had prepared themselves well and demonstrated Mishna.

Question 11

  1. (i), (ii) and (iii) This question was answered well.
  2. This question was answered well.

Question 12

  1. While it was clear that most candidates knew the meanings of the Hebrew terms, many explained who Mishna.
    1. This question was well answered.
    2. The better responses demonstrated accurate understanding of lezamen as they referred back to the text. However, a few candidates read the word as lizman which has no relevance to the Mishnaic word. Candidates must refer to the Hebrew text for every question.
    3. This question was well answered.

Section III – Unseen text – Tanakh

Question 13

  1. Very few candidates made the connection between the two verbs.
  2. , c. and d. These questions were generally well answered.

Question 14

  1. Most candidates answered this question well.
  2. This question presented difficulties for those candidates who could not identify the meaning of vayitganev. Many found it difficult to answer and wrote meaningless responses. The best responses were able to apply the verb to the rest of the passage.

Extension

Question 1

  1. The best responses demonstrated thought and care when interpreting the question. This question required a rationale but many candidates wrote only about the prophecy and did not give ‘possible reasons’ for the different arrangements in the two named editions.
    1. This question was well answered.
    2. Many candidates translated the Hebrew words but did not explain the symbolism of them in this context. A two-mark question requires some thought about commentary.
    3. Many candidates did not mention the difficulties in the syntax and the translation of the preposition so as to differentiate between the translations provided. Many did not identify that the phrase was referring to the non-Jews. Candidates should always refer back to the Hebrew text and its possible translations. They should also take note of the terminology of the question – ‘Explain’.
    1. This question was mostly well answered but some candidates did not read the question carefully; it asked about ‘events’ in the plural.
    2. Most candidates could not identify the Infinitive Construct.
    3. While this question was answered well, many candidates did not gain full marks as they did not include sufficient poetic devices.

Question 2

  1. This was a linguistic question and many responses showed a lack of understanding of the question.
  2. This question was answered well.
    1. This question was answered well.
    2. The best responses to this question provided the answer in Hebrew gezerah shava.
    3. This question was answered well.
  4. Most candidates wrote logical responses starting with ‘why?’, and then moved on to ‘how?’ and finally ‘when?’. They deconstructed the question and presented clear, precise answers.

Question 3

    1. This question was answered well.
    2. Although most candidates were able to answer this question in some detail, many answers were too brief and did not provide examples from the psalm. Candidates should be guided by the mark allocation when responding.
    3. The best responses described the relationship in detail, providing examples from the psalm. However, many candidates misread the question and wrote about the relationship between the God of Israel and the People of Israel instead of the King.
    1. Most candidates provided one meaning of the letter but misread the question, which asked for ‘meanings’, ie plural.
    2. Some candidates simply translated part of the psalm, as they did not understand that the question was asking for verbs. Most provided nouns and adjectives that give a sense of continuity and eternity.
    3. Most candidates found this question challenging and many seemed unsure of what was required.
    4. Candidates who misunderstood the word mesaprim were unable to effectively answer this question.

2009941

Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size