French Extension 2016 HSC exam pack (archive)

General feedback

Characteristics of better responses:

• a logical and well-structured argument was developed and presented within the three minutes, supported with a well-chosen range of concrete and factual ideas and clearly explained evidence, which linked back to the question
• ideas were communicated confidently and fluently, with authentic intonation and pronunciation and with only minor inaccuracies
• a high level of linguistic competence was demonstrated and used to manipulate the argument concisely, with sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures as well as a high level of accuracy
• the crux of the argument was established immediately, before getting into the body of the discussion
• the plan of the argument and examples were outlined concisely and were clearly linked to the question by using appropriate linking words and explaining ‘how’ and ‘why’ the conclusion was reached.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• introductions/statements were often lengthy, pompous and formulaic with no connection to the question, and often a final statement, a solution to an unrelated problem, was suggested
• statistics and ‘findings’ from survey companies were very loosely used or made up
• pre-learned material, which often did not address the question or went off topic, was heavily relied on, and the idea of ‘generation gap’ was misunderstood
• clear links to the question were lacking and did not refer to ‘how’. The question was merely restated as the link, rather than pursuing/explaining the idea. Only some of the elements of the questions were addressed and ideas were often repeated
• contradictions were present in the arguments, with the introduction not matching the conclusion
• English syntax and anglicism were used. Poor pronunciation and many inaccuracies were evident, for example, verb and adjectival agreements, subject and verb agreements, tenses and gender as well as other common errors
• the personal world was dealt with rather than the contemporary world.

Question 1

Characteristics of better responses:

• clear arguments about how the generation gap benefits the society or not, were presented in a logical and structured manner
• evidence was provided on how the differences between the generations benefit society or not. The positive and negative impact of the gap were explained and supported with current, relevant and well-selected examples, such as use of technology and traditions/culture.

Question 2

Characteristics of better responses:

• all elements of the question were addressed, especially how money effects the various relationships positively or negatively
• a balanced and in-depth view was given
• clear examples of relationships were discussed, such as family, friendship, international, and examples of how the money can affect those relationships were explored in depth.

Response to Prescribed Text - Part A

Characteristics of better responses:

• the behaviour of San Pellegrino was correctly identified and also that it was part of a plot orchestrated by Guilain (Q1a)
• an escalation in Guilain’s bullying behaviour from opportunistic to premeditated was identified, as was his way of treating people as possessions, such as when he ‘gives’ Marie to Sami(Q1b)
• the lack of belonging in this scene was elaborated on and analysed, with focus on dialogue and/or film technique in this scene and in another scene, or by exploring it through a character other than Sami in the scene of choice (Q1c)
• film techniques and language were linked correctly to atmosphere, which was recognised as changing throughout the extract (Q1d).

Characteristics of weaker responses

• the behaviour was not described nor was the intention behind it recognised (Q1a)
• a change in behaviour or a progression of Guilain’s bullying was not identified and the true intentions behind his friendly behaviour were sometimes misunderstood (Q1b)
• sufficient number of instances in the given scene and chosen scene were not developed and examples were not linked to the question(Q1c)
• the atmosphere was incorrectly identified and examples of film technique and language devices were not given or did not support ideas
• French quotes were not paraphrased or translated
• reference to general film techniques was made without attaching them to specific instances that related to the atmosphere (Q1d).

Response to Prescribed Text - Part B

Characteristics of better responses:

• a perceptive and sensitive understanding of the prescribed text was demonstrated by writing in the true voice of Nadia and correctly identifying key elements of the film and the characters through her text and only using the voice of Samira as a sounding board
• specific references to the quote were analysed well
• Nadia’s relationship to Sami and the rest of her family was effectively demonstrated
• a good range of tenses and language was evident, including the subjunctive and imperative moods, complex structures (object pronouns) and indirect speech
• flair and creativity was demonstrated when reflecting on Nadia’s concerns about Sami, Sami’s angry and distressed reaction to the situation, Djamila’s issues with her parents and the temporary state of Sami’s stay at Djamila’s home
• empathy was sometimes used with great effect, reflecting the sensitive nature of Nadia’s character and her plight in the film
• the question was addressed fully, succinctly and to the point, without verbosity.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• the text type of a conversation was not always clear and lacked balanced paragraphs from both characters
• length was well over the required word limit
• key elements from the extract given were not identified, such as Sami’s reaction and Nadia’s distress
• focus strayed away from the question, with too much time setting the scene without recounting and reflecting on the quote given
• the voice of Sami was not always evident or it was overlooked
• confusion was evident about Djamila’s separation from the rest of family, the relationship between Nadia and Djamila, the mixing of the two suburbs Chalon and Neuilly and a misunderstanding of la DASS
• weaknesses in expression and language were evident: poor execution of tenses, such as the perfect tense, subjunctive, imperative, indirect speech; object pronouns were not well executed; confusion of s’entendre versus étendre; éperdu versus perdu; overuse of Arabic words in the wrong context; misuse of slang words such as kiff; Anglicism, for example, être un attendant sur le bateau and inappropriate register.

Writing in French

Characteristics of better responses:

• the given question was answered
• a high level of grammatical accuracy was displayed, with the use of sophisticated vocabulary and grammatical structures, and effective manipulation of language
• the thesis was clearly stated in the introduction that outlined the arguments to be presented, demonstrating evidence of good planning
• the argument was clearly linked back to the question
• structure as a speech was evident, with relevant opening and closing formula as well as speech conventions such as rhetorical questions, imperatives and addressing the audience
• a range of two to three different ideas were included to support the argument and each idea was developed and linked back to the question
• a clearly defined and logical argument was presented, expressed succinctly with clear examples that always led back to the question.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• English syntax and a lot of Anglicism were evident, as well as basic grammatical errors such as incorrect verb conjugations and prepositions, tenses and gender and adjective agreements
• parts of the question were not addressed and pre-learnt material, which often did not address the question or was not relevant to that question, was heavily relied on
• the idea of social class was misunderstood and the word ‘maintains’ in question 4 was disregarded
• an essay or an article rather than a speech was presented, the required text type being completely ignored
• long and repetitive answers were presented
• clichéd expressions and idioms were used incorrectly
• clear links to the question were lacking and did not refer to ‘how’
• the question was merely restated as the link, rather than pursuing/explaining the idea
• a different question other than the one given was addressed
• contradictions in arguments were evident, with the introduction and conclusion not matching
• ideas presented were not fitted to the question
• inaccurate and made-ups statistics were used numerous times
• real life examples that are well known generally were provided but with incorrect details of the lives, nationality and the events of people mentioned, therefore weakening the argument
• the meaning of freedom of speech was misunderstood
• paragraphs were not used.