BHS-Matura common mistakes
BHS-Matura · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the German written exam (Textsorten wie Erörterung, Kommentar, Zusammenfassung), the candidate writes a well-argued text that drifts between text types and ignores the required structure, so the assessor cannot award the Textsortenkompetenz criterion.
Under time pressure candidates fall back on the essay format they practised most and treat the prompt's genre label as decoration; they also skip the planning phase to save minutes.
What to do instead
Before writing, spend five minutes sketching the genre's mandatory building blocks (e.g. Einleitung mit Themenstellung, Hauptteil mit Argument/Beleg, Schluss) and the register; after writing, check the draft against that skeleton and relabel or restructure any paragraph that belongs to a different Textsorten.
In German language correctness, the candidate makes repeated errors in areas that carry heavy weight in the Austrian marking scheme: Kommasetzung in Satzgefügen, Groß-/Kleinschreibung, and the correct use of Konjunktiv I/II in indirekter Rede.
These rules are taught early and assumed mastered, so candidates stop consciously checking them; the Konjunktiv is often replaced by indicative because the writer does not see the reporting context as indirect speech.
What to do instead
Keep a personal error log from corrected texts and do a dedicated final proofreading pass (not a general reread) aimed only at commas before subordinating conjunctions, nominalisations, and every verb in reported speech; mark each sentence boundary before deciding on commas.
In Mathematics, the candidate writes only the final number with no Ansatz, no units and no interpretation, or solves a real-world modelling task purely symbolically without referring back to the context.
Candidates learned formulas as recipes and equate 'solving' with producing a value; they also fear showing a wrong intermediate step, so they hide the working.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed four-line template for every task: given/known, required, calculation with units at each step, and a one-sentence answer in the context's own words; treat the modelling step (defining variables, stating assumptions) as a scored part of the answer.
In Mathematics, the candidate uses the calculator for routine arithmetic and then fails to notice a result that is off by orders of magnitude, or gives an answer to absurd precision (e.g. 7.23849 people).
Trust in the device replaces estimation, and candidates do not distinguish between intermediate precision and sensible rounding of a final result.
What to do instead
Before computing, estimate the answer roughly in your head and write the estimate down; after computing, compare and investigate any discrepancy; decide the rounding of the final answer from the context (people, money, measurements) and state it explicitly.
In the Living Foreign Language (English) oral exam, the candidate answers in single sentences, waits passively for the next question, and does not use the preparation time to structure a short monologue on the topic or stimulus.
Candidates prepare vocabulary but not discourse, and the examiner's silence feels like a signal to stop rather than a cue to expand; anxiety pushes them toward the shortest safe answer.
What to do instead
Practise a repeatable monologue frame (statement, two reasons with examples, a counterpoint, a conclusion) and train for the follow-up by always adding 'because…' and 'for example…' to any answer; use the preparation minutes to write five keywords, not full sentences.
In the Fachbereichsarbeit / Diploma Thesis, the candidate presents a topic survey ('everything about X') with no explicit research question, and the presentation then reads slides aloud instead of defending findings.
School essays reward breadth, so the candidate transfers that habit; the research question is treated as a formality rather than the criterion against which every chapter is judged.
What to do instead
Formulate one answerable research question with a defined scope and check every chapter against it ('does this help answer the question?'); for the presentation, structure it as question, method, key findings, limitations, and prepare three likely examiner questions with evidence.
In the Fachbereichsarbeit, sources are listed in the bibliography but not cited at the point of use, or whole paragraphs are close to the source wording with only a page number added at the end.
Candidates confuse 'having a bibliography' with correct citation practice and believe that paraphrasing a sentence's structure is enough to make it their own.
What to do instead
Cite at the sentence level immediately while drafting (author, year, page) and keep a quotation/paraphrase log; apply the rule that a paraphrase must be written without looking at the source, then checked against it, and run a final check that every borrowed idea carries a reference.
In Fachtheorie (Business/Technical), the candidate memorises definitions and formulas but cannot apply them to an unfamiliar case, e.g. calculating break-even or selecting a material without justifying the choice against criteria.
Revision is done by rereading notes rather than by solving cases, so knowledge stays declarative; the candidate never practises transferring a concept to new data.
What to do instead
Convert each theory unit into practice: for every formula or model, solve two applied tasks with different data and write a one-line justification of the chosen method; in the exam, state the criterion, apply it, and conclude explicitly.
In Fachpraxis / applied subject work, the candidate documents only the successful final result and omits the working steps, measurements, deviations, and safety or quality checks, so the process cannot be assessed or reproduced.
Candidates see documentation as an after-the-fact formality and write it from memory at the end, losing the intermediate values and the reasons for decisions.
What to do instead
Document while working: log each step, parameter, deviation and correction as it happens, and close with a short reflection on what would be done differently; treat the protocol as part of the task, not an appendix.
In General Education (History, Geography, Economics, Civics), the candidate answers with opinion and everyday knowledge, mixes up chronology or scale (e.g. conflating a cause with a consequence, or a regional with a global effect), and cites no source or data.
These subjects feel like 'common sense', so candidates skip the factual base and the analytical vocabulary; timelines and maps are read casually rather than systematically.
What to do instead
Answer with the structure claim – evidence – evaluation: name the concept or period, give a concrete date, figure, map reading or document reference, then assess; before writing, sketch a brief timeline or a cause/consequence chain to keep scale and order straight.
In an elective or additional language, the candidate produces correct but minimal utterances and avoids complex structures, or in an additional natural science treats the elective as a lighter version of the core subject and skips the quantitative or experimental part.
The elective is often taken for interest rather than for marks, so effort is underinvested; in the language, risk avoidance is mistaken for accuracy, and in the science the candidate relies on qualitative description.
What to do instead
For the language, deliberately include two or three practised complex structures (subordination, a conditional, a reported statement) in every longer answer and verify them in a final check; for the science, always attach data, a calculation or an experimental design to any claim, and rehearse the elective's specific methods explicitly.