German Extension 2016 HSC exam pack (archive)

Characteristics of better responses:

• Well-structured with an introduction, main body and conclusion
• lack of repetition was evident, and response was within the time limit
• a clear stance was taken, either agreeing or disagreeing with the statement, or stating both sides of the argument
• an opinion and a range of examples were provided to illustrate how, despite advances, the parents’ generation did or did not have better opportunities (Q1)
• an opinion and a range of examples were provided to illustrate how what is learned at school prepares or does not prepare a person for life’s challenges (Q2).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• ideas were repeated or too few examples were provided
• language and grammar were problematic, and Anglicisms were used
• opinions and illustrations were poorly structured, with a lack of introduction, main body and conclusion
• the time requirement of 3 minutes was not met
• ‘challenges’ was often equated with everyday occurrences, such as the ability and know-how to be able to go shopping(Q2).

Response to Prescribed Text

Part A

Characteristics of better responses:

• a sound understanding was demonstrated of the extract, the film as a whole, the connection to the prescribed issue(s) and the characters and their motivations
• the relationships portrayed were perceptively described and interpreted
• the ability to analyse and draw valid conclusions was evident
• relevance to the question was maintained and knowledge was adapted accordingly.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• knowledge of the details of the storyline was sketchy
• understanding of events and subtleties of the film was superficial
• irrelevant and/or inaccurate information was included or the story was simply retold
• relevant and appropriate examples from other scenes were not utilised.

Part B

Characteristics of better responses:

• perceptive and sensitive knowledge and understanding of the film as a whole was demonstrated
• elements of the extract were effectively interpolated
• the perspectives and nature of the characters were clearly understood
• the scenario of the letter was well set
• the appropriate text type and register were used
• writing within the parameters of the film was demonstrated
• reflective language was used and the question was addressed in depth
• appropriate linking words were used to make the text more authentic
• control of language structures and grammar was demonstrated, with only minor errors.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• a more superficial knowledge and understanding of the film as a whole was evident
• the ability to weave the elements of the extract into the response was lacking
• the story was re-told rather than reflecting on the question
• Sven’s perspective was ignored
• ‘back stories’ that are beyond the parameters of the film were created
• organisation of the text, particularly punctuation and paragraphing, and basic control of the language were problematic
• heavy influence of English syntax was evident.

Writing in German

Question 3

Characteristics of better responses:

• the question was clearly addressed with regard to how we spend too much time defending our own ideas and not listening to those of others
• a very clear understanding was shown of the purpose of the text and its audience as a speech to a youth forum
• varying perspectives were tied together effectively
• the thesis was clearly defined and focus was on the key words of the statement
• 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 shared were perceptive, sensitive and engaging.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• the question was understood, but was not addressed clearly and effectively
• difficulties in maintaining the logical flow of the argument were evident
• insights were superficial and limited
• strong influence of English syntax obscured meaning
• the relevance of supporting material was problematic
• the key words in the original statement were missed, hindering the ability to tie the argument together more effectively.

Question 4

Characteristics of better responses:

• the question was clearly addressed with regard to how traditions can limit our ability to make meaningful progress
• a very clear understanding was shown of the purpose of the text and its audience as a speech to a youth forum
• the concept of tradition was defined effectively and cogently and varying examples were given of how it influences us in making meaningful progress
• tradition was discussed at a micro and macro level
• varied, rich vocabulary and language structures were presented
• 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
• perceptive and sensitive insights, which were engaging, were presented.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• tradition was not defined relevantly and appropriately
• a coherent and sustained thesis in response to the question was not developed
• the relevance of the evidence used was tenuous or superficial
• evidence was tied together loosely in an attempt to answer the question
• strong influence of English syntax obscured the meaning of the response.