Japanese Continuers 2016 HSC exam pack

Characteristics of better responses:

• language was manipulated effectively
• questions were answered with relevant information and in some depth
• a range of perspectives was evident
• a wide range of vocabulary and sentence structures was used
• ideas and information were communicated with a high level of accuracy
• delivery was confident and fluent with excellent pronunciation and appropriate intonation
• authentic expressions such as sou desu ne, zannen desu ga, jitsu wa were used.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• pre-prepared answers that did not address the question were used
• responses were repetitive
• aizuchi, eeto and ano were overused
• sentences were incomplete
• tense and register were inconsistent
• confusion was evident between goro/gurai, nihongo/nihon, tsukurimasu/tsukaimasu, koto/mono, yasashii/yasui, chuugaku/chuugoku, arimasu/imasu, ikimasu/kimasu, eiga/eigo, itta koto ga arimasu/ikimashita.

Common errors included:

• incorrect use of particles
• incorrect formation of te and tari forms
• incorrect conjugation of i and na adjectives
• use of particle ni after a general time word
• omission of kara when using nazenara
• omission of negative ending when using amari.

Listening and Responding

Characteristics of better responses

• appropriate depth of understanding was demonstrated
• the skill of summarising was demonstrated by providing succinct responses within the limited space given
• distinction was made between relevant and irrelevant information
• a good knowledge of vocabulary was demonstrated
• a number of different ideas were synthesised to give an accurate and complete response
• an explanation of how the speakers feel and evidence for this were provided (Q5)
• details and not simply a translation of the text were given to address the requirements of the question
• where a comparison was required, the points of view of the speakers were made very clear, and they were supported with relevant detail (Q6)
• analysis, synthesis and evaluation where required, were evident (Q7 and Q8)
• all elements of the question were referred to and all relevant details from the text were provided (Q7 and Q8).

Characteristics of weaker responses

• key vocabulary was not understood in context, for example, kaji (Q1)
• proficiency in summarising was lacking with longer translations of the text being provided without reference to ‘qualities’ (Q4)
• key points were not picked up, instead only individual vocabulary items were used as a guide
• the date was expressed in Japanese rather than in English (Q2)
• some words posed problems: kaji was confused with kaze/wind and kaji/housework, both months and specific dates, katakana words, chanto was confused with chant, depaato was confused with apaato)
• the phrase kodomo ga anzen ni asoberu basho was often misunderstood (Q5)
• repetition was evident
• text was translated word for word with no additional evaluation
• the nature of the service not understood (Q6)
• which speaker was referring to which point of view was not identified (Q6 and Q8)
• translations of limited parts of text were presented and the question was not fully addressed
• information that was not in the text was included, demonstrating that one or two words were recognised and incorrect information was added to create a response
• examples from the text were not provided
• there was confusion over the meaning of ‘personality’ (Q7)
• time phrases were confused, for example, 4 hours / 4 days / 4.00 (Q8)
• confusion regarding the tense was evident, for example, that the situation had already taken place, not that it will take place in the future (Q8).

Reading and Responding

Part A

Characteristics of better responses:

• vocabulary, grammatical structures and kanji in the passages were understood
• answers were concise and not repetitive (Q9)
• the focus was on Mika’s feelings (Q9b)
• a perceptive understanding of the text, which went beyond translation, was demonstrated (Q9d)
• Ms Ueda’s point of view was clearly articulated (Q10d)
• appropriate language techniques were chosen and a perceptive understanding of the effect of these techniques on the audience was demonstrated (Q10d)
• many examples were provided to support the response (Q10).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• the text was simply translated (Q9b)
• ‘kaigai’ was incorrectly translated as ‘beach’ or ‘ocean trip’ (Q9)
• ‘motte ikanakute’ was incorrectly translated as ‘take’ rather than ‘not take’ (Q9)
• that the increase in overseas trips related to schools was not included (Q9)
• random words were identified and a story was formed around these words, for example, wedding photography, using a selfie stick at a wedding (Q10)
• a part of the Japanese passage was copied and used as ‘language’ examples without translation nor any relevant information (Q10)
• some responses were repetitive and lacking in detail (Q10)
• general knowledge was used (Q10).

Part B

Question 11

Characteristics of better responses:

• a thorough understanding of the text was demonstrated and a variety of complex sentence structures with a high level of accuracy was used
• information from the text was used to argue why Kenta should/should not go to the event; for example, it is cheaper if two people go, opportunity to attend a party afterwards
• a very good understanding of sentence structure was demonstrated by presenting highly complex sentences.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• the text was not understood or the evidence was not presented to show understanding

Common errors in language structure and vocabulary included:

• frequent particle mistake (confusion with place marker de with direction marker ni, aimasu instead of ni aimasu, o instead of to for ‘together with’, for example, tomodachi o ikimasu
• incorrect conjugation for i-adjectives and na-adjective (-oishi deshita, kireikatta)
• adjective + to omoimasu structure (-i da to omoimasu instead of -i to omoimasu; missing da for na-adjective, for example, Shizuka to omoimasu)
• confusion with agemasu, kuremasu, moraimasu and their compound verbs
• missing kara to provide reasons, for example, yasui desu instead of yasui kara desu
• incorrect verb form before structures (nakereba narimasen, takotoga arimasu, ta houga iidesu)
• choto or chouto instead of chotto
• isshouni or ishoni instead of isshoni
• confusion between yasui and yasahii.

Writing in Japanese

Question 12

Characteristics of better responses:

• a clear format for a diary entry was used
• the ‘unexpected’ event was clearly related to school
• the unexpectedness was described successfully
• tense and register were appropriately used
• the content of the text flowed and was concise
• all prescribed kanji was used.

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• errors on long vowels were evident, for example, juugyou instead of jugyou
• errors on double consonants were evident, for example, isho instead of issho
• use of te-form/past tense was incorrect
• limited use of kanji and senior structures were made
• kara was missing when reasoning, for example, nazenara … karadesu
• no or limited explanation of unexpectedness was given
• Nikki san e (Dear Diary) was used
• letter format ending … yori was used
• the requirements of the question were not addressed, instead, responses included, for example, talking about an event which didn’t happen at school, or providing a standard diary entry which had been pre-prepared
• the length was beyond the requirement
• inappropriate words were used directly from a dictionary.

Question 13

Characteristics of better responses

• planning and a coherent structure which followed article text type conventions was evident, for example, title and paragraphing, including an introduction, reflection and conclusion
• consistent level of language was used throughout
• senior structures were manipulated and authentic advanced vocabulary was used
• highly accurate language was used, including the use of correct tense and correct Japanese kanji
• strong personal reflection and ideas were expressed.

Characteristics of weaker responses

• wrong text type such as letter, speech, diary were used (diary entry十月三日, speech〜について話します)
• senior structures were not correctly used, for example, itte tsumori desu, taberu nagara
• wrong use of tekureru and teageru was evident
• plain and polite form were mixed
• reflection was not included, rather a personal learning experience or history was described
• weak reflective words such as ‘yokatta desu’ were added
• a heavy reliance on a dictionary for the vocabulary was evident
• wrong tense was used
• pre-learned responses were evident
• wrong ‘Japanese’ kanji and katakana (supotsu) and sometimes Chinese kanji were used
• copying complicated kanji from the dictionary was evident rather than using the syllabus kanji when appropriate
• errors in basic particles were common, for example, tomodachi wo aimasu, Chiisai no koro,
• vocabulary from the dictionary was used incorrectly, for example, ‘jukuren’ ‘hatten’
• errors in basic usage of i and na adjectives, for example, hentoomoimasu, Uresiina hi deshita
• spelling errors were made, for example, shuukudai, toushokan
• sentences were copied straight from the dictionary
• literal translation of ‘happy life’ was used, うれしい生活 rather than 生活がよくなる
• length was significantly less than the required 400ji
• incorrect use of genkoo yooshi was evident
• ‘kokugo’ was used incorrectly.