QCAA Indonesian (SEE) common mistakes
QCAA Indonesian (SEE) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the listening section, candidates write down isolated words they recognise rather than the gist of the whole recording, so their answers to main-idea questions reflect one detail and miss the speaker's overall point or attitude.
Listening is fast and transient, so candidates latch onto familiar vocabulary as an anchor and stop processing the sentence as a whole; they also tend to translate word-by-word into English in their head, which lags behind the audio.
What to do instead
Practise a two-pass strategy: on the first listen, note only the topic, purpose, and speaker relationship in a few keywords; answer detail questions on the second listen. Train with recordings at natural speed and answer one gist question before checking any detail.
Candidates answer inference questions in reading with information stated directly in the text, or with their own opinion about the topic, instead of a conclusion that follows from the text.
Under time pressure, scanning for matching words feels productive, and candidates do not distinguish between 'stated' and 'implied'; personal opinion intrudes when the topic is culturally familiar.
What to do instead
Annotate each inference answer with the exact phrase that supports it and state in one sentence what the text implies beyond that phrase. If no supporting phrase can be located, discard the option. Practise with questions that ask about the writer's attitude or purpose.
In extended writing, candidates produce sentences that are grammatically English in structure, using direct translation for idioms, prepositions, and verb forms, producing text that is comprehensible but not idiomatic.
Translation from English is faster under exam pressure, and candidates have not automated high-frequency patterns such as affixation, the meN- prefix changes, or the placement of tidak and sudah.
What to do instead
Build a personal list of ten sentence patterns (for example, yang-clauses, passive di-, ter- constructions) and rewrite model sentences from memory daily. In drafting, mark any sentence that was translated from English and rebuild it using a pattern you already know is correct.
Candidates use the wrong register, addressing a teacher, official, or older person with informal pronouns and slang, or writing a formal letter with conversational openers.
Classroom practice often centres on peer-level conversation, and candidates do not consciously select between aku/saya, kamu/Anda, and informal versus formal vocabulary according to audience and purpose.
What to do instead
Before writing or speaking, state the audience, relationship, and purpose in one line, then choose pronouns and greetings to match. Keep a two-column register table (informal/formal equivalents) and check every greeting, pronoun, and closing against it.
In the speaking assessment, candidates deliver a memorised monologue that does not respond to the actual prompt, then fall silent or switch to English when asked a follow-up question.
Prepared scripts feel safe, but interaction tasks require spontaneous repair; candidates lack practised strategies for buying time, asking for clarification, or rephrasing.
What to do instead
Rehearse the topic rather than a script: prepare five key ideas and three linking phrases, then record yourself answering unseen follow-up questions. Practise repair phrases such as asking the interlocutor to repeat, paraphrasing, and self-correcting aloud.
Candidates summarise a text by copying whole sentences from the source, including detail that is irrelevant to the task, rather than selecting and recombining the key points in their own words.
Copying feels accurate and saves time, and candidates have not been taught how to identify topic sentences and discard supporting examples.
What to do instead
Use a three-step routine: underline the topic sentence of each paragraph, write a five-to-eight-word note for each in your own words, then join the notes into a summary without looking back at the original wording. Check the summary against the word limit and the task's focus.
Candidates describe cultural differences as exotic or evaluate them against Australian norms (for example, labelling a practice 'strange' or 'inefficient') instead of explaining them from within the culture.
Intercultural tasks invite personal reaction, and candidates confuse describing a difference with judging it; they also generalise from a single example to all Indonesians.
What to do instead
Use a compare-explain structure: describe the practice, explain the value or context behind it, then note how it differs from your own experience without ranking the two. Replace 'they always' with hedged phrasing such as 'in many contexts' and support claims with the stimulus provided.
Candidates misread the task instruction, for example writing an argument when asked for a recount, or omitting a required element such as a recommendation, a comparison, or a specified audience.
Candidates skim the prompt and begin writing from the topic word alone, and text-type conventions (structure, tense, opening and closing) are not firmly attached to each genre.
What to do instead
Underline the instruction verbs, the text type, the audience, and every required content point before planning. Write a one-line plan naming the structure and tense for that text type, and tick off each requirement after drafting.
Candidates rely on a narrow, repetitive vocabulary and overuse a few familiar connectors, so ideas are listed rather than logically linked and repetition weakens the response.
Limited active vocabulary leads to safe recycling of known words, and connectors are learned as decoration rather than as signals of contrast, cause, and concession.
What to do instead
Build synonym sets around recurring exam themes (environment, education, technology) and practise five connectors per function (contrast, cause, concession, sequence, example). In each draft, highlight repeated words and replace at least three with precise alternatives.
Candidates run out of time because they draft at length without planning, then submit unedited work containing errors in affixation, agreement, and spelling that they could have corrected.
Candidates equate length with quality, spend most of the time on the first draft, and do not reserve time for proofreading or for checking that all parts of a multi-part question are answered.
What to do instead
Allocate time in blocks before starting: plan, draft, and reserve a fixed final portion for checking. Proofread for one error type at a time (affixes, then prepositions, then spelling), and confirm each numbered part of the question has been addressed.