HKAL 2000 USE OF ENGLISH

ADVANCED SUPPLEMENTARY LEVEL

Section A Listening Test

Overview

Most markers felt that this year’s paper was pitched at an appropriate level
with a mean of 50% and a standard deviation of 18%.

Following on from the 1999 paper, this year’s listening test included a
variety of item types in order to provide a more thorough assessment of the
candidates’ listening ability. Authentic materials such as maps, video covers,
PC game reviews and TV programme schedules were used to form items, as
well as the usual note-headings and tables. Multiple-choice items testing
candidates’ ability to infer the speakers’ general meaning and attitude were
also included. Some of these item types did not require the listener to write
complete words in response, therefore reducing the chance of mark loss due
to poor spelling or illegible handwriting, which often make it difficult to
assess whether a candidate has heard and understood an item clearly.
Whenever necessary, capital letters are given to help candidates with spelling.

This year also saw the inclusion of a section containing authentic spoken text,
this particular example taken from an RTHK radio interview with a local
expert on drug-abuse. A number of complaints about the sound quality of
this section (relating specifically to a hissing sound resulting from efforts to
enhance the sharpness of the original recording) and considerable negative
media coverage compelled the HKEA to provide a compensatory mark
adjustment for all candidates on this section. Statistical analysis, however,
showed no particular trends for this section, and it should be noted that the
item types (true/false, multiple-choice inferencing and single word or figure
recall) were pitched at a level which allowed for the natural speed at which
the speaker delivered the information. Significantly, some of the best
candidates scored very highly in this section, proving themselves more
proficient than several figures in the Hong Kong media and political scene
who found them too challenging! Because of the adverse reaction to this
section, the HKEA has decided that authentic spoken texts will not be used in
future listening tests.

2000-AS-UE
Candidates’ performance

Weaknesses

(a) Reading the note-headings

It is always useful to pay careful attention to the wording of the

note-prompts as they provide important clues as to what the
candidate is expected to write down. Many candidates unfortunately
seem to ignore these clues. For example, the column-heading
‘What she did’ in Question 4 on page 1 hints that a verb is needed
in the answers. Candidates should endeavour to make sure that the
answers they write down form some kind of coherent link with the
note-headings.

Candidates should realize that the moderating committee is not in

the habit of setting questions which may be answered from common
knowledge. When such questions do appear, the answers are likely
to be counter-expectational. Many candidates ticked ‘He agrees’ for
Question 26, perhaps because this is the most obvious reaction to the
statement ‘Heroin is the most dangerous drug’. However, the
speaker makes it quite clear that heroin itself is not as dangerous as
the circumstances in which it is taken, nor indeed as poisonous as
nicotine. Many candidates who answered item 26 wrongly got item
28 (the relative levels of poison in heroin and nicotine) correct.
Item 28 gives some clue as to the correct answer for item 26, though
few candidates seemed aware of this.

(b) Providing vital information

Candidates’ answers often lacked vital information. The answer to

item 4b on page 1 is one example. Many candidates wrote ‘local
branch’ in answer to ‘What she did’, but did not specify what kind
of branch, nor indicated whether the speaker wanted to open one,
close one, or set one up (which was the correct answer). Similarly,
item 5b required a reason why a school survey was needed. The
correct answer should have been ‘to show that society cares’, but
many candidates wrote ‘society cares’ instead. Such a truncated
answer gives no clear indication whether the candidate has
comprehended what was spoken, so no marks can be given.

2000-AS-UE
(c) Word order

Although the main focus of this paper is on listening proficiency,

not grammatical accuracy, some candidates lost marks on one or
two items because their choice of word order gave their answers a
different meaning from that required. One such item is 16a on page
6. Here, many candidates wrote ‘how children are familiar with
computers’ as opposed to ‘how familiar children are with
computers’ – a subtle distinction perhaps, but one which
discriminated between the good and the very good candidates.

(d) Identifying the speaker’s tone

A few multiple-choice questions tested the understanding of the

speakers’ attitudes, often indirectly indicated by the tone of voice.
Candidates need to be more sensitive to the attitudes of the speakers
and what their reactions are to a given situation. Those candidates
who only listen for specific information and not for gist tend to miss
out on such questions.

(e) Concluding effectively

The last three items in the paper proved to be quite challenging and
perhaps caught candidates in a state of fatigue at the end of the test.
Performance was rather disappointing here.

Strengths

(a) Following instructions

Candidates performed particularly well on page 3 where they were

required to write the questions as they would appear on the
questionnaire. While it was considered to be unfair to penalize
those candidates who picked up the content points but who did not
write direct questions, it was reassuring to see so many candidates
following the instructions and examples given.

2000-AS-UE
(b) Reading and listening

Performance on items 35, 38 and 41 showed that most candidates

were adept at skimming the texts and matching their overall format
with the aural clues given.

(c) Authentic speech awareness

Those candidates who scored reasonably well on the authentic

section showed a commendable ability to deal with spontaneous
English spoken at natural speed.

Conclusion

In spite of the problems encountered with the use of authentic material in this
year’s test, it is strongly recommended that candidates continue to listen
regularly to authentic materials such as TV and radio broadcasts,
documentaries and movies in English. They will also find the practice of
taking notes from spoken texts produced at normal speed helpful to their
future studies. Listening to authentic recordings will enlarge candidates’
knowledge base, extend their vocabulary repertoire and aid in the recognition
of different accents. These outcomes will prove to be valuable assets in all
sorts of study, work and social situations.

Section B Writing

General comments

Section B was comprised of questions requiring discursive and argumentative

writing, with students writing on topics both social and educational. A total
of 128 markers assessed some 35,000 papers. An overwhelming majority of
markers judged all four questions to be suitable for candidates. All in all, the
response of markers to the paper as a whole was extremely positive. The
popularity of questions varied a great deal, as Table 1 below illustrates.

Comments on candidates’ performance

2000-AS-UE
 Table 1
The popularity of essay questions and general comments

Question Popularity General Comments

(1) Using English 17% Some candidates misunderstood the
outside the question and wrote about study
classroom overseas, government measures to
improve English, etc.
Question Popularity General Comments
(2) The negative 15% This question produced a wide range
aspects of mobile of answers and perhaps, of the four
phones questions, worked best as a test of
rhetorical skills.
(3) A ‘gap’ year 54% Some weak argumentation, as many
before beginning candidates chose to focus on
university financial considerations only.
(4) Suggesting 14% Some candidates ignored the
improvements in directive to exclude IT from the
the school discussion.

Problems with individual questions

Question 1
– Some candidates misinterpreted the question, as noted above.
– Markers were disappointed with the unimaginative suggestions of most
candidates.

Question 2
– Many candidates talked only about mobile phones in the school context.
– Otherwise there were few problems with this question.

Question 3
– Many candidates mainly discussed the advantages of earning money
during their ‘gap’ year.
– Some candidates failed to cover all parts of the question.

Question 4
– The greatest problem here was that, in spite of clear directions to the
contrary, some candidates attempted to write answers related to
computers and information technology (IT).

2000-AS-UE
– Some candidates had problems with the letter format required by the
question.

Language errors

As has been shown by previous years’ results, the essays of the weaker
candidates contained a large number of language errors, including spelling,
vocabulary, tense/aspect, use of passives, the use of connectives and articles,
word order, question forms, etc. Generally, these errors followed the pattern
of learners’ errors reported on in the 1996, 1997 and 1999 Chief Examiner’s
report, which should be consulted for a detailed breakdown of error types.

Memorisation

Memorised answers were not generally a problem this year, although in a

small number of cases candidates seemed to have attempted to insert pre-
learnt ‘chunks’ of text into their essays. Typically, such insertions were ‘off-
target’, and essays including such material were marked down because of the
irrelevance of much of the essay. Candidates should be reminded that the use
of such memorised ‘chunks’ is not a useful strategy.

Conclusion

In the judgement of the Chief Examiner, Assistant Examiners, and the

markers, the 2000 Section B (Writing) examination was once more
successful in providing a test of argumentative and discursive writing. The
administration of this year’s examination once again went very smoothly.

Section C Reading and Language Systems

General comments

The mean percentage correct for the entire 2000 Section C was 49 compared
to 46 in 1999.

In general, the candidates performed quite satisfactorily on the multiple-

choice sections of the paper (i.e. reading comprehension, multiple-choice
cloze and theme) with a mean percentage correct of 55. The mean
percentage correct for the non-multiple-choice sections of the paper was 43.

2000-AS-UE
All sections of the paper discriminated very well between the better and
weaker candidates.

Part 1 —Reading Comprehension, Questions 1–17

The reading comprehension passage was about a topic with which most
candidates should have been very familiar: the need for Hong Kong to
address environmental issues in order to maintain and improve upon its
standing as a major business centre and a comfortable place to live in. The
article referred to a speech delivered by Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa to a
meeting of Hong Kong bankers in which he called for business cooperation
to improve the quality of life for all residents and to help the SAR to become
a ‘world-class city’. This has become a common rallying cry of Hong Kong
officials over the past few years.

Interestingly, Question 17 asked candidates to choose a ‘good alternative

title’ for the article. In fact, three of the options, A. The politics of Hong
Kong, C. A more accountable Government, and D. Cleaning up the
environment, each contained one element of the arguments made in the
article. However, the article was not about any one of those three elements
alone, but was really about the interaction of all three elements. Therefore,
the best alternative title would be option B. A vision of greatness (44%
correct), a title which is quite general and does not focus on only one aspect
of the article as do the other three options. Candidates should realise when
considering questions about the overall message of a reading passage that the
message should be inclusive of all themes and not simply ‘partially’ correct.

The most difficult question in Part 1 was Question 5 (20% correct, key A).
This question asked the candidates to ‘infer’ what the reaction of the bankers
was to Mr Tung’s speech. For an inferencing question, the answer will not
be explicitly stated in the passage. The reader must read the relevant portion
of the text and then decide what is implied. This is, in fact, an important
skill to develop as it is often necessary to be able to understand attitudes
implied in written texts. For Question 5, the fact that Mr Tung’s talk was
‘an unusual speech to a group of hard-nosed businessmen’ meant that the
businessmen would not have been expecting a speech with such a theme.
Therefore, it could be inferred that the bankers ‘were somewhat surprised by
the speech’s message.’ (option C). Candidates could have eliminated
options B and D because in the text it states that ‘the audience greeted the
speech ...... without marked enthusiasm.’ Option C (incorrectly chosen by
42% of the candidates), ‘thought the speech, was too quiet’ is actually quite

2000-AS-UE
non-sensical, as it simply indicates that the bankers thought the sound
volume was too low.

Candidates generally performed well on the vocabulary-interpretation type of

questions and on other questions from specific, localized parts of the text.

Part 2 — Language Systems

Multiple–choice Cloze, Questions 18–35

The text used for the multiple-choice cloze section was a newspaper report of
a scientific study on the psychological effects of Internet use. The mean
percentage correct for the section was 54.

The item which proved most difficult was Question 31 (26% correct, key A)
which even the stronger candidates found hard. Perhaps candidates thought
that the word ‘average’ is always either a noun (as in, ‘The average for the
test was 51%.) or an adjective (‘The average student does three hours of
homework a day.’). In fact, the word ‘average’ is commonly used as a verb.
(‘She averages eight hours of sleep per night.’)

Items 1 (29% correct, key D) and 30 (40% correct, key C) were both
grammatical items. Item 1 is a fairly common construction: ‘The study, the
first to examine the emotional impact of people’s Internet use ......’ This is
similar to ‘He was the first to leave the classroom.’ Item 30 involves the use
of the past perfect tense, which learners of English often find difficult to use
correctly. Basically, the past perfect tense is used when talking about a past
time which is usually established in the textual context by use of the past
tense (e.g., ‘one participant ...... said’, ‘she did not feel ......’, ‘since the
study began.’. If the writer, then, wishes to clearly indicate something which
took place at a point in time prior to that past time already established, the
past perfect tense can be used.

Part 2 —Theme exercise, Questions 36–47

The theme exercise this year was an editorial about the problems of the sale
of illegal CDs, VCDs and CD-ROMs in Hong Kong and the need for more
stringent enforcement of laws banning pirated products. The candidates did
well on this section of the paper with a mean percentage correct of 55.

Item 37 (49% correct, key C) was one of the more difficult items, with 42%
of the candidates choosing, incorrectly, option B, ‘at prices comparable to

2000-AS-UE
cheap copies.’ In fact, option B makes no sense, as the text would then read:
‘selling fake products at prices comparable to cheap copies’, but ‘fake
products’ and ‘cheap copies’ are the same things.

Item 45 proved the most difficult in the section with only 21% of the
candidates correctly choosing option A. In fact, 51% of the candidates chose
option C, but that option did not actually make sense as ‘US-HK trade
relations’ would not ‘account for’ a massive sales loss due to piracy.

Likewise, for item 47 (47% correct, key A), 29% of the candidates wrongly
chose option D. It would not make sense for a delegation to Hong Kong to
complain to authorities with resulting raids on pirate shops if the purpose of
that delegation’s visit to Hong Kong was ‘to dispute the amount of copying
here.’

Part 2 —Summary Cloze, Questions 48–68

The summary cloze passage was an interesting news story about an Indian
‘scientist’ who had visited Hong Kong to promote a process by which he
claimed he could make fuel using nothing more than water, some common
chemicals and a ‘mystery’ plant. The mean percentage correct for the
section was 41%. Of the six more difficult items, two (Questions 52, and 67)
involved simply copying a word from Version 1, four (Questions 48, 56, 62,
and 65) involved changing the form of the word in Version 1 so that it would
fit grammatically in Version 2, and one (Question 66) required the
candidates to think of a wholly new word.

Version 1 states that Mr Pillai ‘toiled tirelessly ...... to perfect his formula’.
Version 2 states that he ‘spent many years looking for the leaf and working
on the (52) ‘formula in order to be able to produce the fuel.’ The candidate
needed to realise that ‘work on’ and ‘perfect’ carry the same meaning here,
but only 20% managed to provide the correct answer.

Only 9% of the candidates managed to write the correct answer, ‘patent’, for
Question 67, even though Version 1 clearly states that ‘Mr Pillai says he has
applied for a patent for his fuel and, until he receives it, refuses to reveal the
plant used.’ It seems likely that few candidates were familiar with the word
‘patent’ which is a legal right to make or sell a product. If the ‘inventor’ of
a new product does not have a patent on that product, he or she would want
to guard against the possible theft of his or her idea.

2000-AS-UE
For Question 62, only 16% gave an acceptable answer (either ‘scooters’ or
‘motorcycles’). Candidates had to understand first that a plural noun was
required and that ‘cars’ or ‘motorcars’ would not be acceptable (as you
cannot ‘ride’ them, although, of course you can ‘ride in’ them) and that
‘motorists’ was not acceptable as motorists are people, not vehicles.

The performance on Question 48 (22% correct) was disappointing as it only

required candidates to change ‘Tamil Nadu in the south of India’ (Version 1)
to ‘the (48) South / south / southern / southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu’
(Version 2). Changing the name of countries to their adjectival form (e.g.
France-French, Mexico-Mexican, India-Indian) is something which is
usually taught early on in the study of English.

For Question 56 (16% correct) candidates had to understand that the fuel
initially produced using Mr Pillai’s process burns with much smoke and
many fumes, but that ‘the purity improves dramatically’ (Version 1) after a
few days. The acceptable answers to Question 56 were ‘pure / combustible /
flammable / inflammable’.

For Question 65 (18% correct), candidates read in Version 1 that Charles

Cheung was ‘the managing director of Amalgamated CNG Vehicles, the
agency which is backing Mr Pillai in Hong Kong.’ In Version 2, then, they
needed to identify Mr Pillai’s Hong Kong ‘(65) agent, Charles Cheung’.
Other acceptable answers were ‘backer’ or ‘associate’.

Finally, for Question 66, only 4% of the candidates were able to provide the
acceptable answer ‘stolen’. This word did not appear in Version 1, but
instead candidates had to infer that if Mr Pillai had to guard his
demonstration by surrounding himself with families and friends, it was
because, in the absence of a patent, he wanted to keep his idea from being
stolen. The low percentage correct was probably related to the candidates not
knowing the word ‘patent’ as discussed above. A few candidates did attempt
the item by writing unacceptable words like ‘swiped’ (too informal a word
for a serious article) or ‘lost’, ‘disclosed’, ‘misused’ (similar to, but not the
same in meaning as ‘stolen’).

Part 2 —Matching Exercise, Questions 69–80

The Matching exercise this year consisted of 12 pairs of statements, each pair
being about a different, interesting or unique aspect of Hong Kong life.

2000-AS-UE
Candidates did quite well on the exercise with a mean percentage correct of
52.

Three of the pairs (Question 72 matched with K, 74 with B, and 76 with E)

had to do with outdoor advertising signs, lights or the night-time skyline of
Hong Kong and two of these, Question 74 (35% correct) and 76 (35% correct)
proved particularly difficult for candidates. Question 72 (73% correct) did
not seem to give candidates much trouble, probably because in the left-hand
sentence the ‘celebratory lights’ at ‘Christmas and Lunar New Year’ clearly
linked with the references in the right-hand sentence, K. ‘spectacular
displays ...... for last year’s festive seasons.’ In the case of Question 74,
candidates should have remarked that the reference to the ‘Colourful signs’
and ‘brilliants features’ in the left-hand sentence linked lexically with the
reference in the right-hand sentence to ‘the world’s biggest neon one’.
Likewise, the left-hand sentence for Question 76 refers to ‘a glimpse ...... of
the city’s skyline’, while the right-hand sentence, E, indicates that the view
is great when there is no ‘polluted haze’ and you are able ‘to see it.’.The
left-hand reference for Question 77 (37% correct) refers to ‘some of the
weirdest forms of animal and plant life, including sea-horses and frog
ovaries.’ Anyone familiar with Hong Kong’s traditional Chinese medicine
shops should have recognised that the sentence was referring to such
establishments and been able to choose the correct match, C, which mentions
‘Hong Kong’s dried food shops’.

In the case of Question 77 (37% correct), the left-hand sentence talks about
‘sales’ and the right-hand matching sentence, A, indicates that in
‘recessionary days’ (i.e. times when the economy is in bad shape and many
shops reduce their prices on certain goods), ‘they’ (a plural pronoun
referring to ‘sales’) go on ‘all year.’

Part 2 —Proofreading Exercise, Questions 81–98

The proofreading exercise this year was a letter to the editor about the
deteriorating environmental conditions at Chek Keng bay in Sai Kung. The
candidates performance on this exercise was disappointing, with a mean
percentage correct of only 40.

The most difficult item, and the most disappointing, was Question 96 (6%
correct). Candidates were expected to change the word ‘destructed’ to the
correct word ‘destroyed’. Although it may ‘look like’ a real English word,
in fact ‘destruct’ is not and it seems reasonable to expect that candidates at

2000-AS-UE
the Use of English level should have in their working vocabulary the correct
verb ‘destroy’.

For Questions 93 (13% correct) and 94 (22% correct), candidates should

have changed ‘die’ to ‘dying’ and inserted the word ‘be’ after ‘will’ so that
the sentence would correctly read: ‘Chek Kong is dying, and, unless action is
taken to clear up the mess, it will be beyond saving.’ Some candidates
wrongly changed the word ‘die’ to ‘dead’, but the sentence clearly indicates
that, although the bay is in a bad state environmentally, it is not dead yet,
only on the verge of death. Likewise, changing ‘will’ to ‘is’ is not correct,
because, again, though the endangered area is threatened, the sentence leaves
some hope if ‘prompt action is taken’. In making their corrections in the
proofreading exercise, candidates must pay close attention not only to the
grammar, but also to the meaning of the text.

For Question 81 (20% correct), candidates were required to delete the word
‘was’. In fact, the use of the modal construction ‘used to be’ to indicate a
previous state or condition that no longer exists is very common and should
be familiar to Use of English candidates. Similarly, for Question 88 (25%
correct), it would seem reasonable to expect candidates to know that ‘the
multitude of’ should be followed by the plural form of a countable noun, so
that ‘problem’ should be changed to ‘problems’.

Conclusions and recommendations

1. As has been stated in the annual reports over and over again, the best
way to prepare for Section C is through wide exposure to English,
particularly through extensive reading of books, magazines and
newspapers. By the time candidates reach Use of English-level
proficiency, they should be at a stage of language learning where they
internalise vocabulary and correct grammatical constructions through
frequent exposure to English and where their ability to use English
correctly, read it with comprehension and recognise mistakes becomes
automatic. At this point in their learning, they should be beyond
simply trying to memorise vocabulary items or grammatical rules.

2. When practising for the Section C paper, candidates should remember

that for the exercises which involve grammatical and vocabulary
elements (especially the multiple-choice cloze, summary cloze,
matching, and proofreading exercises), they must always pay careful
attention not only to possibly correct and incorrect use of grammar and

2000-AS-UE
 vocabulary, but also to the meaning of the text and the restrictions that
the meaning imposes.

3. When doing multiple-choice types of questions, candidates should

employ a combination of strategies for selecting the best answer. They
should probably first read the stem of the question and then try to form
the answer in their own words. Then, they should read through the
options to find the one which best fits the answer that they predicted in
their own words. And, finally, they should read through the
‘incorrect’ options to be sure that they can, in fact, be eliminated.
Every candidate has his or her own strategies for multiple-choice
questions, such as eliminating obviously wrong options first before
trying to choose the correct one. No one strategy is necessarily the
best. However, using a combination of strategies is probably the best
advice for most candidates.

2000-AS-UE
Section D Oral English

General comments

In this examination candidates are tested on their ability to give a brief

presentation and to participate in a group discussion. Most candidates
seemed familiar with the format and procedures of the examination. On the
whole, candidates were able to make a coherent presentation, initiate a
conversation, speak audibly and ask appropriate and relevant questions,
reflecting candidates’ increasing confidence in their oral abilities. A number
of candidates gave articulate presentations in which pronunciation and
intonation were totally accurate, and there were group discussions in which
all discussants engaged in a lively, informed and intelligent conversation.

Part 1 Individual Presentation

(a) Time

Candidates are given 10 minutes to read the passage, makes notes

and prepare for the oral presentation. Again this year, a few
candidates copied parts of the passage onto their notecards instead of
writing notes in their own words. Candidates should be aware that a
presentation which lifts heavily from the original text will not receive
high marks.

(b) Passages

Passages are approximately 300 words long. This length is designed

to provide candidates with enough material for their presentations
while deterring them from extensive copying or attempts at
memorization. The moderation committees strive to ensure that the
passages contain enough comprehensible material for even the less
able candidates, although some topics may not be entirely familiar to
candidates. It must be kept in mind that by the completion of the
1999 exam over 400 passages had been used over the six years of the
exam. Most of the obvious topics, especially those pertaining to
Hong Kong, have been covered and so cannot be reused.

(c) Problems

2000-AS-UE
 Almost all examiners maintained that poor pronunciation was the
candidates’ greatest problem. Poor pronunciation can devalue an
otherwise grammatically accurate and concise presentation. It is
understandable that candidates may experience mother-tongue
interference with some items, for example distinguishing between
‘let’ and ‘net’, and ‘slow’ and ‘snow’. Less acceptable however,
was the consistent mispronunciation of more common words such as
‘brain’, for example, which many candidates pronounced as ‘brine’.
A number of examiners remarked on this. Confusion of numbers, 14
vs. 40, 15 vs. 50 etc prevails. Candidates should pay more attention
to stress and to the articulation of word endings in order to overcome
this difficulty. Candidates should be aware that they are usually not
compelled to pronounce difficult proper nouns. For example, in
place of ‘Stephen Hawking’ a candidate might say ‘a British
scientist’, or instead of ‘Kuala Lumpur’ a candidate could say ‘a city
in Malaysia’. Such substitutions are perfectly acceptable.

This year, there seemed to be a reduction in the number of stock

phrase openings (‘My passage is about ......’) and rhetorical
questions (‘Have you ever been to India?’) However, it is still
apparent that many candidates have rehearsed the same presentation
techniques, leading to a stilted and rather unnatural performance. In
1999 there arose the curious phenomenon in several centres of
candidates opening their presentations with five or ten seconds of
song. There were no reports of musical introductions this year.

Candidates are reminded that their presentations should be at least 90

seconds long.

Part 2 Group Discussion

(a) Time

Beginning in 2001, candidates will be given two minutes after the

individual presentations to prepare for the group discussion (which
will be reduced to 10 minutes). Examiners continue to observe that
many candidates devote all their preparation time to honing their
presentations and very little to thinking about the group discussion.
It is hoped that the new timings will afford candidates a chance to
unwind after the individual presentations and also to think of more
lively and stimulating things to say in the discussion.

2000-AS-UE
(b) Discussion topics

The theme for Part 2 is related to the general topic of the passages in
Part 1. Candidates can use the data given in their own passages as
well as those of the other candidates to help them in their discussion.

Some candidates expressed concern after the exam that several of the
topics were too scientific. It should be noted that the Guidelines to
Candidates states that ‘texts are chosen for their interest, current
importance, or relevance to candidates’. A topic such as genetic
engineering, for example, has received an enormous amount of media
coverage in recent years, so should be something at least reasonably
familiar to all candidates.

(c) Problems

Many candidates could have benefited from a greater awareness of

the world outside Hong Kong. As stated earlier in this report, it is
neither possible nor desirable for exam texts to be entirely confined to
Hong Kong-related topics, so candidates should have at least some
grasp of significant events going on in the world. This is surely not
an unreasonable demand to make of Form 7 candidates desirous of
pursuing a tertiary education.

As usual, examiners complained about candidates not really listening

to other candidates’ remarks. Also a recurring problem was
inappropriate use of memorised stock phrases – for example,
‘According to a research’.

General recommendations

Candidates should make an effort to be more relaxed and informal, as far as

the stressful atmosphere of an examination will permit. Pronunciation needs
continued attention.

Candidates should expose themselves to English outside the classroom as

much as possible. Reading English newspapers and magazines (including
those published outside of Hong Kong) and watching English television
programmes and videos are all recommended. The Internet can also provide
a great deal of useful exposure to English. Candidates should get into the

2000-AS-UE
habit of talking in English to their classmates (in pairs or in groups) about
current affairs and issues.

Section E Practical Skills for Work & Study

The topic for this year’s paper was preparation for the world of work. The
Careers’ Centre of a school, Hong Kong College, was arranging a Careers
Centre Open Day

The candidates had to assume the role of a student at the college and
complete a number of tasks. They were asked to write an article about
‘Selection procedures and questions’ and complete the ‘Tips for coping with
interviews’ which would accompany the article. They then had to complete
the ‘Programme of Events’ for visitors to the Open Day. The last task was to
match some Job Description Cards with some Client Information cards to see
if the clients were suitable for the jobs they had selected.

Task 1

The first part of Task 1 involved using information from a memo and
excerpts from books and magazines to write an article for the Careers Centre
Open Day Newsletter. The title of the article was ‘Selection procedures and
questions’.

It was important for candidates to read the instructions carefully and

understand the parameters of the question. The memo in the Data File
clearly explained the task by saying ‘the article will be specifically about
selection procedures and questions asked’. Additionally, candidates were
given explicit information about what areas needed to be included.

As well as planning what to include, candidates needed to consider why they

were writing the article and who their audience would be. They were told
that it was one of a series of articles aimed at friends and schoolmates and
needed to be ‘well-organised and informative’. The reference to
organisation indicated that candidates should consider how to group the
information within the report. Although they were not given a specific
layout, they needed to think about a suitable opening and closing for the
report and how they could gather ideas together and link sections so that they
produced a coherent and cohesive piece of writing that would be easily
understood by their readers.

2000-AS-UE
Despite the clear advice they had been given, some candidates wrote a letter
and not an article, and many others wrote down anything and everything
with little or no organisation. This meant that they wasted time by including
irrelevant material and then failed to include other essential points. Markers
noted that many candidates merely copied out chunks from the Data File
without any consideration as to their relevance. Others paid no attention to
collecting similar points together so the reader had to go backwards and
forwards within their text. Poor referencing often made it difficult for the
reader to understand what the candidates were talking about. For example,
when discussing job selection procedures and why they were used, candidates
often failed to state clearly what type of selection procedure they were
referring to before listing the reasons why it was used. This meant that they
lost content points.

To improve on these areas, candidates need to understand the importance of

reading and understanding the question and of careful planning before they
begin the writing task. Otherwise, their writing will be incoherent and
incomplete and therefore fail as a successful completion of the task.

Candidates also needed to adapt the material from the Data File so that it fits
what they are writing, considering for example, the use of pronouns, tense
and time references. They must also realise that they cannot simply ‘lift’
phrases from the Data File and use them in their writing without considering
the reference. For example, in the discussion about multiple-choice tests,
many candidates wanted to explain that such tests were used because they
could help to assess the personality of applicants. They failed to do this,
however, as they simply lifted the reference to ‘find out precisely these sorts
of things’ without seeing the need to state what ‘these sorts of things’ were.

Many candidates confused ‘multiple-choice tests’ and ‘multiple-candidate

interviews’, interchanging their comments about these two very different
methods of assessment and thus not getting content points because of this
confusion.

Markers noted the usual careless mistakes in spelling, even when the words
were given in the Data File. There were interesting references to:

2000-AS-UE
X ...... take you out for lung (lunch)*
X ...... talk to one candidate in death (depth)
X roly play / role poly (role play)
X talk to their stuff (staff)

Candidates have to remember that the instructions for the paper emphasise
that all comments made have to be understood by readers who do not have
copies of the Data File to refer to. With such poor spelling to cope with,
some readers would surely be confused by such references.

* An X indicates a wrong answer or an answer with a grammatical mistake.

The second part of Task 1, completing the ‘Tips for coping with Interviews’,
proved difficult for candidates, as not only did they have to select the correct
information but also had to form a ‘complete grammatical sentence’. Many
failed to match the rest of the sentence with the structure they had been given
or to include information which made sense. For example, candidates wrote:

X You should leave everything until the last minute.

X Always disagree in a rude and unreasonable way.

Clearly, not sensible tips!

Others lost marks by failing to see the need for parallel structures in the
section on ‘Posture’, advising applicants:

X Whatever you do, don’t slouch and sit up straight. (This is giving
conflicting advice as the parallel structure would mean ‘don’t sit up
straight’.)

Had they used ‘but’ the meaning of the sentence would have been clear and
precise:

Whatever you do, don’t slouch but sit up straight.

Candidates must also consider the need for generalisation and not just pick
one reference from a list and believe this conveys the message. For example,
in the reference to clothing, candidates needed to show that there was a need
to think about clothing in general. It was not sufficient to advise people to

X ‘polish their shoes’ or ‘check their buttons’.

2000-AS-UE
This answer also required candidates to mention the need for advance
preparation or the need to check before the interview.

The section on expressing disagreement needed careful consideration. The

message in the text was that it was acceptable to disagree but that
disagreement should be done politely. It was incorrect to advise applicants to
always disagree, as many candidates did.

X Always disagree but be polite and reasonable.

X Always disagree by being polite and reasonable.
X Always disagree and be polite and reasonable.

Task 2

In Task 2 candidates had to complete the ‘Programme of Events’ for visitors

to the Careers Open Day. There were various sections for completion and
candidates had to select information from a variety of sources (a letter,
extracts from minutes, memos and outlines of oral presentations), in order to
complete the Programme. Most candidates were able to locate the relevant
information but lost marks because they did not follow the instructions or
copy correctly.

In the first part of the Programme, candidates were asked to provide a

complete grammatical sentence which continued the structure, ‘Students
can ......’. An example was provided but many repeated the opening words
or wrote something that did not relate to the given opening. They needed to
have a verb form to follow ‘can’ so such answers as X ‘introductions to
companies’ were clearly not in an acceptable form. Other candidates made
an attempt to complete the sentence but seemed to lack knowledge of very
basic structures, writing for example X ‘Students can be able to ......’.

Candidates also failed to realise that simply lifting information from the Data
File without considering its sense is not appropriate. Thus, those candidates
who wrote X ‘find about these libraries’ were lacking any reference to what
‘these’ referred to, whereas in the text it was clear. Similarly, saying that
students could X ‘sign up for the programme’ was not clear as the reader did
not know to which programme the writer was referring. Use of references
and the need to check these is an area that requires more thought. Too many
candidates simply use a pronoun, for example, without considering what it
refers to, or lift information without bothering to see the need for the noun to
be mentioned. Such writing leaves the reader at a loss and fails to

2000-AS-UE
communicate the desired message. It is not the reader’s job to struggle to
interpret meaning; it is the writer’s task to write clearly and coherently,
whatever the situation.

In the section on Videos and Lectures/Workshops many candidates were

careless in copying out the selected information. For example, the talk on
‘Tertiary Education in Hong Kong’ became X ‘Tertiary Education’ and
‘Your First Job’ became, X ‘First Jobs’. It is clearly not acceptable to
randomly change titles that have been given. Although it is important for
candidates to be able to summarise the main details of relevant information
and express points in their own words, it is also vital to be able to recognise
when information cannot be changed, such as in the Programme of Events.

An example of mindless copying was shown by those candidates who wrote,

‘Tertiary Education in Hong Kong?’ as the title for one of the speeches. The
question mark was in the Data File as there was a query from the writer. It
was not part of the title.

Other candidates lost marks due to incorrect spelling even when the
information was there in the Data File and only required accurate copying.
Others failed to include the plural ‘s’ and incorrectly wrote X ‘Job Skill’,
‘Sport Field’, ‘Career Centre’, and ‘Interviewing Skill’, and thus also lost
marks.

Task 3

Candidates, in general, were able to locate the correct information but had
difficulty in expressing it in a correct and comprehensible way. Many
markers expressed concern over the inability of candidates to make their
points clearly.

Once again many candidates did not read the instructions carefully enough
and therefore failed to meet the requirements of the question. Some
candidates ticked ‘Yes’ to show the client was suitable for the job but then
continued to explain why, which was not required. Others explained why the
job was not suitable for the client, whereas the rubric had clearly asked them
to explain why the client was not suitable for the job. Candidates have to
realise they are not given credit for merely writing some vaguely related
information; it has to be relevant to the question and presented in the
required way.

2000-AS-UE
As mentioned above, markers were concerned over candidates’ inability to
extract relevant information and to express it succinctly and clearly. One
example of this was Question 81–84. The job required a good command of
German but German was not mentioned in the language section of the
client’s card. This could have been clearly conveyed by saying ‘The client
does not speak German’ but answers gave such convoluted information as X
‘Not able to say German’, X ‘She cannot be good command of German.’
Similarly in the last question the candidate needed to show that the client
was not a polytechnic graduate but many failed to put over the point clearly,
saying such things as, X ‘She has not Polytechnic’.

It is clearly disappointing that at the Use of English level, candidates cannot

correctly use basic structures to convey simple information correctly.
Candidates could work on this very fundamental and important skill by
summarising, in their own words, points of information they have heard or
read. This should help them to have confidence in expressing ideas
independently so that they do not feel the need to simply copy or slightly
change words and structures that they find in a text.

General comments

General advice given by markers was the need for candidates to allocate time
more carefully as many seemed to have insufficient time to complete all
sections and therefore lost marks. They also felt that candidates need to be
sure that they have time for proofreading so that errors can be noted.
Candidates should also make sure that they spot where they have erased their
point but failed to give the correction. Each year candidates lose marks by
leaving empty spaces in their writing that they obviously intended to return
to and complete.

It was generally felt that candidates needed to have more exposure to a

number of genres and to be aware of their basic structures so they would have
confidence in producing specific writing types themselves.

2000-AS-UE
Markers expressed disappointment in the inability of candidates to:

• select information and organise their points logically;

• express their ideas clearly and coherently;
• show an awareness of even the most basic of structures;
• demonstrate the confidence to express ideas in their own words;
• understand their audience and the reason for writing; and
• avoid wholesale and mindless copying.

It is clear that candidates need to work on eradicating these basic problems.

When a writing task is being performed, whether in an examination or in
real-life, there is a communication process in action. There is a writer with a
message to convey and an audience to receive the message. Unless the writer
can select information and convey it clearly and succinctly, no message will
be successfully transferred and communication will be hindered.

2000-AS-UE