Assessment Report

Level 1 French 2018

Standards 90878  90881

 

Part A: Commentary

Thorough knowledge of the Level One and Two vocabulary lists, in both spoken and written form, was key to achieving well in these assessments, as was an ability to accurately interpret appropriate language features, such as differences in tense or negative constructions.

Successful candidates read all instructions carefully and took care to answer in full those questions that included multiple parts, basing their responses specifically on the French heard or read, rather than on previously acquired general knowledge.

Candidates who achieved at the highest level also did more than simply give a good translation of the examination texts. They showed understanding of inferences and implied meanings and then drew appropriate or logical conclusions from the information provided. It should be noted that some candidates who showed thorough surface-level understanding did not achieve with Excellence because their answers lacked evidence of this ability to synthesise detail and infer meaning.

 

Part B: Report on standards

90878:  Demonstrate understanding of a variety of spoken French texts on areas of most immediate relevance

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • showed general understanding of the texts, despite some lexical confusion, e.g. “pleuvait” confused with “pleurait”, “cadeau” confused with “gateau”
  • made some use of the listening notes boxes but did not transfer all the information noted into their final answers
  • tended to fabricate parts of their answers based on personal knowledge of the topics under discussion rather than on the specific information given
  • displayed inconsistent recognition of verb tenses.

Candidates whose work was assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • did not understand the overall point of the text, notwithstanding the guidance provided by the question layout
  • provided illogical or incoherent answers
  • were unfamiliar with Level 1-4 vocabulary e.g “courses”, “samedi”, “cahier”
  • did not use the listening boxes
  • fabricated most of their answers based on personal knowledge of the topics under discussion rather than on the specific information given.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • demonstrated clear understanding, despite some omissions of key details
  • took notes and gave answers with supporting detail from the passages
  • answered in a logical manner
  • gave responses mostly based on the specific information given rather than on general knowledge
  • did not repeat the same information in answers
  • showed more accuracy with lexical details.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly: 

  • included almost all key details accurately
  • based their answers on the information they heard as opposed to supposed
  • wrote complete, but concise and logical answers with appropriate inferences
  • recognised the use of the future tense and negative structures e.g. “participera”, “on ne doit plus sortir”, “n’auront plus le droit”
  • showed knowledge of less common words from the set vocabulary lists e.g “sûr”, “gratuit”, “défi”, plusieurs, BD, quartier etc.

Standard specific comments

Candidates who achieved well in this standard showed knowledge of the appropriate vocabulary lists specifically in their spoken forms, and an ability to distinguish fine differences in pronunciation effectively. Certain lexical items that are obvious English cognates when written, such as “nièces", proved more challenging in the context of listening comprehension for some. Ability to accurately recognise more complex spoken numbers was also evident in the answers of the most successful candidates.


 

90881:  Demonstrate understanding of a variety of French texts on areas of most immediate relevance

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • showed general understanding without accuracy of detail
  • did not attempt to show understanding of any inference or implied meaning.

Candidates whose work was assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • gave very short answers
  • misunderstood, omitted, or did not develop large chunks of information required to show some understanding.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • answered questions by referring to relevant information in the text with some accurate detail
  • made an attempt at showing understanding of inference or implied meaning
  • gave personal responses, but did not go beyond the text by drawing conclusions or making generalisations.

 Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • answered questions by referring accurately to all relevant information and detail supplied in the text
  • showed understanding of the inferences and implied meanings present by synthesising different elements of the text and drawing logical conclusions from that information.
  •   

Previous years' reports
2017 (PDF, 45KB) 2016 (PDF, 221KB)

 
Skip to main page content Accessibility page with list of access keys Home Page Site Map Contact Us newzealand.govt.nz