CCEA GCSE German (Summer Series) Chief Examiner s and Principal Moderator s Report

Transcription

1 CCEA GCSE German (Summer Series) 2014 Chief Examiner s and Principal Moderator s Report

2

3 Foreword This booklet outlines the performance of candidates in all aspects of CCEA s General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) in German for this series. CCEA hopes that the Chief Examiner s and/or Principal Moderator s report(s) will be viewed as a helpful and constructive medium to further support teachers and the learning process. This booklet forms part of the suite of support materials for the specification. Further materials are available from the specification s microsite on our website at

4

5 Contents Assessment Unit 1: Speaking 3 Assessment Unit 2: Writing 4 Assessment Unit 3: Listening 5 Assessment Unit 4: Reading 6 Contact details 9

6

7 GCSE GERMAN Principal Moderator s Report Assessment Unit 1 Speaking The team was delighted to find that there were several new centres presenting candidates this year and that the overall entry was considerably higher than in previous years. The Agreement Trials seem to have paid dividends to the extent that there were no adjustments this year. This does not mean that the moderators agreed entirely with all the marks as some tended to be on the higher limits of tolerance. It is important that teachers continue to attend the Agreement Trial meetings as there is a danger that, if marking creeps upwards, adjustments will have to be made. At the same time, there were occasions when teacher examiners took their best candidate as the norm, deducting a mark or two from other candidates who also merited full marks though full marks cannot be awarded where pronunciation causes any doubt about communication. The great majority of tasks involved conversations and the favourite topics were once again school, the local environment, holidays and personal relationships. It is important to choose a topic where the candidates have their own input and to teach a range of structures to enable them to produce individual answers which are within the candidate s own linguistic ability. It is much better for candidates to express themselves simply, but clearly, rather than struggling with complex structures which they cannot manage. The Knowledge and Application grid calls for a range of structures and an obvious area to produce a range is that of verbs. This might involve the full range of tenses, modal verbs, verbs with prepositional objects, separable verbs and infinitive clauses. While there is no requirement for a variety of tenses, it does make sense to include a question which calls for the past tense. On the other hand, it is not good practice to elicit similar information in the past, present, future and conditional. It is, of course, perfectly possible for a candidate to produce sufficiently varied language all in one tense. Even native speakers need to vary their language in order to achieve high marks. This year there were, unfortunately, a few centres where the quality of the recording caused problems. It is important to check the quality regularly during the recording sessions, particularly the balance between candidate and teacher. The test is to last between four and six minutes. These limits should allow for those candidates who speak very fast and also the more hesitant candidates. Longer tests do not always benefit the candidate. If a candidate shows signs of preparing too much material for the available time, he or she should be encouraged to limit the response to each question or to divide it up. Teacher examiners, through their use of questioning, are very good at encouraging their candidates to show what they can do. This works better than where the candidate tries to remember a whole presentation on each of five questions. It also encourages the candidate to listen as well as speak which is good training for the unprepared questions. The use of unprepared elements is now much more satisfactory. Unprepared questions should arise naturally from what the candidate says and should therefore not be the same for each candidate. Teachers are to be congratulated on their professionalism and hard work. Sympathetic and responsive questioning gets the very best out of candidates, whatever their ability. 3

8 Chief Examiner s Report Assessment Unit 2 Writing The problem highlighted in last year s report of the substantial difference in the level of performance between the first and the second tests seems to have been addressed. Differences continue to show but less frequently and less significantly than before. It would seem that centres/schools have managed to allocate the time and resources to the two tasks on a much more balanced basis. The question of the selection of bullet points has not been addressed quite so satisfactorily. There are still many scripts in which the bullet points invite repetition. For example: The advantages of living in X The disadvantages of living in X Why you like/dislike living in X Clearly the third point is inviting the candidate to go over the same ground as that covered by 1 and 2. In other instances it is not so much repetition of the same material that is the problem but the lack of variety of the tasks. There is no rigid formula in place, but candidates are expected to demonstrate a reasonable richness of tense and structure if they are to achieve the higher grades. In the description of people, for instance, a small number of candidates took the reader through the same material for each member of the family using exactly the same linguistic tools. This is fine, in fact it is to be welcomed, if that is the level of linguistic competence that reflects the candidate s abilities, but both teacher and candidate should be aware that that is the level at which it will be assessed. Candidates for whom teachers have greater ambitions should be given the opportunity to use a variety of styles - narrative, descriptive, even discursive (The latter, if used, is best kept at a modest level.) - and a variety of vocabulary, grammatical structures and tenses. The most successful topics are those dealing with the candidates own experience such as school, hobbies or holidays. Topics such as health and environment often came over as something learned off by heart as witnessed by the more frequent breakdowns in coherent syntax. With regard to discursive writing, it should be made clear that expressions of opinion are not expected in every other sentence. Justification of an opinion is what is required in order to score highly. All too often sentences are offered such as: Ich mag Deutsch, weil es interessant ist. Ich finde Belfast nicht interessant, weil es langweilig ist. In themselves, these sentences do not cause any problem but when they are included with a view to acquiring credit for expressing opinions, they have little merit. They have the formal structure of justification but the so-called justification takes us no further than the opinion itself. Weil clauses should offer proper explanation, not just an alternative form of words for the same thing. Similarly, Es macht Spaβ does not need to follow every positive holiday or leisure activity. Often it is distorted to Es ist Spaβ. Although simple Foundation Tier language will not score in the top bands, it is the level of syntax that should be encouraged for weaker candidates. They will score appropriately. This is a much better option than for them to be given syntax to learn and reproduce that is outside their understanding and productive skills. Too many centres continue to provide their candidates with a script which they are expected to learn. These scripts serve as a one-size-fits-all but in many 4

9 cases they are totally counter-productive. As this report stated last year, what was often produced was an unfortunate dotting of impressive gems isolated in a sea of syntactical non sequiturs. There appears to be a continual decline in basic grammatical awareness. It is disappointing to see this. Even some of the best candidates produce of errors which are beyond oversights or lack of attention to detail. With much of class time taken with controlled assessment, teachers understandably need to prioritise and unfortunately the development of good grammatical awareness is not something that produces instant results. Candidates should be encouraged to present their work clearly. Handwriting can be difficult to decipher but the use of alternate lines makes things easier for examiners. Also, since the entire booklet can be used, candidates could take a different page for every bullet point. As it is, some scripts do not even observe paragraph divisions. Fortunately there were many fewer scripts than usual that did not follow the sequences of the bullet points. The overall standard was similar to previous years with regard to both to the mean and the range of marks. There was some excellent work on show with a number of candidates scoring full marks on both pieces. At the lower end there were some candidates who had little or no understanding of the basic functioning of the language and had not come to terms with what they had been given to learn. Assessment Unit 3 Listening Foundation Tier This year saw a large increase in the candidature with more than double the number taking the exam. The mean mark was down on 2013 but it was very similar to The pattern of scoring was somewhat different with the overlap questions proving more accessible. Many candidates enjoyed more success with them than with questions in the early part of the test. This is not altogether surprising however since the early questions are designed to test individual lexical items and these, although they are all in the foundation vocabulary list, may or may not be known to the individual candidate. Later items try to avoid reliance on individual words and test the candidates understanding of the syntax. Question 1 got many candidates off to a poor start. Perhaps the phrase sonst noch etwas is not taught now that role plays no longer figure in the oral examination. The pineapples in Question 2 were described as not ripe, rather than sweet, and of course Apfelsinen were mistaken for apples despite the fact that the word makes frequent appearances in the test. A number of candidates did not understand billig. Question 3 was handled well and nearly all candidates scored both marks in Question 4. The successful answer mobile phone in Question 5(b) was more often given than money in Part (a) and only a handful of candidates got riding lessons in Part (c). Similarly, the seaside lost out to the restaurant and the football match in Question 6. The next two questions were quite well done as was Question 9. In the past candidates have had difficulty with timetable questions but that problem seems to have been successfully addressed. The overlap questions were, as stated earlier, comparatively well done. There seemed to be an amount of guessing but most candidates gave responses which suggested that guesswork did not figure in most of their answers. In Question 12 the travel agent was the profession that was most frequently picked out. Many candidates obviously felt that such a question would not be complete without mention of teachers and found an unsuitable slot. In Part (d) doctors were preferred to farmers, no doubt due to the inclusion of the word krank. 5

10 Higher Tier As in the case of the foundation level, this year s test produced a performance more similar to 2012 than The overlap questions have been covered in the Foundation Level report. As would be expected, the standard of performance was higher here than among foundation level candidates. Once again it was Question 3 that produced most incorrect answers. Question 5 dealt with the same topic area as Question 3 but the listening skills involved were quite different. The candidates seemed happy to restore teachers to the list but, not surprisingly, many went for racing drivers rather than mechanics and newspaper reporters rather than authors. The Christmas theme in Question 6 was well handled. The only error that appeared with any frequency was sixth-former A being focused on good qualifications rather than sporting excellence. Part (a) in Question 8 proved the least well answered question. The answer boring was favoured by very many candidates. As usual, it was the final question that distinguished the top candidates from the rest. Nevertheless very few candidates came away with no marks. Part (a), (b) (i) and (ii) and (f)(ii) usually provided at least three marks. There were of course some candidates who were very much challenged by this question. There was little opportunity to pick up marks on the basis of stray words being understood. Depending on the general formulation of the answer, the pronouns she and her often left it unclear who was being talked about. It was in anticipation of this problem that a choice of three alternatives was given in the final question. Part (c) was answered correctly by only a few candidates and Part (f)(i) brought forth remarks usually relating to bottle-blond hair. Assessment Unit 4 Reading Foundation Tier This year 12% of candidates were entered at Foundation level, which is in line with previous years. Teachers prepare their candidates differently for the two papers, but it is noticeable that candidates tend to score poorly on the earliest questions at Foundation Tier, which test single lexical items. Success depends on knowledge of vocabulary. The later questions offer a context and usually more than one clue. Many Foundation Tier candidates scored quite respectably in the overlap questions. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Weather vocabulary is frequently poorly known, possibly because it is taught early and not revisited in preparation for controlled assessment tasks. It is, however, often tested in listening and reading. Holiday preferences were well known. More or less any outdoor play facility was accepted but the second part of this question was poorly done. This caused very few problems. Directions vocabulary is frequently poorly known, possibly because it is taught early and not revisited in preparation for controlled assessment tasks. It is, however, often tested in listening and reading. This question proved very difficult and only one candidate got both parts correct. 6

11 Q7 Q8 Q9 This question was surprisingly poorly done. The team felt that there were plenty of clues to help the choice, but there seemed to be a lot of guess work. Quite a lot of candidates offered Gymnasium as a place for the active tourist. Candidates are generally good matching up interests. They performed well here. As previously stated, many Foundation candidates were relatively more successful in the four overlap questions than in some of the earlier questions. Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Higher Tier The slightly novel nature of this question caused no problems. The fact that each element was independent and worded differently from the others permitted all candidates to score, though very few candidates got all sections correct. Candidates are very familiar with environmental solutions. This question offered some variations and so took a bit of thought and understanding of the whole sentence rather than one word. Very few candidates chose Wäschetrockner in Part (c). This type of question tests understanding of tenses. It was much better done this year which is very pleasing as it indicates the ability to read for global understanding. Here, again, virtually all candidates were able to score, though only a few candidates gained full marks. The vocabulary and ideas were very familiar but vocabulary alone would not have been sufficient. There was a very good spread of marks in this part of the examination with a number of candidates gaining full marks and some candidates scoring less than 10. The need to differentiate according to candidates ability to read German for understanding has led to the production of papers which tend to avoid chance and depend on single lexical items, including questions which involve hopping from one word in the question to one word in the stimulus. The mean score for this paper and the standard deviation were well within the range of previous years. Controlled assessment tasks take up preparation time in Years 11 and 12 and teachers also have to spend sufficient time on reading and listening. They are the parts of the examination which are not known in advance and are indicative of real knowledge and understanding. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 The slightly novel nature of this question caused no problems. It was a good introductory question and there was a lot of positive achievement. Some candidates struggled with Part (d). Candidates are very familiar with environmental solutions. This question offered some variations and so took a bit of logical thought and understanding of the whole sentence rather than one word. There were very few candidates who gained full marks. This type of question tests understanding of tenses. It was much better done this year which is very pleasing, as it indicates the ability to read for global understanding. A number of candidates got full marks. This question also proved accessible. The vocabulary and ideas were very familiar but vocabulary alone would not have been sufficient; guesswork would not have produced the good outcome. This question proved quite testing. The vocabulary was thought to be very familiar from preparation for the controlled assessment tasks but perhaps candidates focus so much on their own home that they do not consider alternatives. 7

12 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Parts (g) and (i) were well understood but there were many who did get the connection between Ich werde sechzehn and Marga ist fünfzehn. Candidates should be reminded to be wary of word hopping. Question 7 proved quite testing. Weaker candidates were unable to provide the detail required and those candidates who relied on recognising single lexical items did not score well. Only a few candidates got full marks. This question was quite accessible and there were places where single lexical items were very helpful. The final question focuses the candidates answers by supplying the start of the sentence. The questions also follow the order of the text very closely. Almost all candidates scored some marks and some candidates gained full marks. Parts (b), (c) and (h) called for some conceptual understanding but the marks were available for those who just gave sufficient detail to indicate the ideas of change, range and contrast. 8

13 Contact details The following information provides contact details for key staff members: Specification Support Officer: Joan Jennings (telephone: (028) , extension 2552, Officer with Subject Responsibility: Eileen Lisk (telephone: (028) , extension 2255, 9