WACE ATAR English as an Additional Language or Dialect common mistakes
WACE ATAR English as an Additional Language or Dialect · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Summarising what a text says in the comprehension section without identifying how the writer positions the reader, so answers describe content but never address purpose, tone or intended effect.
Candidates treat comprehension as a reading-recall task and answer the easiest question ('what is this about?') because it feels safe; they have not internalised that the syllabus asks for interpretation of implied meaning and authorial intent, not retelling.
What to do instead
Before writing, annotate each text with three columns: what is stated, what is implied, and what the writer wants the reader to think or feel. Practise converting every summary sentence into a 'because' sentence that names the effect on the reader, and rehearse question stems such as 'what does the writer suggest by...' and 'why does the writer choose to...' until identifying purpose becomes automatic.
Quoting long blocks of text and then paraphrasing them instead of analysing them, so the quotation does all the work and the candidate's own explanation of effect is missing or generic.
Candidates believe more evidence equals more marks and have been trained in lower years to embed quotations; they lack a sentence template that forces them to move from evidence to technique to effect, so analysis stalls after the quote.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-move sentence pattern: name the technique, quote only the two or three most loaded words, then state the effect on the reader using a verb such as positions, unsettles, or invites. Cap quotations at eight words and require at least two analytical sentences per quotation in practice essays, checking that deleting the quote would still leave a claim standing.
Identifying a language feature by name only ('the writer uses a metaphor') without explaining how that specific word choice constructs meaning in this text.
Feature-spotting is taught as a checklist in earlier schooling, and under time pressure candidates reach for labels as a shortcut to sounding analytical; they have not learned that the label earns nothing without the effect.
What to do instead
Build a personal bank of ten high-frequency features and, for each, write two model sentences that link the feature to a precise effect and to the text's overall argument. In every paragraph, delete any sentence that names a technique but contains no verb describing reader response, then rewrite it until the effect is explicit and text-specific.
Writing an analytical response that retells the plot of a narrative or describes the images in a multimodal text in sequence rather than organising the response around an argument about how meaning is made.
Chronological structure mirrors the reading experience and is cognitively easiest, so candidates default to it; they also confuse showing they understood the story with demonstrating analysis of construction.
What to do instead
Draft a one-sentence thesis before writing and order body paragraphs by technique or effect rather than by where things appear in the text. For multimodal texts, analyse one element at a time (layout, colour, gaze, salience) across the whole image rather than describing it left to right, and check that no paragraph begins with a plot event.
Producing a persuasive response that asserts a position repeatedly without supporting evidence, concession, or a call to action, so the piece reads as opinion rather than argument.
Candidates equate persuasive writing with emotional force and volume, and they run out of planning time so each paragraph restates the thesis; they have not practised the structure of claim, evidence, reasoning, and rebuttal.
What to do instead
Plan with a four-box grid: contention, three supporting claims each with one piece of evidence, one anticipated objection with a rebuttal, and a concluding call to action. Write the rebuttal paragraph first because it is hardest, then ensure every body paragraph contains evidence that is not merely the writer's own assertion.
Ignoring the stipulated form, audience, and purpose in the extended response, delivering a generic essay when the task asks for a feature article, speech, or letter to the editor.
Candidates rehearse one essay shape all year and fall back on it under exam pressure; they skim the prompt for the topic and overlook the context box that specifies form and audience.
What to do instead
Underline the form, audience, and purpose in the prompt before planning and write them at the top of the plan. Memorise the conventional signatures of each form (headline and subheading for a feature article, direct address and rhetorical questions for a speech, salutation and sign-off for a letter) and include at least three form-specific markers in every practice piece, then self-mark against that checklist.
Constructing paragraphs with no topic sentence or with a topic sentence that announces the topic rather than making a claim, leaving the reader to infer the paragraph's argument.
Candidates draft by writing whatever comes to mind and hope the argument emerges; they have not been taught that a topic sentence must be arguable and must connect to the overall thesis.
What to do instead
Write the plan as a list of paragraph claims first, each a full sentence containing a judgement, then draft body paragraphs to match. After drafting, read only the topic sentences in sequence: if they do not form a coherent argument on their own, rewrite them before touching anything else.
Overusing a small set of high-frequency academic words ('shows', 'very', 'a lot of', 'good', 'things') and repeating the same sentence openings, producing writing that is accurate but narrow in range.
Candidates write under time pressure and default to the first word that comes to mind; vocabulary is developed through reading rather than through deliberate retrieval practice, so precise alternatives are recognised but not produced.
What to do instead
Keep a personal substitution list of ten overused words with three precise alternatives each, and practise timed paragraphs using a banned-words rule. Vary sentence openings by rotating among an adverbial phrase, a subordinate clause, and a short declarative sentence, and audit one past response for repeated openings by highlighting the first three words of every sentence.
Making recurrent sentence-level errors under exam conditions: comma splices and run-on sentences, inconsistent tense within a paragraph, and disagreement between subject and verb in complex sentences.
Candidates compose long, ambitious sentences to sound sophisticated but have not automatised clause boundaries; proofreading time is sacrificed to finish the response, so errors that would be caught in class survive into the final copy.
What to do instead
Reserve the final five minutes for a targeted proofread with three passes only: one for full stops and clause boundaries, one for verbs and tense consistency, one for singular and plural agreement. In practice, rewrite ten run-on sentences into correctly punctuated versions weekly until the pattern is recognised on sight.
Misreading the task word in the prompt, for example writing a narrative when asked to discuss, or describing when asked to evaluate, so the response is well written but off-task.
Candidates read prompts quickly and pattern-match to a familiar genre; they do not distinguish between instruction verbs such as describe, explain, analyse, discuss, and evaluate, which demand different cognitive moves.
What to do instead
Learn a one-line definition for each instruction verb and the paragraph structure each implies, then practise rewriting the same prompt under three different instruction verbs to see how the response changes. In the exam, circle the instruction verb and write its definition in the margin before planning, and check the finished response against that definition.