Italian Continuers 2015 HSC exam pack

Characteristics of better responses:

• candidates communicated fluently and authentically with in-depth responses to a range of questions
• effective engagement with the examiner across a range of syllabus topics was demonstrated
• ideas were expressed clearly and opinions justified consistently when unexpected questions were asked
• tenses were manipulated effectively
• responses were reflective, not just descriptive
• candidates were able to deftly manipulate language more spontaneously, and did not solely depend on using pre-prepared responses
• a broad range of sophisticated vocabulary and a variety of complex structures were used
• authentic vocabulary and expressions were used
• candidates used authentic pronunciation and intonation.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• candidates communicated using simple structures and vocabulary
• candidates responded minimally to a limited range of syllabus topics
• candidates did not engage naturally with the examiner
• language was manipulated using a small range of expressions, often with frequent pauses and errors
• grammatical mistakes included: incorrect use of tenses, poor use of pronouns, incorrect agreements, misuse of articles, misuse of circa, superlative errors, ending a sentence with a preposition, confusing imparare and insegnare, misuse of  piacere, omission of verbs, using infinitives
• candidates relied on listing and repetition (eg. bella, divertente, mi piace)
• structures such as Da quanto tempo…; using l’anno scorso  to say ‘next year’  were misunderstood
• there was a reliance on English syntax and anglicisms
• mispronunciation of basic words, for example morto instead of  ‘molto’ was common.

Characteristics of the better responses:

• appropriate and relevant detail was provided
• candidates provided an explicit explanation of the type of student being appealed to (Q4)
• the relevance of the conversation was clearly linked to the text (Q5)
• the language techniques identified were supported by examples from the text (Q8).

Characteristics of the weaker responses:

• information was inferred that was not in the text
• all the ideas in the notes column were not transferred to answer the question
• candidates confused the speakers (Q7)
• some vocabulary was misunderstood; for example,vocabolario, fare una domanda, cancellato, borsa di studio and maleducato
• not all aspects of the questions were addressed : ‘type of student’ (Q4); ‘relevance of the conversation’ (Q5); ‘to what extent is the reaction justified’ (Q7).

Part A

Characteristics of the better responses:

• questions were answered in a perceptive and global manner where required
• questions were answered thoroughly and effectively
• global responses which referred back to the question were given
• Fabio’s views were clearly identified and linked to the language used (Q10d)
• appropriate elaboration on the ideas was provided.

• rather than using an understanding of the text to help answer the question, the text was translated
• terms like sereno, banco, sopportare, lottare, college were misunderstood
• difficulties in explaining how the language used conveys Fabio’s views were evident (Q10d).

Part B

Characteristics of better responses:

• all necessary cues in the text were addressed and points were elaborated, showcasing the ability to both comprehend and interact effectively with the text
• a variety of language structures were used correctly and the language was manipulated authentically and creatively
• responses were well-structured and flowed and paragraphs were linked
• an appropriate greeting and sign off were provided
• hypothetical phrases were used competently and efficiently, and there was not an overuse of idiomatic expressions
• ideas were developed.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• candidates relied heavily on the text and in some instances other parts of the paper were used when responding to cues
• anglicisms and inappropriate use of tenses were evident
• articulated prepositions were poorly used and frequent minor errors, especially with articles, were made
• errors with cognates were made, perhaps due to poor use of a dictionary
• not all cues were addressed
• ideas were poorly linked or unstructured, with the overuse of idiomatic expressions that rendered the text unauthentic
• candidates did not use a variety of tenses
• spelling and agreements were poor; Serena was referred to in the masculine form
• the text was not understood, and some candidates thought that the respondent was still at school
• scripts were short and underdeveloped.

Question 12

Characteristics of better responses:

• candidates kept within the requirements of the text type and addressed the audience, purpose and context appropriately
• an authentic email was provided
• a range of authentic idiomatic expressions were used in a relevant way and knowledge of a wider range of tenses was demonstrated
• language was manipulated well and complex grammatical structures were included.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• modal verbs and infinitive structure were not used well
• verb conjugations were incorrect or simply left in the infinitive form. At times the incorrect verb tenses were used
• dictionaries were not used effectively
• spelling and agreements of nouns and adjectives were inconsistent.

Question 13

Characteristics of better responses:

• candidates adhered to the word limit
• candidates responded to the context, text type, audience and purpose, as required by the question
• a wide variety of structures were demonstrated and a reflection was provided rather than a recount of the experience
• language was manipulated authentically
• the content was relevant to the task.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• irrelevant information was included and the writing was not reflective
• use of pronouns, agreements, tenses and spelling were poor
• ho realizzato rather than mi sono reso conto was used to express the idea of ‘I realised’
• over-long texts, which did not meet the requirements of the task, were submitted.