There is an examiner's report written for each HSC exam each year. They are all posted on the Board of Studies website, as "notes from the marking centre". They are well worth reading, as they give some insight into what the markers noted as they marked the papers. They give introductory (general) comments, as well as specific comments on each question, plus an examination mapping grid and marking guideline.
Note that the comments must be interpreted, and not just read - for example, a comment like "The existence of dotted lines in the answer booklet does not preclude drawing a diagram to describe a procedural step. Candidates who drew a small, well-labelled diagram could describe the step more succinctly." from the 2001 report (Q 22) is not only commenting on what students did, but also saying what students should do in the future.
Consider the following comment from the 2003 report: "Teachers and candidates should be made aware that examiners may write questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating their knowledge, understanding and skills developed through studying the course. This refletcs the fact that the knowledge, understanding and skills developed through the study of discrete sections should accumulate to a more comprehensive understanding than may be described in each section separately. This aspect needs to be more fully appreciated by all systems and candidates."
This is saying (at least) three important things:
1. Just because you can make notes under each dot point does not necessarily mean you know everything in the course - You need to see the connections between different parts of the syllabus. Some questions will require you to integrate that information into a cohesive answer. A simple example - there are obvious connections between the information on atmospheric chemistry in the Chemical Monitoring and Management topic and the acid rain part of The Acidic Environment.
2. Note the language: integrating "knowledge, understanding and skills developed" - This refers not only to between different dot points, but also to illustrating you knowledge by demonstrating skills developed - like equation writing. It reminds me of the explicit comment about the "language of chemistry" made in the 2001 report.
3. The bit at the end is a straight forward instruction to teachers, telling them they haven't addressed this properly.
The statement I quoted appeared in the report in each of the years 2001 - 2003, although the bit about needing to be fully addressed is new for 2003. Clearly they think it's important.
If you look at the reports, you will also see that they refer to comments from previous years. ie:
2001: "Most candidates were successful in responding to questions that involved the provission of specific knowledge, rather than questions requiring evaluation, justification or explanation."
2002: "This year candidates seemed to have a greater awareness of the importance of key verbs in the examination. There was a slight improvement in the ability of candidates to successfully respond to the higher level verbs in extended response questions."
2003: "This year candidates seemed to have a greater awareness of the importance of the key words in the examination. Spelling, grammar and scientific expression were very poor from some candidates, with handwriting beinf more illegibile than in the past."
Clearly, this is saying that extended reponse answers are improving.
By contrast, the comment about integrating different parts of the course remains the final introductory comment, unchanged over this period, with a comment about it needing to be "more fully appreciated" having been added. I think that both the inclusion of the same comment, and the addition, are significant.
