2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Filipino
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Filipino. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2009 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 2009 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 Filipino.
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 basis is available on the Board’s website.
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 which are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.
Oral Examination
Conversation
Most candidates were prepared for this part of the examination and while the majority were able to sustain a conversation for the required seven minutes, the level of sophistication and the depth and breadth of responses varied. Responses at the upper end of the mark range showed an ability to speak confidently and fluently, demonstrating a high degree of accuracy. Better responses showed an ability to extend and expand on ideas, a good command of the language structures, and the ability to self-correct.
Most responses indicated that candidates had at least an elementary grasp of structures and vocabulary. However, simple vocabulary and constructions, short responses, poor pronunciation and intonation, the use of English words and constructions, and an inability to expand and elaborate on ideas were indicative of weak responses. Candidates need to acquire an understanding of the structure of the language and to develop strategies to enrich their vocabulary. These strategies might include revising basic vocabulary such as numbers for use in ages, times, dates and so on, and vocabulary appropriate to each of the topics listed in the syllabus.
Discussion
A range of abilities was demonstrated, from sophisticated presentations of ideas and opinions to factual recounts.
In the best discussions, candidates were able to speak at length and fluently, use language appropriately and with good expression. These candidates also demonstrated depth of research and the ability to discuss the topic from a personal perspective. Weaker responses typically showed simple language structures, grammatical errors, repetition of simple phrases and lack of ability to expand ideas or justify opinions. The use of English words and English constructions was also evident.
Some of the topics chosen which lent themselves to research and in-depth discussion included detailed discussions of the history and purpose of festivals, and comparison of tertiary institutions in Philippines and Australia.
While all candidates demonstrated that they had used a number of resources, some candidates could have better exploited the resources used or accessed a wider range of texts, such as films and documentaries, journal articles and interviews. Candidates need to be reminded that they should be using a minimum of three different resources: ‘It is expected that at least three different texts will form the basis of the in-depth study, so that the candidate is able to explore their chosen subject in sufficient depth.’ (Filipino syllabus)
Should candidates choose to bring supporting objects to the examination, they are reminded that these should be such items as photographs, pictures and maps. Notes and cue cards are not permitted and there must be no written information or annotations either in English or in Filipino on the objects. Supporting objects serve only as a prompt and in no way contribute to the mark awarded.
Written Examination
Section I – Listening and Responding
Part A
Question 5(b)
In the weaker responses, candidates demonstrated poor analytical skills and did not establish the relationship between language and personality.
Part B
Question 7
The best responses demonstrated comprehensive understanding of the text, providing detailed references to the text. Weak responses displayed difficulty with expression in the language, with limited knowledge of vocabulary and sentence structure.
Section II – Reading and Responding
Part A
Question 8(b)
The best responses described Ynez’s feelings supported with specific reference to the text.
Question 9(c)
The better responses referred to personal qualities separately and made specific reference to the text.
Question 9(d)
In the weaker responses, candidates simply copied information from the text rather than comparing and contrasting the viewpoints that Mr Romero and the reporter have on Philippine history. Good responses analysed the differences between the viewpoints, making reference to the text as appropriate.
Part B
Question 10
Most candidates understood the stimulus text but responded with varying degrees of success in meeting the requirements of the task. The better responses comprised a well-written response letter by the SRC to Reggie with appropriate references to the stimulus text and using the correct conventions of the text type, with clear reference to audience, purpose and context.
In the weaker responses, candidates tended to extract information directly from the stimulus text. Poor responses demonstrated basic knowledge and understanding of vocabulary and sentence structure and the incorrect use of English syntax.
The better responses showed good manipulation of language. They were creative and authentic, meeting the requirements of the task.
Section III – Writing in Filipino
The better responses to both questions showed both breadth and depth of treatment. The vocabulary, sentence structure and punctuation demonstrated extensive knowledge of the language. Information presented was coherent and the development of ideas was effectively sequenced.
Poorer responses did not present the information and ideas suggested by the question and did not use the conventions of the required text type. English words were evident and the answers contained errors in syntax and grammatical structure.
2010012
NSW Government