Assessment Report

New Zealand Scholarship
Spanish 2019

Standard 93007


Part A: Commentary

The level of language in responses to this year’s examination was very high and candidates were able to express themselves well.

Candidates are advised to prepare by reading the questions carefully and outlining the requirements of the response. Doing so would allow candidates to respond to both parts of the question and to produce work presented logically; with precision and clarity, and in a convincing manner.

Some candidates, while answering the question, failed to give details and / or specific examples, e.g. saying that schools should change to prepare candidates for the future labour force but not mentioning how schools could do that; or saying they need to promote intergenerational exchanges but failing to give an example of how that would be achieved.

In Question Three, when creating the argument about values being obsolete or not, some candidates did not first establish what they understood by values and therefore their speech lacked context.


Part B: Report on performance standard

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:

  • showed excellent, accurate and mostly idiomatic command of Spanish
  • explained the arguments in the texts and incorporated further information and thoughtful personal opinions
  • organised their ideas clearly and in a convincing manner.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

  • showed excellent, accurate and idiomatic command of Spanish, and employed an appropriate register of language
  • expressed mature ideas that reflected thoughtful process of thinking
  • explained the arguments in the texts and linked them with broader views on those topics, as well as bringing in their own insightful opinions
  • manipulated the text in a logical manner and summarised information, which resulted in confident and polished writing and speaking
  • made connections of prior knowledge with the topic presented.

Other candidates

Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly:

  • mentioned the resource material without developing or taking it further
  • limited their answers to their own thoughts without referring or connecting it to the stimulus material
  • answered the question as if it was a stand-alone essay, giving an introduction that did not answer the question or provide any valid argument. This was evident in question one, in which some candidates talked about how many friends with tattoos they had but failed to explore why this tradition has survived for 2,500 years.
  • stated their opinion without backing it up, as in question two, in which some candidates said that schools should change to prepare candidates for the future labour force but did not mention how schools could do that
  • concentrated on one single issue for their whole answer, e.g. question three in which some candidates did not make any connections to issues raised in questions one and two, and concentrated on one particular aspect of change of the 21st century
  • showed limited proficiency or accuracy in the language used
  • answered the questions in a superficial way
  • did not engage the audience – especially in the speaking section.

Subject page


Previous years' reports
2016 (PDF, 185KB)

2017 (PDF, 40KB)

2018 (PDF, 73KB)

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