UNIVERSITY OF MALTA
SECONDARY EDUCATION CERTIFICATE
SEC
FRENCH
MAY 2009
EXAMINERS’ REPORT
MATRICULATION AND SECONDARY EDUCATION CERTIFICATE
EXAMINATIONS BOARD
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2009
1.
General
1.1
Registration for Examination
1033 candidates registered for Paper A and 716 candidates registered for Paper B. This represents a
drop of 205 candidates when compared to the total number of candidates who registered in 2008.
The figure of 1749 (2009) is also 348 candidates less than the total who registered for SEC in 2007.
1.2
Attendance for Examination
1.3
In Paper A, 6 (out of 1033) candidates failed to attend for all or part of the examination, whereas for
Paper B, the number of candidates was 26 (out of 716). This figure represents those candidates who
did not turn up for any session of the examination. This amounts to a total of 32 candidates (1.8%) of
the whole cohort who registered for the examination.
Overall Performance
2
246
23.8
246
14.1
3
311
30.1
311
17.8
4
152
14.7
118
16.5
270
15.4
5
147
14.2
184
25.7
331
18.9
6
154
21.5
154
8.8
7
111
15.5
111
6.3
U
54
5.2
123
17.2
177
10.1
Abs
6
0.6
26
3.6
32
1.8
Total
1033
100
716
100
1749
100.0
Paper A
% of 1192
Paper B
% of 762
Total
% of 1954
123
10.3
123
6.3
286
24
286
14.6
373
31.2
373
19
175
14.7
125
16.4
300
15.3
167
14
223
29.3
390
20
156
20.5
156
8
91
12
91
4.6
63
5.3
126
16.5
189
9.7
5
0.4
41
5.4
46
2.4
1192
762
1954
LANGUE
MESSAGE
TACHE
(20)
13.2
66
10.3
51.5
12
(10)
6.9
69
5.0
50
6.1
(10)
8.5
85
7.1
71
7.9
(10)
8.3
83
5.7
57
7.1
(15)
8.8
58.6
6.7
44.6
8
(5)
3.5
70
2.8
56
3.2
(5)
2.8
56
2.7
54
2.7
(10)
5.5
55
2.7
27
4.4
(15)
8.5
56.6
4.4
29.3
5.5
GLOBAL
AVERAGES
LANGUE
Max. Mark
PAPER A
% of max
PAPER B
% of max
Overall
COMPREHENSION
DE L’ECRIT
The table below shows the mean scores of candidates in the different exercises proposed by the
examination (SEC 2009).
CULTURE
ET CIVILISATION
1.3.2
1
117
11.3
117
6.7
COMPREHENSION
DE L’ORAL
2008
Grade
Paper A
% of 1033
Paper B
% of 716
Total
% of 1749
DICTEE
2009
Grades awarded were distributed as the table below indicates. Statistics for 2008 are being
reproduced in order to facilitate a comparison of performances. 2009 marks a dip at the top grades,
with a corresponding swell of numbers at the mid-range level.
INTERPRETATION
IMAGE & JEU DE
ROLES
1.3.1
64.0
64
44.7
44.7
56
2
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2009
% of max
60
61
79
71
53.3
64
54
44
36.6
56
TACHE
/20
TOTAL
10.9
72.6
7.0
35
8.5
42.5
64.4
64.4
46.0
46
56.7
56.7
For the purposes of comparison, the table below shows performances in SEC 2008.
PAPER A
% of max
PAPER B
% of max
Overall
% of max
ORAL
LECT &
JDR
/15
10.1
67.3
7.7
51.3
9.2
61.3
DICTEE
/10
6.1
61
4.0
40
5.3
53
COMPR.
DE
L’ORAL
/10
7.3
73
5.8
58
6.7
67
CULTURE
ET CIV.
/15
DOCUMENT
AUTH.
/10
10.9
72.6
7.0
46.6
9.5
63.3
8.2
82
7.6
76
8.0
80
COMPR.
DE
L’ECRIT
/20
11.5
57.5
11.0
55
11.3
56.5
Remarks:
- The percentage mark obtained by candidates during the one-to-one examination has remained
almost the same, in spite of the fact that a more challenging exercise, the Picture Interpretation,
was introduced this year by SEC.
- The change in format of the Dictation (from filling in of one word to whole paragraph writing)
has not adversely affected the performance of candidates. On the contrary, there has been a
significant rise in the performance by candidates (8 – 10 % of 10 marks).
- Another very positive trend in performance is registered in the Oral Comprehension, especially
with Paper B candidates.
- The same can be said for the percentage performance in the Culture & Civilisation.
- On the other hand, candidates registered a marked drop in performance by percentage in the
Written Comprehension, as compared to last year’s performance.
- The same can be said for the Tâche à accomplir, one of the two “composition” exercises, where
the percentage drop is again significant.
2.
Analysis of tasks set
Interprétation de l’Image
A variety of photographs were selected and candidates, asked to choose one at random, were given
some time to examine the picture carefully.
In spite of the fact that all the pictures were different, the questions themselves and the questioning
techniques were uniform throughout the exercise. Examiners were instructed to begin with objective
questioning about the content of the picture, and to move gradually towards more subjective analysis.
Candidates were, for example, asked to describe persons physically and to describe the setting,
before being asked to comment on the mood of the picture or to try to find a commercial use for the
image. In this way, the same test stretches the different candidates’ ability to communicate to the
maximum.
It is interesting and reassuring to note that overall feedback obtained immediately after the
examination was positive. Candidates did not feel that the exercise was “difficult” (meaning beyond
their ability) and examiners felt that there was the usual continuum of performances in the whole
cohort.
Although as a first performance the overall result has been satisfactory, one may always find scope for
improving the candidate’s performance. The most pertinent remark in this case was very widespread
among examiners: candidates are treating this exercise as if it were a test of knowledge, rather than a
test of communicative skill.
3
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2009
For example, some candidates panicked when they were asked to identify something and they did not
know the word. The scope of the exercise is not primarily to test the extent of the vocabulary each
candidate possesses, although showing a good grasp of vocabulary helps. On the contrary,
candidates are seriously lacking in pragmatic skills: the ability to ask for reformulations, to solve
problems in communication. In one photograph, a person was shown with his back to the camera,
and examiners asked candidates to describe this boy. In these circumstances, the candidate is
expected to know how to state what is certain (“C’est un garçon.” “Il n’est pas très grand et il a les
cheveux courts (et blonds)”, but then, saying “Je pense qu’il a douze ans” and, even further “Je ne
peux pas voir son visage” is a positive element and not one which will penalize the candidate.
Knowing how to formulate suppositions and opinions is a must (“Je dirais …” / “A mon avis …” /
“Je pense que …”). In this context, a candidate who says: “Il a les cheveux blonds … je dirais que ses
yeux sont bleus.” would impress with this relatively simple statement which a First Former should be
able to formulate (excepting the use of the Conditional).
Candidates must be fully aware that in this exercise, one is not expected to know everything, that there
may be a reasonable divergence of opinion between the candidate and the examiner, and that the
latter does not possess “the” answers. No candidate will fare badly in this exercise because he/she
overestimates the age of a person in a photograph by a couple of years. On the other hand, a
candidate who cannot express numbers, directions (à gauche, derrière, etc), age, colour (all photos
were in black and white, but candidates can be asked to pick an item and to say what colour they think
it would be if the photograph was in colour), time and other basic speech acts cannot expect to cope
with this exercise.
2.1
Dictation
The same procedure used in previous years for the production of texts was maintained: 5 different
texts which originated from the same source were chosen. As far as possible, an effort was made to
ensure the level of difficulty of the content required was equal in all cases.
The difference this year was that candidates were requested to write the whole paragraph, instead of
filling in a number of slots. The procedure for marking, however, remained the same: markers were
instructed to take account of pre-selected items and very often the same item or part of speech
appeared throughout the five texts, although in different contexts. During the pre-selection, an effort
was again made to represent the spectrum of grammatical knowledge expected of a candidate after 5
years of studying the subject, and items varied in their difficulty from simple prepositions to more
complicated compound tenses.
The rise in mean scores noted in 1.3.2 means that the performance of candidates is roughly equal to
the performance in 2007, since a percentage drop was registered last year.
The shift from filling-in to whole text writing has, hopefully, consolidated the idea that if the candidate is
to score successfully in the Dictation, he/she must concentrate on text logic. The performance in
Dictation is the result of years of reasoning and correction and will not improve through memorisation
of vocabulary. The emphasis during the pre-selection process does not fall on common nouns: the
logic being that in everyday life the candidate can look up a noun in a dictionary, or his/her computer
will do the correction for him/her. On the other hand, the rendering of words in correct grammatical
form and structures, like: “de nouveaux amis”, with number and gender correctly done, are not simply
dictionary issues.
Analysis of errors found in the dictations leads, year in, year out, to the same recommendations.
There is obviously a technical side to the preparation of a dictation: students will definitely benefit from
a regular discussion of “frequent errors”, and from making a list of their own personal “favourite slips”.
Markers are not shocked to see that candidates spelt “faim” as “femme”, and indeed the word was in
itself not necessarily one of those tested. But “parce-que”, “il y’a”, “aujourd’hui” (rendered correctly
here because it is impossible to list the variations), “nous avons’ faire”, “on à mangé” are simply signs
4
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2009
of carelessness.
Not all mistakes emanate from carelessness. It is also extremely important to sharpen articulation and
listening. How else can one eliminate mistakes which emanate from aural discrimination, like “je / j’ai”/
“sont / sans” “le / les”? It is of utmost importance that these “usual” mistakes be discussed (which are
so common and so basic) and to identify their contexts. Only this can solve problems with
homophones : “et / est”, “peu / peut”, “la / là”.
One also gets the impression that candidates do not always know what they should be doing during
the final few minutes of the dictation. This is the moment when mistakes like : “les lettre”, “elle
voudrais” “discuter / discutait” should be spotted and weeded out. To repeat a comment from last
year’s report : One also needs to impress the fact upon candidates that they should not be “reading”
the dictation at this point but reflecting on the morpho-syntactic relationships which they can (learn to)
identify and act upon using their reasoning.
2.2
Listening Comprehension
All the Listening Comprehensions were identically structured in format. The test was meant to be
graduated, with Section A being the simplest and most straightforward, and with Section C being more
challenging. What may be a worrying fact is that some candidates who actually fare well in the first
two sections seem to be intimidated by the open-ended questions and leave out entire answers.
Candidates should be well aware that they are not penalized for orthography and get the
corresponding mark if they are able to convince the examiner that they have “understood”.
Nevertheless, scores obtained indicate that candidates are performing well in this exercise.
2.3
Culture et Civilisation
If one were to look at the performance in this section, comparing percentage scores (because the raw
maximum score has now changed), one would say that there has been some improvement. And yet,
when one looks at the type of errors which turn up in scripts, the positive feeling is no longer so strong.
More than once, during the analysis of performance, one gets the impression that this section has
been “treated” in a process similar to canning, where the fish which goes into the factory in no way
resembles the end product which eventually comes out of it.
2.3.1
The section about culture and civilization was originally introduced because one cannot dissociate a
language from the context in which it exists. The format presently adopted in this paper seeks to
ensure that candidates do not rely on memorization but on knowing facts asked of them. This is why
a lot of support is provided throughout, and also why open-ended questions have so far been avoided.
Unfortunately, answers to some questions are consistently showing that (a) not only is memorization
still heavily resorted to, but (b) candidates are memorizing the exact words of the recommended text,
in such a way that they are unable to answer if a word is changed and (c) candidates are under the
impression that this paper is “easy” to answer, and that because it consists mostly of objective-type
questioning they do not really need to make an effort to master the recommended content.
2.3.2
Specific remarks about students’ performance:
Section I: Although most candidates fared well, Questions 2 and 9 were consistently problematic.
Strangely enough, these were the two questions with longer wording, and the two which were not
completely straightforward. Ironically, Question 2 contained the word “avion” and Question 9 only
needed to spell out the word “technologie”. This is why one starts to think that students are not
tackling this section of the paper with the right attitude.
Section II: Questions 6 and 9 in this section further confirm the assertion made above. Candidates
consistently mistook the expression “faire du footing” and took it to mean “jouer au foot”, and did not
even bother to reason about what colour traffic lights should be when one crosses the road. These
5
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2009
are representations of aspects of life and qualify as “culture”, which is not just about monuments and
history of nations. Even more worrying is the fact that, when asked whether the Bastille was a prison, a
hotel or a cathedral, quite a lot got the answer wrong. Is this because we are associating the events of
14 July to “la prise de la Bastille” without even explaining what the Bastille was?
Section III: A number of candidates fared catastrophically in this section, which would seem to be the
most student-friendly of all. Markers commented that candidates “threw in” a letter, “from the answers
given, they showed they had no clue”, some even “wrote a number instead of a letter”. The most
disappointing was the answer to Question 12: “Le Rhône et la Saône se rencontrent dans la ville
de ………………” producing the answer LION on a number of occasions.
Indeed, one marker commented: “Candidates do not seem to be taking this part of the examination
seriously. Now that there are only 4 units to prepare instead of 8, one would have expected better
results but it does not seem that the overall performance has improved at least with candidates taking
Paper B.” It is strange that what should be perceived as a more motivating classroom exercise, as
well as an easier opportunity to accumulate marks in the examination, is actually not so.
2.5
Compréhension de l’écrit
2.5.1
The texts proposed for Papers 2 A and B were originally the same text, with the passage for Paper B
being modified to correspond to syllabus requirements of length as well as the level of difficulty
expected for Paper B.
In feedback where they were asked to rate the performance, markers indicated “Good” for Paper A
and “Good” / “Fair” for Paper B. All markers agreed in the opinion that “candidates had understood the
text globally”. Markers also agreed that there was a clear differentiation between the level of the texts
and the answers expected.
The mean scores (out of 15) were 8.8 for Paper A and 6.7 for Paper B. While, percentage-wise, the
mean score for Paper A (58.6% of 15 marks) represented practically the same score as last year’s
(11.5 which was equivalent to 57.5% of 20 marks), the same cannot be said for the performance of
candidates taking Paper B. This year’s mean score, 6.7 (being 44.6% of 15 marks), represents a very
sharp drop over the mean score for 2008, which was 11.0 (55% of 20 marks). The figures are
reproduced below for easier reference.
2008
2009
Max. Mark
(20)
(15)
PAPER A
% of max
PAPER B
% of max
Overall
% of max
11.5
57.5
11.0
55
11.3
56.5
8.8
58.6
6.7
44.6
8
53.3
Hypothetical
projection out of
20
11.72
8.9
10.6
Last year’s Examiners’ Report had registered an upward trend of one full mark on the mean. Since
the maximum mark has now changed, one can try to project a hypothetical mark if last year’s
percentages had been retained. The mark for Paper B would represent a drop of more than two
marks, and the overall mean would also be affected adversely, albeit slightly (by 0.7).
The following are remarks about performance question by question.
6
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2009
Paper 2A
Question 2A: Candidates are still not able to define precisely which words they are required to include
in their answer. For “donner de l’argent”, many answered “financer des spectacles” and for “multiplié
par deux” many answered “être double”. One marker commented: “Students quoted whole chunks of
words instead of 1 word”.
Question 2B: Overall good performance. Questions 1 and 4 posed problems in cases.
Question 2C: i) A good number of candidates answered “organization mondiale” instead of “convention
internationale”; ii) candidates were unable to identify “5 millions” as “ce chiffre”.
Question 2D: As in previous years, the performance of candidates starts to deteriorate as soon as
they are asked to reformulate. Acceptable (and accessible) answers were “(Mais) Les Français ne
respectent pas les zones non-fumeurs dans les bars” or “(Mais) Les Français fument dans les zones
où on ne peut pas fumer /non-fumeurs” or “(Pourtant) On fume encore dans les bars même si c’est
interdit ”. Needless to say, performance in this area will not improve a) before candidates understand
that there is no one way of saying something, b) unless candidates are challenged regularly during
their classroom time and obviously c) unless teachers themselves include reformulation in French as
part of their classroom repertoire instead of simply resorting to translation in Maltese or English.
Question 2E: The first obvious answer was of course : “…la consommation de tabac augmente dans
de nombreux pays …”. Other possible (and acceptable) answers : “La loi interdit la vente de
cigarettes aux mineurs ” / “La vente de cigarettes est responsable pour la mort de 5 millions de
personnes par an / de plusieurs milliers de personnes / 650 000 personnes en Europe / 65 000
personnes en France tous les ans ” / “Il est interdit de faire de la publicité pour vendre des cigarettes”.
Question 2F : Remarks from markers’ feedback : “pourrait” given as Imparfait; “Participe Passé” not
distinguished from Passé Composé”.
Question 2G: Markers were asked to identify good / unacceptable slogans. Examples worth showing
to future candidates: “Le tabac tue!”, “Veux-tu être victime du tabac?”, “Tenez-vous à votre santé? Ne
fumez pas ! » “Ne morte pas avant l’heure” (The effort and the idea are worth more than the
grammatical correctness with a slogan such as this one). Slogans deemed less acceptable : “Come
combattre contre le tabac”, “Le monde du cigarette est grand mais pas bon ” , “Le tabac – c’est bien
mais aussi dangereux ”. One should note that with a little effort the latter slogans can be salvaged in
classroom practice.
Paper 2B
Question 2A: Same remarks as for Paper 2A
Question 2B: Overall good performance. “Many candidates got No.5 wrong”.
Question 2C: The majority got i) correct; whereas for ii), a number of candidates missed “5 millions”.
Question 2D: More than one marker indicated that some candidates did not even attempt this
question. One should not discourage attempts, even though they may appear scary: “Pur non compre
cigarettes”, “Ne pas dare cigarettes”, “La loi impede / prohibite vendre des cigarettes”, “Il est proibite”.
Faulty as they may be when seen in the context of an examination, these attempts show that the
candidate has understood both the text and the question and has an idea of what s/he wishes to say in
an attempt to reformulate. The sentences quoted can be the building blocks towards correct answers.
Question 2E: The same comments put forward for Paper 2A apply here.
Question 2F: The same comments put forward for Paper 2A apply here.
Question 2G: Candidates need to distinguish between “slogan” and “title”. For example: “La
vente des cigarettes en Europe” is not a slogan. Markers did pick out a good number of very
acceptable slogans : “Non au tabac!”, “Le tabac, c’est la mort!”, “Pensez à votre santé!”, “ Le tabac = 5
millions de morts chaque année ”.
2.6
Language exercises
This item featured for the first time in the SEC paper this year. In both Paper 2A and 2B, candidates
were given two exercises which focussed on no specific area but which required knowledge of many
different points.
Exercise 4 (2A) required candidates to associate a question with its logical answer. With only one
7
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2009
answer fitting each question, the candidate has to rely on linguistic and pragmatic skills to make the
correct association.
The average score for Exercise 4 (2A) was 3.5, which means an average of seven correct
associations out of ten required. Markers commented that “Quite a good number got it all right”,
“Generally correct or few mistakes”, “Most students got the answers right.”
Exercise 5 proposed a text where candidates were asked to complete the verb, given in brackets, in a
particular tense which was also indicated. Perusal of what was required of candidates should confirm
that paper setters did not go for remote or extraordinary verbs or tenses. How one views the
performance will depend on one’s expectations. An average score of 2.8 means that candidates got
more than half the answers right.
Candidates sitting for the 2B paper were given similar exercises but in a less challenging format or
with less challenging content. In the case of conjugation, for example, candidates were asked to
choose the correct conjugation out of three possibilities. Comparison of the two other language
exercises shows a difference in level of difficulty in establishing the correspondences. The mean
scores for Paper 2B in language exercises show that students are coping (just) satisfactorily here too.
(Mean scores of 2.8 and 2.7 out of 5)
Once again, it is the analysis of scripts and markers’ comments which tend to deflate the positive
aspect in this performance. “Few noticed the need for agreement in ‘Maman est venue’”
2.7
Message
For the purposes of comments which will follow, the titles proposed are being reproduced hereunder:
Message Paper 2 A
Vous vous promenez à Sliema et vous voyez un vêtement qui vous plaît vraiment dans une vitrine.
Vous avez l’argent … mais il faut d’abord demander à votre mère si vous pouvez dépenser cette
somme d’argent pour l’article. Envoyez-lui un texto (sms) pour expliquer et demander son opinion.
Message Paper 2B
Vous êtes à La Valette pour faire des courses. Vous voulez profiter de l’occasion pour passer chez
votre tante qui habite à Floriana et qui a une fille de votre âge.
Envoyez-lui un sms (texto) pour expliquer et pour demander si votre cousine Leah est chez elle …
Demandez aussi si elle a besoin de quelque chose …
Candidates who opted for Paper A did quite well. Some, however, did not specify what the “vêtement”
in question was. Others thought that “vêtement” and “article” referred to different things.
One notes both positive aspects (the use of the expression “lèche-vitrines” by some candidates was a
very welcome note) and negative trends (meaningless phrases like “un dite Versace” and “l’argent du
clothing est expensive”.
A good number of candidates who opted for Paper B did not understand the situation, which required
that they write an SMS to their aunt. Instead, they addressed it to Leah, their cousin. “Faire des
courses” in the title was understood by some as doing a course rather than shopping.
It is clear that more practice and training are required as regards of this section of the examination
paper.
8
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2009
5
2.6
1.2
2
10
5.7
2.7
4.4
TACHE
GLOBAL AVERAGES
5
3.0
1.7
2.5
TACHE (LINGUISTIQUE)
MESSAGE
GLOBAL AVERAGES
Max. Mark
PAPER A
PAPER B
Overall
2008
TACHE
(COMMUNICATIF)
2009
MESSAGE
(LINGUISTIQUE)
Tâche à accomplir
MESSAGE
(COMMUNICATIF)
2.8
8
4.9
3.1
4.2
7
3.7
1.7
2.9
15
8.5
4.4
6.8
Max. Mark
PAPER A
PAPER B
Overall
Once again, two titles were proposed, identical for Papers 2A and 2B, with the only difference that
candidates sitting for Paper 2B were given support to better understand and write.
As in previous years, the marking was carried out at two different levels: the communicative aspect
was marked out of 8 and the linguistic aspect was marked out of 12.
The mean scores registered for this year were as follows. The scores for 2007 and 2008 are being
repeated for the purposes of comparison:
COMMUNICATIVE ( /8)
LINGUISTIC ( /12)
TOTAL ( /20)
(2007)
(2008)
(2007)
(2008)
(2007)
(2008)
Paper 2 A
(4.5)
(4.6)
(5.9)
(6.2)
(10.3)
(10.9)
Paper 2 B
(3.5)
(3.0)
(4.2)
(4.0)
(7.2)
(7.0)
For the purposes of comments which will follow, the titles proposed are being reproduced hereunder:
Tâche Numéro 1
Écrivez un article au sujet des animaux domestiques pour votre magazine scolaire.
Vous pouvez parler de vos propres expériences, des expériences des autres et de ce que vous avez
lu à propos des animaux domestiques.
9
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2009
Tâche Numéro 2
Un magazine français propose un concours aux étudiants. Le prix est un séjour dans une ville
française. Pour participer, il faut bien répondre aux trois questions ci-dessous et envoyer les
réponses au magazine :
- Pourquoi voulez-vous gagner ce prix ?
- Qu’est-ce qui vous intéresse le plus dans la ville que vous avez choisie ?
- Quelle saison / date choisiriez-vous ? Pourquoi ?
Examiners were pleased to note that this year very few candidates did not attempt this exercise,
considering that it was a much more common occurrence in previous years especially with Paper B
candidates.
Tâche 1: A principal comment about candidates’ performance with this title was that some disregarded
the fact that they were being asked to write a short article for a school magazine and concentrated
mainly on their own pet.
Tâche 2: Here again, the importance of reading the title carefully cannot be overstressed. One
sometimes gets the impression that some candidates do not even bother to read the title properly and
for “ville française” they gave Rome, England or California! Others interpreted the word “ville” as ‘villa’
and went out of point. Some candidates simply copied the three questions and answered them.
A comment made by most of the examiners stresses the point that candidates have good ideas but
lack the vocabulary and the structures that need to be used. In Tâche 1, for example, most candidates
talked of dogs but only a small minority used terms like “os” and “aboyer”.
On the other hand, attempts like “Il tear les couchons de la sofa” are not hilarious. It simply shows that
candidates are not convinced that they are learning a NEW language, with the effort that this
necessitates, and they think that they can simply invent or attempt to coin new words. One assumes
that this is not what is happening in classrooms, so why are candidates trying to get away with this
kind of practice in a serious examination? It is also important to note that the vocabulary which is
unknown is not really so rare and yet candidates coolly write “une cavalle”, “un gatte”, and “duex pussi”
amongst others.
2.9
General Comment
Candidates are doing well in the oral section of the examination, whereas the overall performance in
the Message / Tâche is still poor. It is of the utmost importance that students experience more
paragraphs writing where they can express themselves and put their linguistic acquisition into practice.
Chairperson
Board of Examiners
December 2009
10