Moderation 1.5

I am new to marking NCEA level 1 work. I have included my comments in the folder. If anyone could kindly look over my comments and add in, I would be grateful of any advice. If anyone could look at just a sample of the work I would appreciate it. Many thanks.

Post Tagged with

One Responseso far.

  1. Estelle Seaman says:

    Hi Lorna
    I have had a quick run through of the speeches and here are my thoughts. Of course you know your students so some of what I say may be irrelevant. I haven’t looked at your notes, so just giving my opinion – hope it helps:

    Anna Holdaway
    Achieved – her presentation is less than a minute, but quality is better than quantity and she does speak quite quickly. She has fulfilled the requirements of the standard. However there are places I cannot understand what she’s saying due to poor pronunciation and swallowing her words (e.g. “J’ai une famille de _____??) – hence communication is achieved overall. There is very development of ideas and information.

    Aria Oliver
    High excellence – she has fulfilled all the basic requirements and has successfully used a wide range of language and language features, she has no errors which hinder understanding and her ideas are well-developed

    Caitlin Flanaghan
    Merit – as with Aria she has presented a great talk, but I feel that she is a bit light on the development of ideas. Her presentation contains good techniques which connect her to her audience. I also feel that her anglicised pronunciation of many words would make her message difficult for a French speaker (with no English) to understand.

    Carla Hauswirth
    Low excellence. There is some development of ideas, but I think at this level that she could have added more opinions and reasons, however what she says is certainly controlled and integrated and she has used some advanced language features. Her delivery is a good pace and she connects well with the audience. Does she really mean “et mon frère, Annie”?

    Hannah Whittall
    High achieved -This presentation contains a mix of some quite advanced structures and then errors at a very basic level. There is also a lack of development of ideas (listing her subjects takes up a good 8 seconds of a 67s speech). The last 15 or so seconds I found difficult to follow.

    Jenna Wadsworth
    There are places where she is not understandable (e.g. 35s to 37s, 49 to 53)
    Low achieved – although her presentation contains good ideas and opinions, there are places many where she cannot be understood due to errors and poor pronunciation/diction. So communication is achieved despite inconsistencies.

    Lea Shanks
    Excellence – her talk contains a range of language features at this level and her ideas are developed. She speaks clearly and at a good pace and is easy to understand throughout.

    Meriana Ave
    Low excellence – her talk is clear and the ideas are developed. While her pronunciation is poor, I was able to understand her throughout. My original feeling was merit, because of this, but her good use of language and language features at this level is commendable. I don’t think she should be penalised for her pronunciation, so Excellence

    Sophie Whittall
    Merit – could be more developed and some errors which hinder understanding (matières?). Also some good structures, but not enough for excellence.

    Sophie Woodhouse
    What is she saying from 22s to 23s? Excellence – well developed and interesting, a great use of language features and (apart from 22s) completely understandable. If you can understand what she is saying about her brother, then excellence.


Leave a Reply