German Extension 2015 HSC exam pack (archive)

Characteristics of better responses:

• a well-structured response with an introduction, main body and conclusion was presented
• the time limit was adhered to and there was a lack of repetition
• a clear stance was taken, either agreeing or disagreeing with the statement, or stating both sides of the argument
• a range of examples was presented to illustrate the stance taken.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• ideas were repeated or too few examples were given
• poor use of language and grammar was demonstrated, and anglicisms were used
• opinions and illustrations were poorly structured
• an introduction, main body and conclusion were lacking
• the time requirement of 3 minutes was not met.

Response to Prescribed Text

Part A

Characteristics of better responses:

• sound understanding of the extracts and the film as a whole, as well as the connection to the prescribed issue(s) was demonstrated
• in-depth understanding of the characters and their motivations was demonstrated
• an ability to describe and perceptively interpret film techniques, analyse and draw valid conclusions was demonstrated
• relevance to the question was maintained and knowledge was adapted accordingly.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• sketchy knowledge of the details of the storyline was evident
• superficial understanding of events and subtleties of the film was demonstrated
• irrelevant information was included; for example, padding or retelling the story
• some inaccurate information was provided
• relevant and appropriate film techniques were not utilised.

Part B

Characteristics of better responses:

• a perceptive and sensitive understanding of the film as a whole was demonstrated
• an ability to effectively interpolate both elements of the extract was demonstrated
• the appropriate text type was used (letter) and the scenario of the letter was set well
• the appropriate register was used consistently
• texts were written within the parameters of the film, reflective language was used and the question was addressed in depth
• appropriate linking words were included to make the texts more authentic
• ideas were communicated clearly with only minor errors in grammar.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• superficial knowledge and understanding of the film as a whole was demonstrated
• both elements of the extract were not woven well into the response
• the story was re-told rather than reflecting on the question
• ‘back stories’ beyond the parameters of the film were created
• the register was inconsistent, and moved between du, ihr and Sie
• organisation of the text through punctuation and paragraphing was problematic
• English syntax was a heavy influence.

Writing in German

Question 3

Characteristics of better responses:

• the question was clearly addressed with regard to how the pressure to achieve limits the development of meaningful relationships
• a very clear understanding of the purpose of the text and its audience was demonstrated
• tying varying perspectives together was achieved effectively
• the language and vocabulary used was varied, rich and under control
• the logical flow of the thesis was supported by clear paragraphing, punctuation and the inclusion of appropriate linking expressions
• the arguments were clearly linked to the question
• the insights were perceptive, sensitive and engaging.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• the question was understood but not addressed clearly and effectively
• maintaining the logical flow of the argument was not achieved
• insights were superficial and limited
• strong influence of English syntax obscured the meaning and the relevance of supporting material was unclear.

Question 4

Characteristics of better responses:

• the question was clearly addressed with regard to how today’s society places too little value on meaningful communication
• a very clear understanding of the purpose of the text and its audience was demonstrated
• an ability to define effectively the concept of meaningful communication was demonstrated, and varying examples of how today’s society places too little value on communication were given
• texts were not necessarily limited to technology and its impact on communication
• vocabulary and language structures were varied and rich
• the logical flow of the thesis was supported by clear paragraphing, punctuation and the inclusion of appropriate linking expressions
• the arguments were clearly linked to the question
• the insights were perceptive, sensitive and engaging.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• meaningful communication was not defined
• a coherent and sustained thesis in response to the question was not developed
• evidence was tied together loosely in an attempt to answer the question
• strong influence of English syntax obscured the meaning
• verbs were used for nouns and vice versa, and the use of the dictionary was poor.