UNIVERSITY OF MALTA
SECONDARY EDUCATION CERTIFICATE
SEC
GERMAN
May 2008
EXAMINERS’ REPORT
MATRICULATION AND SECONDARY EDUCATION CERTIFICATE
EXAMINATIONS BOARD
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2008
SEC GERMAN
MAY 2008 SESSION
EXAMINERS’ REPORT
1. Statistical Information
568 candidates sat for the SEC Level examination in German in May 2008. (466 in 2007, 446 in
2006; 485 in 2005; 423 in 2004). As one can observe there was a considerable rise noted. The
number of students sitting for the exam increased by 102 from last year. In fact, 337 (59%)
students sat for Paper IIA while 231 (41%) opted for Paper IIB.
Table 1 below shows the distribution of grades obtained for the May 2008 session.
Grade
I & IIA
Table 1. Distribution of Grades
3
4
5
6
7
47
57
73
13.9% 16.9% 21.7%
20
33
59
56
8.7% 14.3% 25.6% 24.2%
1
19
5.6%
2
26
7.7%
-
-
19
26
47
77
106
59
3.3%
4.6%
8.4%
13.5%
18.5%
10.4%
I & IIB
U
107
31.8%
53
22.9%
Abs
8
2.4%
10
4.3%
Total
337
56
160
18
568
9.9%
28.3%
3.1%
100%
231
TOTAL
% of
Total
A marking scheme was used.
For Sections B and C (the Essay part) of paper II (i.e. for the Letter and the Picture Composition)
of both options, two markers gave their mark separately and the final mark was calculated on
both marks. Where a remarkable discrepancy was observed, the opinion of a third marker was
then decisive.
There were four markers and each marker assessed scripts from both options (i.e. A and B
papers).
2. Comments on Paper 1
2.1
Paper 1:
Listening Comprehension
Short texts
In general most of the students answered the short texts well. Some got them all right, whilst
others got one or more answers wrong. But on the whole, students performed well.
• Quiet a few candidates wrote in pencil. This should be avoided at all costs.
• Some cancellations were not clear, therefore no marks were given.
• Some candidates did not read or understand the rubrics and circled the number instead
of underlining it as requested. Students are encouraged to read the instructions
thoroughly.
Longer texts
As for the longer texts (particularly Part 2A) one can notice that most candidates did not spell
correctly when writing their answers. Among the most common orthographical mistakes were
2
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2008
missing capital letters at the beginning of nouns and wrong spelling of common German nouns
(example the word ‘Koch’, and ‘Friseuse’).
Most common mistake/s
•
•
•
2.2
Bad spelling (Koch, Friseuse, MP3, bisschen mehr),
Students did not understand question or failed to insert an important part of the answer
required,
Bad grammar even if they could copy it from question. E.g. die Kinder steht, die Familie
fernsehen.
Paper 1:
Written Usage
Paper 2A candidates fared better than Paper B candidates. However students seem to be trained
for such a Multiple Choice exercise since they got the majority of the answers right. This most
probably happened, not because students knew their grammar well but because they had learnt
the form or expression by heart. In fact their lack of grammar is extremely clear in the essays.
Many students have no idea of
•
•
•
•
•
Präteritum, (reflected in paper 2A/B),
Separable verbs,
Adjective endings,
Conjunctions (seems these were not taught at all especially in the case of paper 2B
candidates),
Ex 6 many choose odd man out which did not start with same letter Nr b and c).
However, it should be noted that those candidates who knew their grammar, knew it well. And
this was reflected in the writing sections.
3. Comments on Paper 2
3.1 Section A
Section A (adverts and texts – answers in English) carries 50% of the marks of Paper II and
examines the students’ ability to understand and react correctly to different texts in German,
hence testing the candidates’ passive knowledge of the language.
Some questions in paper A were answered correctly by all students. However, as the markers
noted and as the marks indicate, results for section A varied from very bad to satisfactory or good
with a couple of very good performances too. Performances in Sections B and C were extremely
poor. Some candidates did not even follow instructions or write about assigned pictures. Essays
were not well versed (vocabulary, word order, genders) and students seem to have no idea of
sequence. Unfortunately, the general feeling of the markers was that in most cases the
fundamentals are not yet there.
Furthermore, most students taking option A failed to translate keywords being asked (such as
Weltuhr and Benediktinerkloster). As noted in previous years, this might point to the candidates’
lack of knowledge transfer in the foreign language. Students once again this year, seemed to be
unable to deduce the meaning of a word from a sentence. Another reason for this might be the
3
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2008
fact that some candidates have a very poor level of English and thus could not understand what
was being asked or could not find the correct word or appropriate expression to express
themselves.
The general vocabulary level of candidates for paper 2 B was poor. Some even found easy
questions such as question 8 requiring just the translation of ‘Autobahn’ challenging some even
translated it as ‘train’.
3.2 Paper 2 Essays
3.2.1.
Paper 2 A students
Letter writing (Section B): Some candidates were able to write average to good standard letters
in this section.
However, many candidates were more concerned with writing the requested number of words
than in writing correctly and with cohesion. The exception was found in a batch of papers which
give the impression that the candidates are native speakers (deduced from the handwriting,
grammar and vocabulary including certain slang not generally taught in schools).
In this session too, the usual lack of proper grammar, sentence structure and word order
problems were encountered.
• Many students learnt certain phrases by heart and used them correctly/incorrectly in their
writing.
• Some copied indiscriminately from the comprehension questions in the paper.
• Many did not follow the given points or misunderstood the point. e.g ; last point – mention
an incident that happened to you resulted in incidents happing to friends , family etc.
• No proper letter format (not to be expected in paper 2A candidates)
• Phrases like ‘Ich bin gut’ , ‘Deine Freund’, ‘Meine Familie und ich reist’, were
unfortunately very common.
Picture composition (Section C): Some students did try to write sensible and decent stories.
However, most candidates here fared poorly. Some did not even attempt the essay. In many
cases, basic lack of knowledge of vocabulary was evident. Among the most common mistakes
were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
to tackle problems such as unknown situation and lack of vocabulary,
many wrote in the present tense or mixed up tenses or gave the wrong version of the
verb,
many were obsessed by certain expressions learnt by heart which they wanted to include
at all costs even in wrong contexts. (e.g. ihren Herzes pochten vor Freude),
Incorrect grammar: such as Peter und Sohn ging,
Use of conjunctions was very rare,
Nach/zu and other prepositions used wrongly,
Adjective endings, and prepositions,
Although the word Fluss was in the paper many did not use it,
Wrong use of telefonieren mit + Dat and anrufen + Acc
Some students even copied chunks from texts used in the exam paper. Evidently, a number of
candidates even confused languages such as French, Italian, Maltese and English in what they
wrote. A particular case was that of a student who simply wrote a list of words known in German
Similarly, once again this year, students often had difficulties with proper use of the Perfect and
Präteritum, word order and sentence structure. Remarkable was the difficulty of some candidates
4
SEC Examiners’ Report – May 2008
who had problems with using the correct personal pronouns (example not able to distinguish
between ‘sein’ and ‘ihr’).
3.2.2 Paper 2 B students
Letter writing (Section B): The same comments stated for paper A candidates apply to those
students opting for paper 2B. In this case however, the level was much lower than that obtained
by candidates of paper 2B.
These were some of the most common mistakes:
• Some wrote a memorised letter completely out of context. First/Last sentence/s were in
most cases correct because students learnt them by heart (certain expressions included
but out of context).
• Different versions of interressant, interessiert and much more
• Wrong spelling of Geburtstag
• Used phrases like: bist du gut?
• Wrong use of verb tenses: Did not use present /future tense but related in the past.
• A very large and nauseating invention of Germanized words from English and Maltese.
(thinkieren)
• Meine Mutter hat die Geburstag
• Candidates do not bother to revise their work at all. Many left the written parts out.
Picture composition (Section C): Even though a handful of students wrote well written stories
which were a pleasure to read, most candidates found this part particularly difficult to write about.
Some did not even write about the story depicted in the pictures – even though the pictures were
very clear. Some students in fact did not even answer this section.
Again basic grammar and vocabulary problems were noticed. Remarkable is the fact that many
students did not even know the word equivalent for hour (die Stunde). Some even confused easy
and simple modal verbs (ich will) with the English future ‘I will’.
4.0
Conclusion
The above comments and analysis seem to be underling a recurring problem which from year to
year remains constant and unaltered: Students should get the opportunity to practise the
language they are studying theoretically in class. In today’s digital world, thanks to the Internet
and other media, the students are at an advantage over students of German as a foreign
language in past generations.
In fact, it is highly recommended that with the help of their teachers of German, students should
start getting the image of German as a ‘living’ language which they can find not only in books but
also in many other daily contexts (even in activities the students enjoy, such as surfing the
Internet or chatting).
One last recommendation: The candidates sitting for the revised paper in 2010 will have to learn
how to use grammar in context and not in a parrot like manner as they are being prepared now
for in paper 1. This might imply that teaching methods have to change to ones based much more
on the communicative approach of language learning. This should be done in practice not only in
theory.
Chairperson
Board of Examiners
June 2008
5