Aruba Landsexamen HAVO common mistakes
Aruba Landsexamen HAVO · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the Dutch reading texts (Nederlands), the candidate answers a 'citeer'-style question by writing a full sentence in their own words instead of quoting the exact passage fragment from the text, or quotes the entire paragraph rather than the precise phrase needed.
Candidates read the question as a comprehension test and want to show they understand the content, so they paraphrase. They also underestimate how strictly the quotation must be limited to the relevant words, so they copy a large block to be safe.
What to do instead
Underline the instruction verb in each question (citeer, leg uit, noem, verklaar) before reading the text. For 'citeer' questions, copy only the words that carry the answer, never a whole sentence if a clause suffices, and check the answer format rules in the exam instructions. Practise with past papers and self-mark against the answer key, counting how often the mark is lost purely on format.
In the Papiamento exam, the candidate writes answers in Dutch or mixes Dutch and Papiamento orthography (for example using Dutch spelling for words with a Papiamento equivalent), or uses informal Papiamento (konversashon) register in a formal writing task.
Many candidates are dominant in Dutch or bilingual and default to the language they think in when under time pressure. Formal Papiamento writing conventions are practised less often in class than Dutch writing conventions.
What to do instead
Build a personal list of Dutch words that slip in (connectors, technical terms) with their Papiamento equivalents and drill them. Practise one formal Papiamento writing task per week using the standard orthography (Aruba spelling rules), and self-check every draft specifically for language choice and register before moving to content.
In English (Engels), the candidate writes answers to open questions in Dutch, or answers an English reading question with a single word or short phrase where the question requires a full English sentence, and copies large chunks of the source text instead of answering in their own words.
Candidates answer the question they understand rather than the one asked, and copying source text feels safer than producing English under time pressure. Language anxiety pushes them back to Dutch or to minimal answers.
What to do instead
Before writing, note the required answer form (word, phrase, sentence) from the question wording. Practise paraphrasing exercises: read a paragraph, cover it, write one sentence in English, then compare. Keep a checklist of answer-form requirements and apply it during a timed mock.
In Spanish (Spaans), the candidate misreads the task type in the writing section (for example writing an informal email when a formal letter is required), ignores the required number of words, and omits the content points listed in the prompt.
Candidates focus on producing correct Spanish and run out of time for planning, so they start writing immediately and miss register and content requirements. Word-count limits are treated as approximate.
What to do instead
Spend two minutes planning: list the required content points, decide the register (tú/usted, formal/informal) and count the target word range. After writing, tick off each content point and count words. Train register with paired tasks (same message as informal email and as formal letter).
In Mathematics (Wiskunde), the candidate writes only the final answer without the required working, or skips the intermediate steps and units, so method marks are lost even when the answer is numerically correct.
Candidates treat the paper like a short-answer test and believe the answer is what is graded. Under time pressure, writing out steps feels like wasted effort, and they have not internalised how the marking scheme allocates points.
What to do instead
Work through the published marking scheme for two or three past papers and highlight where marks sit (method, accuracy, units, conclusion). Adopt a fixed routine: formula stated, substitution shown, intermediate value, answer with unit, and a concluding sentence for context questions. Time yourself with this routine until it becomes automatic.
In the science papers (Biologie, Scheikunde, Natuurkunde), the candidate gives a one-word or everyday-language answer where the question requires a causal explanation using the correct scientific terminology and a reference to the relevant model, formula or process.
Candidates know the phenomenon but not the expected answer structure, and they confuse recognising a term with being able to deploy it in an explanation. Everyday wording feels adequate because it is understandable.
What to do instead
For each topic, practise converting a short answer into a full explanation that names the concept, states the mechanism (cause to effect) and links to the relevant model or formula. Use the answer key to collect the exact phrasing expected, and rehearse 'explain' questions aloud before writing.
In History and Geography (Geschiedenis/Aardrijkskunde), the candidate identifies a source or map feature but does not connect it to the required context, period, scale or concept, giving a description instead of an explanation, or ignoring the source's origin and purpose in a source-evaluation question.
Source questions look like comprehension tasks, so candidates describe what they see. They also under-use the source header (author, date, type) and confuse description with analysis of cause, consequence or reliability.
What to do instead
Use a fixed source-analysis routine: what is it, who made it, when, why, and what does it show or leave out. For explanation questions, force a link between the source detail and a named period, concept or scale. Practise by rewriting descriptive answers into causal ones using 'because', 'as a result' and 'this shows that'.
In Economics (Economie), the candidate answers a calculation question without showing the formula and intermediate steps, or draws a market graph without labelling axes, shifts and new equilibrium points, and mixes up cause and effect in a chain-of-reasoning question.
Candidates learn the graph shapes visually but not the labelling conventions, and they treat calculation questions as arithmetic rather than as economic reasoning. Chain reasoning is often written as a list of facts rather than a sequence of steps.
What to do instead
Rehearse graph conventions until they are automatic: axes labelled with variable and unit, original and new curve, arrows for the shift, old and new equilibrium marked. For chain questions, write numbered steps where each step is caused by the previous one, and check that the final step answers the question asked.
In Maatschappijwetenschappen (Social Studies), the candidate uses everyday opinion instead of the prescribed social-science concepts, or names a concept without applying it to the specific case in the question, and confuses the different research designs or validity concepts.
The subject rewards precise conceptual framing, but candidates answer from personal conviction or general knowledge, and they memorise concept names without practising application to unfamiliar cases.
What to do instead
For every core concept, write a one-line definition plus a worked example from a news case. In answers, always name the concept, define it briefly if required, then apply it explicitly to the case material. Drill the research-methods vocabulary (design, sample, validity, reliability) with short applied questions.
In the Profielwerkstuk and research-skills component, the candidate formulates a research question that is too broad or not answerable with the available sources and time, and the final report lacks a clear link between question, method, results and conclusion, with sources cited inconsistently.
Candidates choose topics they find interesting but do not narrow them into a testable question, and they treat the report as a school essay rather than a research report. Citation conventions are learned late and applied inconsistently.
What to do instead
Draft the research question early and test it against three criteria: answerable, scoped, and measurable with the planned method. Build a one-page planning grid linking sub-questions, method, data and expected conclusion, and update it after each stage. Agree a single citation style with the supervisor and apply it from the first draft.