French Continuers 2016 HSC exam pack

Characteristics of better responses:

• a wide variety of grammatical structures, including tenses were used with few inaccuracies
• communication was in a natural manner, not forced, and genuine engagement with the question was evident
• delivery was confident, with a steady flow of speech, good pronunciation and intonation
• all questions were addressed with ease
• extended answers including opinions, justifications and examples were provided.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• inaccuracies in verb conjugations, tenses and adjective agreements were evident
• prepositions were misused
• adverbs were incorrectly placed
• hesitation in answering was evident, requiring extended time to formulate responses
• examiners questions, either in meaning or tense, were misunderstood
• short answers, with no elaboration or justification, were presented
• Anglicism were used
• structures and/or ideas were repeated.

Questions 1–8

Characteristics of better responses:

• writing was clear and legible
• repetition was avoided
• the Candidates’ Notes column was used to good effect and all relevant information was incorporated into the final answer
• the problem being discussed and how it could be resolved was identified (Q1)
• the two (2) main points were briefly summarised (Q4)
• the goal was identified and the extent determined, supported by positive and negative evidence from the text (Q5)
• the relevant language device was identified, an example with English meaning was given as well as an explanation of how/why it was used (Qs 6,8)
• the idea of contrasting opinions was clearly communicated (Q8).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• not all the relevant details were transferred from the notes column across to the final response
• the meanings were misunderstood for the following: reunion, pièce de théâtre, assister, toujours, supplémentaires, propres, défavorisés, diététicienne, cousu, boue, propre, caverne, madame l’ambassadrice
• “les week-ends passent et… was misunderstood to be ‘last weekend’
• only details were given, without addressing the language aspect of the question (Q6)
• the correct answer not made clear in multiple-choice item (Q7)
• only language devices were identified, with no supporting details or reference to the purpose/effect of using the language device (Q8)
• the same quote was used more than once as a language device or the meaning of the quote was not given (Q8).

Question 9

Characteristics of better responses:

• responses were legible and well punctuated
• key words in the questions, such as ‘why’ and ‘what’ and ‘explain’ were understood
• textual references were provided in English to support answers
• the correct explanation was given of what personality traits Guy revealed in his response. (Q9b)
• the idioms: “Vous n’êtes plus le nombril de son monde”; “Bienvenue au club!” and “quitter le nid” were correctly recognised and interpreted
• Lucie’s disapproval of the tone of Guy’s comments was identified as a reason for contributing to the forum as well as her desire to support and encourage Jean-Paul by referring to her own similar personal experience (Q9c)
• a comprehensive understanding was demonstrated of the various contributions of the three bloggers, and the impact that all these contributions had on Jean-Paul’s decision was thoroughly explained (Q9d).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• handwriting was illegible
• vocabulary was misinterpreted or literal translations of idiomatic expressions were given, including seize ans (six year old), depuis trois ans (for three years), Vous n’êtes plus le nombril de son monde (you aren’t the belly button of the world), lui couper les ailes (to cut off the wings), la maman de Lucie a raison (the mother of Lucie has a reason)
• poor dictionary skills were demonstrated, for example incorrect dictionary translations lui couper les ailes (to cut up garlic for him)
• Jean-Paul was not understood to be male, impeding clarity of communication when referring to ‘her’ in statements involving Lucie and Cécile as well as Jean-Paul
• repetition, re-stating or re-wording the same point were evident
• the passage was simply translated rather than linking it back to the question (Q9b)
• Guy was not included as a contributor, albeit, a negative one, to the forum (Q9d).

Question 10

Characteristics of better responses:

• concise and coherent responses were provided with good expression in English and clear, logical structure
• a dictionary was used effectively to convey an accurate understanding of the passage
• details provided throughout paragraph 1were taken into account to fully answer the question (Q10a)
• the tradition was clearly described (Q10b)
• understanding of the quote was demonstrated and supported with relevant examples from the passage (Q10c)
• a well-planned response was provided covering each use of language in detail. Relevant examples were quoted and each was supported with a specific reference to its effect (Q10d).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• handwriting was difficult to read
• precision in answers and sufficient supporting evidence from the text were lacking
• use of dictionaries was poor, for example, the translation of the word propre
• focus was on the initial detail rather than on the whole of paragraph 1 (Q10a)
• not all the details relating to the tradition to which the author referred were explored (Q10b)
• an accurate understanding of the quote was not conveyed, a relevant explanation of its meaning was not provided, and often unrelated details were cited (Q10c)
• different uses of language were listed but often without supporting examples from the passage and without explaining the ways in which they engaged the audience (Q10d)
• English expression was sometimes incoherent and resulted in lack of structure, repetition or irrelevance.

Question 11

Characteristics of better responses:

• a clear link was shown between Andre’s past interest and his current career
• explanations were created and developed, and reasons for why Andre’s article would motivate and inspire students were given
• reasons and explanations were comprehensive, relevant, logical, succinct and well organised
• answers were developed to all questions asked in Andre’s email
• vocabulary, tenses and structures were carefully chosen to express a point of view and were natural and appropriate for an email to a friend
• writing displayed a high level of accuracy; a variety of tenses were used accurately, language was manipulated authentically, genders, spelling, verb stems and conjugations were correct.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• phrases were copied from the stimulus, and reasons and explanations were poorly expressed
• elements in the text were not understood and/or addressed; ideas were not clearly linked to the stimulus and lacked development beyond cursory treatment
• vocabulary was poorly chosen, or often misused from the stimulus, not cross-referenced in the dictionary, and often of an inappropriate register
• a lack of accuracy was evident, for example, basic words were misspelt and the use of tu and vous was mixed
• structure was lacking and ideas and explanations were not logical and/or organised
• overdevelopment of one idea led to underdevelopment of others, for example, the development related to the USA trip compared to the development related to the reason for Andre being asked to write the article
• meaning was marred by poor conjugation of verbs, poor manipulation of tenses, Anglicism and reliance on English syntax especially when attempting to explain the connection to M. Ledoux and the transformation of Andre’s hobby into a career
• common errors included poor adjectival agreements and the misuse of gender and number, possessive pronouns, relative pronouns especially ce qui/ce que, superlatives and object pronouns.

Question 12

Characteristics of better responses:

• audience and context were addressed well
• fluency in a flow of creative ideas was demonstrated
• the ability to use a variety of accurate structures across a range of tenses was demonstrated
• a detailed description using task-specific vocabulary was given.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• the message relating to the task was poorly conveyed
• consistency in manipulating the language was lacking, with frequent elementary grammatical errors made
• poor use of the dictionary was evident and formulaic structures were used.

Question 13

Characteristics of better responses:

• an excellent understanding of the task was demonstrated, and the purpose and context remained the focus, that is, reflecting on the contents of the letter or the issue
• the requirements of the diary entry text type were met
• ideas were sequenced coherently and effectively
• answers were effectively written, with well-selected and relevant details
• a wide range of structures in correct and authentic French was demonstrated.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• a more descriptive than reflective focus was evident, indicating the purpose of the task was not understood
• command of verb conjugations in the passé composé, imparfait and present tense was limited
• poor dictionary use was evident, with a lack of distinction between nouns, adjectives or verbs, for example, le travail VS travailler VS travailleur
• the spelling of key words was often incorrect, for example, loisirs, passe-temps, lettre, se rendre compte
• the length was often not within the specified requirement of approximately 200 words
• lengthier responses often deteriorated in consistency and accuracy
• manipulation of the question to fit a pre-prepared but unsuitable answer was evident, as was the addition of chunks of irrelevant, rote-learned material which did not address the topic. This was particularly the case for Question 13 (b).