HSC Polish Continuers common mistakes
HSC Polish Continuers · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In Listening and Responding, the candidate answers a question with a single word or short phrase copied from the audio (for example naming only 'pociąg' when asked why the speaker chose that transport) instead of stating the reason in a full sentence that links cause and effect.
Under time pressure candidates treat the task as a vocabulary-spotting exercise, grab the first familiar word they hear, and stop listening for the justification that follows, so they capture the topic but not the relationship the question targets.
What to do instead
Before the audio plays, underline the question word (dlaczego, jak, kiedy, gdzie) and note what type of answer it demands. During the second reading, listen specifically for signalling words such as bo, ponieważ, dlatego, więc and write a full sentence that includes both the fact and its reason, then check it answers the actual question.
In Listening and Responding, the candidate writes about their own opinion or general knowledge instead of reporting what the recorded speakers said, e.g. answering a question about a character's attitude with 'I think she should have...'.
The prompt may invite personal response elsewhere in the paper, and candidates transfer that habit to comprehension items where the mark scheme rewards only evidence from the text or recording.
What to do instead
Practise classifying question stems: 'Co mówi...', 'Jakie jest stanowisko...', 'Dlaczego według mówiącego...' all demand reported content. Train yourself to begin answers with framing such as 'Mówiący uważa, że...' and to add no evaluative comment of your own.
In Listening and Responding, the candidate misses negative and contrastive information, recording the opposite of what was said (e.g. marking 'she likes the new job' when the speaker said 'nie przepadam za nową pracą' or 'wolałabym jednak zostać').
Fast speech, contracted negation and mid-sentence self-correction (ale właściwie..., chociaż...) are easy to lose, and candidates latch onto the first positive-sounding phrase before the speaker changes direction.
What to do instead
Build a personal checklist of negation and reversal markers (nie, nigdy, wcale, ani, zamiast, jednak, wprawdzie... ale) and listen for them actively. After each item, ask 'did the speaker confirm or reverse this?' and only commit an answer once the direction is clear.
In Listening and Responding, the candidate fails to distinguish speakers in a dialogue or multi-voice item, attributing a view to the wrong person (e.g. giving the interviewer's scepticism to the guest).
Voices may be similar in pitch, speakers interrupt, and reported speech inside a dialogue (on mówi, że...) adds a third layer that candidates do not track.
What to do instead
During the first reading, draw two columns labelled with each speaker's name or role and jot keywords under the correct column as you listen. Note reported-speech markers (że, żeby, podobno) separately so you do not credit a quoted opinion to the person quoting it.
In Reading and Responding, the candidate lifts a whole sentence from the text as the answer when the question asks for a summary, inference or the writer's purpose, producing an answer that restates the text without answering the question.
Copying feels safe and saves time, and candidates do not distinguish between 'find the sentence' items and items requiring synthesis across a paragraph.
What to do instead
Read the question first and label it as locate, infer or summarise. For infer and summarise items, close the text, write the answer from memory in your own words, then reopen the text only to verify accuracy. Practise paraphrasing single sentences aloud as a routine drill.
In Reading and Responding, the candidate misreads a question that requires two or three pieces of information and supplies only one, losing partial marks (e.g. 'Podaj dwa powody i wyjaśnij' answered with a single reason).
Candidates read the question quickly, see a familiar keyword and start writing, overlooking quantifiers and imperatives such as dwa, wymień, wyjaśnij, porównaj.
What to do instead
Circle every quantifier and instruction verb before answering and number your points to match (1., 2.). At the end, re-read the question and tick off each required element; if the question says 'wyjaśnij', add a because-clause rather than a bare noun phrase.
In Reading and Responding, the candidate treats a text with a humorous, ironic or persuasive tone as literal, missing the writer's stance and choosing a distractor that is factually present but not the main point.
Advanced texts in Polish often carry attitude through irony, rhetorical questions and evaluative adjectives, and candidates focus on decoding vocabulary rather than tracking the argument's direction.
What to do instead
Before answering global items, write a one-line gist for each paragraph and identify the writer's attitude (approving, critical, amused). Highlight evaluative language (niestety, rzekomo, jakoby, oczywiście że) and rhetorical questions, then eliminate options that are true but peripheral.
In Reading and Responding, the candidate guesses unfamiliar vocabulary from a superficially similar English word or from one cognate and builds the answer on a false meaning, while ignoring the surrounding context that disambiguates it.
Polish and English share some Latin-derived vocabulary with shifted meanings, and false friends plus unfamiliar inflectional endings push candidates toward guessing rather than using grammatical clues.
What to do instead
When a word is unknown, use the sentence frame: identify the case ending to see the word's function, check whether a prefix changes the meaning (prze-, pod-, wy-), and infer from the surrounding clause before consulting a dictionary. Keep a running log of false friends and review it weekly.
In Writing in Polish, the candidate produces a text that meets the word count only by padding with filler and repeated ideas, while omitting required content points such as the reason for writing or a suggested solution, so content marks are lost despite fluent Polish.
Candidates draft directly in Polish under exam pressure, run out of ideas midway, and expand whatever comes easily instead of planning against the task's bullet points.
What to do instead
Spend three minutes before writing to list each required content point and one idea per point, allocating roughly equal length to each. Write to the plan, then check the draft against the bullet points and cut filler rather than adding it; practise timed planning on past-style prompts.
In Writing in Polish, the candidate writes in a register and format unsuited to the task, e.g. using informal address and no formulaic opening or closing in a formal letter of complaint, or writing a report without headings.
Candidates concentrate on grammar and vocabulary and treat format as decoration, and they may transfer the casual style they use in speaking or messaging into formal written tasks.
What to do instead
Memorise the skeleton of each text type tested: formal letter (Szanowna Pani / Szanowni Państwo, opening stating purpose, body paragraphs, Zwracam się z prośbą..., Z poważaniem), informal letter, article with headline, report with headings and recommendation. Draft two model skeletons per type and reuse the frames under timed conditions.