Assessment Report

New Zealand Scholarship
Spanish 2018

Standard 93007


Part A: Commentary

The level of language in this year’s examination was very high and candidates were able to express themselves well. As a cohort, candidates were able to easily interpret the stimulus material but seem to find it challenging to make connections with his / her own ideas that go beyond the given material. As giving their own point of view is a key component of the scholarship assessment schedule, this is something that candidates need to pay more attention to.

Candidates must read the questions and an outline of what the response requires carefully. Planning of answers allow candidates to be able to respond to both parts of the question, and to produce work in a logical manner, with precision and clarity, in a convincing way.


Part B: Report on performance standard

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance 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 text in a logical manner and summarised information with resulted in confident and polished writing and speaking
  • made connections of prior knowledge with the topic presented.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

  • showed excellent, accurate and the 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.

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
  • state their opinion without backing it up, as per Question One, in which candidates talked about the importance of freedom of speech but did not answer the question regarding what the consequences would be if that freedom did not exist
  • concentrated on a single issue for the whole answer, as in Question Three, in which candidates repeated their answer from Question One, talking about the freedom of speech, but did miss the main word “controlar” (to control) from the media. There were also several candidates who failed to concentrate they answer on New Zealand as the question stated
  • 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)

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