QCAA Polish (SEE) common mistakes
QCAA Polish (SEE) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
The candidate hears a number, date or price and writes down the first figure that sounds similar, without checking it against the surrounding context (e.g. writing 'piętnaście' when the recording said 'pięćdziesiąt').
Polish numerals and teens/tens pairs (piętnaście/pięćdziesiąt, czterdzieści/czternaście) are acoustically close, and candidates try to transcribe word-by-word rather than holding the whole utterance until its meaning settles.
What to do instead
Practise dictation of number pairs in minimal-pair sets and train a two-pass habit: on the first listen note the gist and the unit (złoty, procent, godzina), on the second confirm the exact figure against that unit before writing.
The candidate answers a listening question using general knowledge or assumption about the topic instead of details actually stated in the recording.
Under time pressure and with partial comprehension, the brain fills gaps from schema (a familiar scenario such as shopping or a school trip), and the candidate does not distinguish 'I inferred this' from 'I heard this'.
What to do instead
Before listening, predict likely vocabulary but not answers; after listening, underline the exact phrase in notes that supports each answer and discard any answer with no matching phrase.
The candidate misreads a question word or instruction and answers a different question (e.g. answering 'dlaczego' with 'kiedy' information, or writing a full sentence where the task asks for one word).
Question words and instruction verbs are short, unstressed items that are skimmed when the candidate is anxious to reach the text, and Polish case forms of 'kto/co/kiedy' are not always recognised instantly.
What to do instead
Build a checklist drill of interrogatives and instruction verbs (podaj, wyjaśnij, zaznacz, uzupełnij, streść) and apply it mechanically to every question before reading the stimulus.
The candidate lifts a whole sentence from the reading text as the answer when the question requires inference, summary or paraphrase.
Copying feels safe and demonstrates that a relevant passage was found, but it shows location rather than comprehension, and the copied sentence often contains the distractor rather than the answer.
What to do instead
Practise converting source sentences into answers in the candidate's own words, and self-check by asking 'does this answer the question asked, or just repeat the text?'.
The candidate treats false friends and calques as transparent (e.g. assuming a Polish word with a familiar-looking shape carries the English meaning) and builds an answer on the wrong sense.
Reading in a second language encourages guessing from form, and Polish vocabulary shared with or similar to other languages invites over-generalisation, especially in formal or abstract texts.
What to do instead
Keep a personal log of false friends and near-misses encountered in past papers, and in the exam verify any key word by checking how it behaves in its sentence before relying on it.
The candidate writes a response that answers the prompt in content but uses the wrong register or text type, e.g. an informal chatty email to a formal recipient, or a letter where a notice was required.
Candidates concentrate on getting sentences out and treat format and register as decoration, and Polish address forms (Pan/Pani, formal vs informal openings and closings) are easy to overlook under time pressure.
What to do instead
Memorise the skeleton conventions of each text type tested (email, letter, notice, article, blog entry) including opening and closing formulae, and plan the register and text type in the first minute before writing.
The candidate writes long, ambitious sentences with uncertain case endings and verb government, producing errors that obscure meaning.
Candidates equate complexity with higher marks and attempt structures beyond their control, so case selection, aspect and prepositional government break down mid-sentence.
What to do instead
Practise writing shorter controlled sentences with checked case government, then combine them; keep a checklist of the cases each common verb and preposition requires and proofread specifically for endings.
The candidate does not link ideas, so the writing reads as a list of unconnected short statements with no introduction, development or conclusion.
Limited range of connectives and fear of getting them wrong leads candidates to default to simple sequencing, and planning time is spent on vocabulary rather than structure.
What to do instead
Learn a small reliable set of connectives for addition, contrast, cause and conclusion, and practise a three-part plan (opening, two developed points, closing) before drafting.
The candidate prepares and delivers a memorised monologue that does not respond to the actual prompt or to the interlocutor's follow-up questions.
Rehearsed material feels like the safest route, and anxiety makes the candidate cling to it, so unexpected questions produce silence or an unrelated answer.
What to do instead
Prepare topic vocabulary and flexible sentence frames rather than scripts, and rehearse with a partner who asks unpredictable follow-ups so the candidate practises paraphrasing and buying time in Polish.
The candidate's speech stalls because they stop to self-correct every ending, producing long pauses and broken fluency.
Accuracy monitoring is over-activated under exam pressure, and the candidate has not practised repairing errors without abandoning the message.
What to do instead
Record timed speaking tasks and practise a rule of finishing the clause first and repairing only errors that block meaning; build fluency with repeated short timed monologues on familiar topics.