Assessment Report

New Zealand Scholarship French 2022

Standard 93004

Part A

High achieving candidates engaged well with the theme across the paper, as well as the ideas within the stimulus material. They were able to both interpret and to extend their discussions beyond the text, thus showing evidence of independent reflection, and resulting in insightful responses. Higher-order thinking was the most challenging for some candidates. However the language was easily accessible and several candidates were unable to demonstrate good use of the connected nature of the topics, particularly in the oral question.

Q1, focusing on 15 minute towns, was well managed by both male and female candidates. It clearly prompted candidates to both interpret the stimulus material and to extend their discussion beyond the text showing evidence of independent thinking.

Q2, with a text focused on degrowth and living in moderation, was understood well by the majority of candidates. The strongest responses acknowledged the current situation, bringing in personal opinions justified with strong examples. These synthesised arguments were presented in a sustained, convincing and coherent manner.

In both question 1 and question 2, some candidates failed to develop answers fully producing descriptive accounts of the stimulus material with little or no evidence of higher-order thinking skills.

Q3, saw a handful of candidates deliver sophisticated, highly synthesised responses whilst others delivered their notes, or spoke solely on recycling with many unable to communicate coherently for the required duration. The responses of these candidates also failed to build in interpretation of the stimulus material, which is a requirement of the question.  The strongest candidates used ideas in the texts as a springboard to show the necessary reflection and extrapolation  

A note for staff supporting scholarship candidates. Handwriting at times prevented clear comprehension in questions one and two, while not fully engaging in question 3 prevented candidates accessing marks fully.

Part B: Report on performance standard

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:

  • engaged consistently across the paper, integrating sophisticated personal opinions, ideas, beliefs, and viewpoints to illustrate points discussed from the stimulus
  • produced work that was very organised, synthesising each point leading to paragraph conclusion
  • showed highly synthesised and sophisticated French, using a wide range of vocabulary and structures in a fluent, flexible manner
  • opened the debate, bringing in new ideas such as problems of multi-use facilities in Question 1, with full reference to both stimulus texts throughout in Question 3
  • answered persuasively; captivated the audience
  • consistently used a very wide variety of complex structures and vocabulary, up to and including Curriculum Level 8 or equivalent, that is well integrated into a high-level synthesised response.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

  • understood the stimulus material; analysed and evaluated most of the key points in the texts, and showed some evidence that they could make connections beyond the stimulus material that tended to be a little conventional in nature or relied on personal anecdotes and / or generalisations
  • used a wide variety of complex structures and vocabulary up to and including Curriculum Level 8 or equivalent that is well integrated into a synthesised response
  • expressed ideas with precision and clarity using clear examples from the text.

Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly:

  • demonstrated a low level grammatical understanding and a weak vocabulary (compound tenses were poorly executed, adjectival endings missing, verbally fluent candidates muddled homophones and tenses)
  • failed to show knowledge of sophisticated language
  • demonstrated hesitancy in question 3, or delivered a very short presentation
  • relied on formulaic language, which didn’t read fluently.
  • showed little understanding of the texts or translated stimulus producing a descriptive, not analytical response
  • didn’t complete all three questions fully
  • didn’t bring personal ideas
  • had poorly organised essays with little to no structure
  • had poor handwriting rendering paragraphs or sentences unclear
  • did not fully interpret the questions properly (e.g. no mention of Q2 in Q3).

Subject page

Previous years' reports

2021 (PDF, 123KB)

2020 (PDF, 240KB)

2019 (PDF, 169KB)

2018 (PDF, 98KB)

2017 (PDF, 41KB)

2016 (PDF, 189KB)

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