GCSE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
GERMAN
SUMMER 2011
Statistical Information
The Examiners' Report may refer in general terms to statistical outcomes. Statistical
information on candidates' performances in all examination components (whether internally
or externally assessed) is provided when results are issued. As well as the marks achieved
by individual candidates, the following information can be obtained from these printouts:
For each component: the maximum mark, aggregation factor, mean mark and standard
deviation of marks obtained by all candidates entered for the examination.
For the subject or option: the total entry and the lowest mark needed for the award of each
grade.
Annual Statistical Report
Other information on a centre basis is provided when results are issued. The annual
Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall outcomes of
all examinations administered by WJEC.
GERMAN
General Certificate of Secondary Education
Summer 2011
Chief Examiner:
Mrs Judith Roberts, B.A. (Wales), Formerly Deputy Headteacher,
Newbridge School.
Mr David Pendleton, B.A. (Wales) Former Head of German,
Amman Valley Comprehensive School, Ammanford.
Listening
General points
•
•
•
•
•
•
Some examination papers were sent to the wrong examiner
Some Centres packed listening and reading scripts in the same envelope causing
confusion and delay
A few candidates continued to write in pencil
Fewer candidates ticked too many boxes this year although the tendency to extend
answers was more marked and this can lead to negating the correct answer and
losing the mark
Now that the examination is answered in English or Welsh particular attention should
be paid to the spelling of words like theatre, weather etc. German spelling of such
words gains no marks
Some candidates try to second guess the answers by writing words they associate
with the pictures. This strategy can take attention from what is said.
Foundation Tier
Q.1
Caused few difficulties. Some candidates failed to identify Handy.
Q.2
Some candidates confused the boxes with information regarding the grandparents.
Q.3
Usually correct.
Q.4
To quote an Assistant examiner this was generally smooth sailing although some
candidates ignored the Wind and ticked the wrong box.
Q.5
Numbers are not always secure
Q.6
Friseur interpreted by some as beauty salon.
Q.7
7d produced the fewest correct answers with zumachen not widely known. Concern
re the picture of the Stofftasche seemed to less of a worry to the candidates.
Q.8
There was no pattern to this question which caused little difficulty for many.
Q.9
An interesting variety of answers which gave a variety of dates- the 8th was the most
popular, the time should be given clearly. Either using the 24 hour clock or the time
with pm after it, only 1 answer can be credited. Section 2 also differentiated well.
Many candidates failed to pick up deine and answered incorrectly.
1
Higher Tier
Questions 1, 2, and 3 as per the Foundation paper.
Q.4
(a)
Candidates who answered Theater did not gain a mark.
(b)
Kostüme understood by some to be customers.
(c),(d),
& (e) were mixed
Q.5
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) &(e)
(f)
(h)
Q.6
(a)
Well done.
(b)
Lieber not always recognised.
(c), (d),
& (e) generally well done.
(f)
The concept of every evening was ignored by some.
(g)
Not all candidates understood that it was an evening without TV.
(h)
Generally understood.
Homework confused with housework by some candidates.
The online aspect of the chat was not recognised by all.
Active and activities were confused by some.
were well done.
Some candidates equated relaxing with having fun.
was not always well answered.
2
Controlled Assessment Speaking
Administration
Many Centres met all the requirements. Those which did not may find the following checklist
helpful.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Instructions for the sample are contained in the Internal Assessment Manual
available on the WJEC website.
Candidates should be entered in rank order beginning with the highest mark
The chosen sample tasks should be entered
The individual forms should only be submitted for those candidates in the sample
Candidates must sign the authentication form
CDs should be clearly labelled and carefully packed to avoid damage
Each recording should clearly state the Centre name and number and the candidate
name and number
Recordings should be made away form intrusive background noise in order to give
candidates the best possible chance
There is no need to send separate CDs for the structured conversations and the
discussions.
Structured Conversation (4 -5 minutes)
The very best conversations communicated well and were natural. Some examples were
heard of a series of questions which did not always give scope for development. Candidates
who were obviously familiar with the assessment criteria performed well. To gain the highest
marks timings should be noted. A conversation which falls short of the minimum time cannot
gain full marks.
Presentation and Discussion (2 -3 minutes discussion 3 – 4 minutes)
Again the timings should be noted and implemented. If the candidate is questioned before
the 2 minutes then this is prompting and the mark scheme allows for this. It is also important
to ensure that the task set is clear. Many candidates took this opportunity to explore a
personal interest with good effect
Assessment
The vast majority of Centres’ marks matched those of the moderators. Where there were
discrepancies it was because candidates had not always been given the opportunity to meet
the criteria of the top bands. Centres which used the comments sheet obviously focussed on
the criteria which helped with accuracy.
A new examination provides challenges for all and the professional way that the process has
been managed this year is much appreciated.
3
Reading
General comments
Administration was generally excellent, but in a small number of cases the entry sheets were
incomplete. A few packages of scripts had been incorrectly labelled which caused some
confusion and delay.
Most candidates had been correctly entered, but a number showed poor performance in the
Higher paper. Few candidates gave answers in German, but spelling in English was
sometimes weak. A number of candidates found it difficult to express themselves clearly and
concisely in English. Untidy and somewhat illegible handwriting was also apparent. However
the vast majority of scripts were clear and neat, with very little defacing.
The rubric was generally followed correctly, with the required number of answers indicated in
the boxes. The only notable exception was Foundation Q.3 where too many answers are
given, the excess is subtracted from the total of correct items.
Please note that at Foundation Tier only words that appear in the minimum core vocabulary
will be tested. Full details can be found from page 29 of the specification.
Foundation
As usual, Q.1 and Q.2 were the most accessible, but some basic words were not always
recognised, especially Hose, Hähnchen, Medikamente, Metzgerei, Brücke and Bibliothek. In
Q.3 most candidates correctly identified Irena, Stephanie and Roxanne, but there was
confusion about whether Markus watched or took part in sport. Ich reise and ich reite were
also confused. A number of candidates misinterpreted the rubric and inserted nine names.
Performance in Q.4 was generally better, but (i) and (j) were often incorrect. It appears that
verbessern was not recognised.
Performance in Q.5 and Q.6 was erratic, showing the texts had not been read closely
enough. 5A(a) was often wrongly given, showing that einigen had been misunderstood.
Many thought Sophia lived in the pub, missing in dem Dorf, wo ich wohne. Very few
candidates understood beliebt and guessed an answer to 5B(1), which was frequently ‘he
likes them’ or ‘they taste good/ nice’. Many correctly referred to some form of education in
5B(2) and a high proportion of candidates understood Urlaub in Spanien.
In 6A(i) many candidates selected ‘interesting’ as an answer and didn’t seem to recognise
schwer. Very few understood Wald in (ii) and gave a wide range of guesses. Many
understood that Katja liked Snow Patrol’s music but were actually thrown by ihre Lieder,
which was rendered sometimes as ‘their singer’ or even ‘leader’. There were many guessed
answers to (iv). Whilst drei Uhr was understood there was a variety of explanations.
4
Higher
Overall, Higher candidates performed well in Questions 1 and 2. Where difficulties did arise
these were similar to those encountered in the corresponding Foundation sections.
Performance in Q.3A was generally good, although there was often confusion about the
direction Nora Jones’ music had now taken. There were many good responses to 3B.
Surprisingly, fünften was often seen as ‘fifteenth’. Many found it difficult to express
Rammstein’s musical direction (viii) and tended to give answers that were relevant to later
questions. In (xi) there was sometimes too much information, eg. ‘the date is not yet certain
but you can text’ (Texte), or ‘it will be announced at the festival’ (fest).
Question 4 was undoubtedly the most challenging part of the examination, yet the best
performing candidates showed they had a wide vocabulary and were able to extract
meaning from more complex sentences. Many candidates were able to identify the
participation of young people in (1) but did not see the significance of the Welsh language. In
(2) many concentrated on the atmosphere of the match and interpreted Altersgruppen as
‘older people’. The qualities of the café in (3) were usually understood and most found two
correct points, although Lokal was often rendered as ‘locals’. In (4) there was a tendency to
focus on the stones and Stonehenge, but the relevance of history was often recognised.
Most candidates managed to score one mark in (5), although Bücher was often taken to
mean ‘brochure’. As with (3) there was a wider choice of answers in (6) and many
candidates chose them correctly.
5
Controlled Assessment: Writing
The new form of assessment was successful in many respects but also raised several
issues. Administration was generally carried out correctly but certain areas need attention.
This report outlines the main points as highlighted by examiners this year, which will also be
addressed at the next CPD meetings. The WJEC website also contains much useful
information.
We recommend the use of card folders which are far more practical to deal with than
envelopes and plastic pockets. These should then be packed in the sacks provided by
WJEC. It is most important that all folders are clearly labelled with the centre number and
the candidate’s name and number. It would be helpful if folders are packed in order of
examination number.
The two pro formas should be completed and signed to confirm authentication. There was
some confusion about the purpose of the section where the candidate may write up to 40
words before attempting the task. These can be any words that are relevant to the chosen
topic, but the use of codes is not allowed. This limit should not be exceeded. Where a
candidate chooses not to make use of this sheet, this must be indicated by the teacher. In a
few cases work was submitted on sheets that were not A4. We would ask that the standard
WJEC sheet is used. The use of pencil and ink other than black or blue is not appropriate.
The work submitted must be the original and not a photocopy. The handwriting of some
candidates was very poor which made assessment difficult. The use of spacing and
paragraphs would be an advantage.
Each piece of work should have a clear title. In a number of cases this was missing, which
again made it difficult to assess realistically. It is helpful if the word count is given and that
the recommended total as shown in the specification is adhered to. Where an answer is too
short, marks for communication and language will be restricted. In some cases candidates
far exceeded the recommended limit. Examiners in all MFL subjects agreed this year not to
penalise in such cases but in future marks will be deducted.
A cause for concern was that some centres submitted scripts where candidates’ work was
very similar, and in some cases virtually identical. This practice should be discouraged as it
allows no individuality and is not in the spirit of the examination. There were some good
answers with the correct number of words and relevant content which could not access top
marks as there were few or no opinions and justifications. It is an advantage if candidates
are familiar with the criteria of the markscheme so that they know exactly what is expected.
The best topics were general and open ended, allowing for more personal interpretation: das
Berufspraktikum, mein Urlaub, meine Schule. There were some very impressive essays
showing a detailed knowledge of the topic, with idiomatic language and a wide range of
structures, opinions and justifications.
6
Marks to Grades
Below are the marks needed to gain each of the grades available at foundation and higher
tier in each component of the 2011 German examination. It must be emphasised, however,
that those marks are relevant only to that examination. As the difficulty level of papers
cannot be known precisely in advance, the marks needed for each of the grades may vary
from year to year. (The total marks are given in the brackets after the index for component).
Foundation Tier
Grades
C
D
E
F
G
Listening
4261/01 (40)
Reading
4263/01 (40)
32
26
21
16
11
30
25
20
16
12
Higher Tier
Grades
A*
A
B
C
D
E
Listening
4261/02 (40)
Reading
4263/02 (40)
32
29
26
23
12
6
32
29
26
23
17
14
Controlled Assessments (untiered)
Speaking
4262/01 (40)
A*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Writing
4264/01 (40)
37
34
29
24
21
18
15
12
36
33
29
25
21
17
13
9
* N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks.
7
Cumulative Percentages of candidates achieving Grades A* - G (Provisional figures).
Total number of cash-ins - 4,696
Grade
A*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
9.9%
25.1%
48.0%
75.1%
92.0%
97.7%
99.4%
99.9%
Please refer to the GCSE Unit Directory for details of UMS unit weightings.
GCSE German Examiners Report Summer 2011/LG
11 10 11
8
WJEC
245 Western Avenue
Cardiff CF5 2YX
Tel No 029 2026 5000
Fax 029 2057 5994
E-mail: exams@wjec.co.uk
website: www.wjec.co.uk