10 October 2014

Lecture Hall EDB Kowloon Tong Centre

Dr. Neil DRAVE

Senior Manager Assessment Development Division

Hong Kong Examinations & Assessment Authority

HKDSE 2014

Literature in English – Briefing

Rundown

• 2.05 Welcome and introductions

• 2.10 General overview of the 2014 examination

• 2.40 Paper 1 (Terri Donlon) and Q&A

• 3.05 Paper 2 (Neil Drave) and Q&A

• 3.20 Paper 3 (Connie Chung) and Q&A• 3.45 The 2015 paper and beyond

• 4.00 Finish

Overview of the 2014 paper

• Candidates’ performance in general

• What happens to marks?

• Questions

• New-style marking scheme

• Major issues

Candidates’ performance

• 365 candidates in total

• 3+ 80%

• 4+ 58%

• 5+ 25%

• Inter-paper correlations show that Paper 1 and

Paper 2 are related but Paper 3 is testing

something different

What happens to raw marks? 1. Papers marked

2. Papers checkmarked by CE

3. Discrepant scores checked by CE/SM

4. Final raw scores adjusted for differences in mark distributions between markers

5. Scores weighted to ensure match with syllabus

6. CEs review correspondence between paper scores and standards (this year, previous years)

7. Research Division suggests possible cut scores, based on the Group Ability Index (GAI) derived from candidates’ performance in Core subjects (to ensure comparability of standards across subjects)

8. Expert judgement takes all information into consideration and sets cut scores

9. Cut scores applied to scores to derive provisional levels & results

10. Discrepant levels cases checked by CE/SM

11. Final results to candidates

12. Rechecking and remarking (formerly Appeals)

13. R&R results to candidates

Questions

• Aims

– broad coverage of important issues, rather than

focus on minor details

– bring out what candidates know rather than trick

them

– stimulate critical thinking rather than plot recall

– focus on how as well as what

• Allow for choice of texts to answer on

New style marking scheme

• Sufficiently detailed

• Indication of which points are more important

than others by ordering

• Bullets and highlighting for easier reference

• Tables showing mark breakdown for each

question

-

-

-

-

-

MS for Paper 1 Q 1 Mark Content of answer

0 No assessable answer

1 2 Understandable but may be largely irrelevant

3 4 Answer may be irrelevant in places

Includes one content point for each text, which may be the most obvious one

Summarises the text in a straightforward manner

5 6 Includes two or three content points for each text

Summarises the text

There may also be some interpretation

7 8 Includes many of the main content points for each text

Summarises and interprets the text

Discusses what Ralph and Iago are thinking in more general terms

9 10 Includes most of the main the relevant content points

Summarises and interprets the text convincingly

Compares Ralph and Iago in terms of what they are thinking in a more abstract or reflective way

Major issues

• Two sets, make comparing performances

difficult

• Homogeneous candidature

• Difficulty of judging creative work

• Diversity of Portfolio tasks

• Coverage of all genres

• Plagiarism/unhelpful referencing (Portfolio)

Paper 1 Appreciation (Set 1)

Popularity

A Q1 Q2 B Q3 Q4 C Q5 Q6

53% 47% 30% 70% 62% 37%

Scores

Que. No. Full Mark Mean (%) SD (%) Max. (%) Logit

1 33 55.28 14.91 87.88 0.27

2 33 58.19 13.19 93.94 -0.27

3 24 51.39 12.95 83.33 -0.12

4 24 52.62 14.71 91.67 -0.09

5 16 54.71 17.31 93.75 0.07

6 16 38.14 17.5 87.5 0.14

Question 1

Overall weakness in Section A is the repetition of quotes without explaining meaning. This is not critical analysis which should display skills of interpretation, inference, evaluation and explanation.

Higher marks were given to an attempt in (i) to note any form of comparison in what they were thinking about; and in (ii) to maintain a contrast in the way they were thinking.

Question 2

Questions here were more technical (use of

language/significance of lines/symbolism) but

majority of answers exposed a lack of understanding

in this regard. For example, in (i) comments about

“language” were far more superficial compared to a

discussion about “actions”.

Question 3

Content question at (i) was handled much better

than the other three more technique-based

questions. A lot of confusion about “diction” and

“mood”, and the reasons why certain imagery

was used in relation to birds/boats.

Question 4

General weakness - misunderstanding/

misinterpretation of Mushrooms as representing

a human foetus. [“early stages of life” here

might refer literally to the overnight growth of

the fungi; or symbolically to the development of

the feminist movement]

Again, lack of awareness in the use/function of

language and imagery used.

Question 5 & 6

A significant weakness in discussing Unseen

Poems is the failure to paraphrase . The

tendency to repeat quotes without explaining

meaning or show understanding seriously affects

marks.

Overview Paper 1

Greater attention should be given to TECHNIQUE-based QUESTIONS. 13 out of a total 20 questionstested an awareness of the writer’s technical skill.e.g.

• Form of the poem

• Use of imagery

• How is tension created

• Discuss one simile/metaphor in relation to

• Comment on significance of lines.

Paper 2 Essay (Set 1)

Popularity

Novel Play Film Short stories

I Q1 Q2

‘creative’

Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8

36% 17% 8% 39% 8% 36% 14% 42%

II Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16

8% 12% 7% 24% 2% 10% 31% 6%

Questions 1 and 2

• Q. 1 Keys terms taken for granted (e.g. innocence)

• Unbalanced responses

• Q.2 Not very well answered

• Focus on details of recent meeting with Jack, rather than the novel

• Need to demonstrate knowledge of text

Question 4

• Straightforward question on loyalty

• Most candidates chose Desdemona, Emilia and

Iago

• Best answers captured different kinds of loyalty(e.g. as friend, servant, spouse)

• Required understanding of the world of the

play

Question 6

• Well-answered

• Minor characters can be archetypes (e.g. wise

old man)

• Best answers demonstrated how Waddington

and Mother Superior contribute to

–Plot development

–The relationship between Kitty and Walter

Question 8

• Successful vs. successful as women

• There were some ‘creative’ responses

Question 12 Evaluate the significance and effectiveness

of their titles with reference to three set texts• Part 2

• Must cover genres not previously covered

• Mark penalties

• Title meaning – Literal

– Allusive (e.g. Biblical)

• Title importance – Predictive of themes

– Clue to authorial perspective

– Ironic

Question 15

Compare and contrast the

role of death in three set texts

• Tendency to give examples rather than talk

about role

• Where candidates did discuss role, they often

did not compare/contrast

Paper 3 Portfolio

• Generally very good work

• Sensible research projects in terms of –Scope

–Thesis

–Referencing

• Critical analyses showed good awareness of the genre

• Some very good creative work as well

• Expressive and stylistically of high quality

Portfolio – issues to be addressed

• Plagiarism

• Texts of little literary merit

• Non-English texts (e.g. Japanese cartoons)

• No background or introduction, or too much

• Analysis of texts which are on the syllabus, or very closely related texts

• ‘Proofreading’ errors (sometimes serious e.g. names)• Creative work too short – can submit more than one

piece

2015 Paper and beyond• Samples of performance posted

on web soon

• 2015 – Same set of texts as 2014

– Same paper structure as 2014(e.g. 2 sets)

• 2016

• Structure and texts change – Format

• Paper 1= Essay (50%, 3 hours)

• Paper 2=Appreciation (30% 2 hours)

• Paper 3 = Portfolio (20%)

• 2016 Texts – Novel = Lord of the Flies OR

To Kill a Mockingbird

– Play = Othello OR The Crucible

– Film = The Painted Veil OR Life of Pi

– Short stories – 8

– Poetry – 5 poets, 3 poems each

• 2018 SBA trial (rubrics in progress)

More information

• www.hkeaa.edu.hk

• ndrave@hkeaa.edu.hk