Bac D Burkina Faso common mistakes
Bac D Burkina Faso · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In mathematics, the candidate copies the numerical data from a word problem into an equation without first writing down the unknown and the relation that links it, then solves a different problem from the one asked.
Under time pressure, candidates jump straight to calculation because the algebra drills they practised were already set up for them; translating prose into symbols was never trained as a separate step, so the first operation that looks plausible becomes the plan.
What to do instead
Impose a two-line written setup before any computation: state what x represents with its unit, then write the relation in words and only then in symbols. Practise ten word problems per week with the rule that no calculation may appear above the setup lines; mark the setup separately when self-correcting.
In mathematics, the candidate applies a theorem or formula outside its hypotheses, for example using Thales' proportionality in a configuration where the lines are not parallel, or differentiating a function without checking its domain of definition.
Revision tends to memorise formula statements and drill standard figures, so the conditions of application are read as decoration. The exam paper deliberately draws a non-standard figure, and pattern recognition fires on the familiar shape rather than on the stated conditions.
What to do instead
For every theorem in the programme, keep a one-page card listing its hypotheses, its conclusion and one counter-example. Before using a result in an exercise, write the hypothesis check as an explicit line ('the lines are parallel because...'), and lose no marks for that line in self-marking.
In physics and chemistry, the candidate writes a numerical result with no unit, an inconsistent number of significant figures, or a value that is physically absurd (a mass of 10^6 kg for a test tube) without reacting to it.
Calculations are treated as the goal rather than the model, and calculators hide magnitude errors; candidates also copy intermediate digits without rounding at the end. Nothing in their habits forces a plausibility check.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed answer format: value, unit, significant figures justified by the data, plus one sentence of interpretation. Train estimation first (order of magnitude by hand) and compare the computed result with the estimate; any gap of more than a factor of ten triggers a re-read of the data.
In physics and chemistry, the candidate confuses the descriptive observation with the explanatory model, for example stating that 'the current is used up as it passes through a lamp' or drawing a ray diagram that contradicts the stated position of the image.
Everyday language and everyday intuition about electricity, heat and light are stable and feel correct; school teaching introduces a counter-intuitive model, but under exam pressure the intuitive phrasing returns. Diagrams are drawn from memory of a textbook figure rather than constructed from the given data.
What to do instead
Maintain a personal list of 'intuition traps' with the correct model statement beside each. For diagrams, construct them step by step from the stated data and check the result against the model's own rules (for a lens: does the image position follow from the two construction rays?).
In life and earth sciences, the candidate answers a question about a document by copying a sentence from it, or by giving a general course statement, instead of extracting the relevant data and linking it explicitly to the question asked.
Candidates learn the course content but not the exercise type, which is an argument from evidence. Copying feels safe because the words are correct, and the link between data and conclusion is left implicit because it was never written out in practice.
What to do instead
Use a three-sentence template for every document question: 'The document shows [precise data with units]. This means [biological or geological interpretation]. Therefore [answer to the question].' Practise on past documents with the template visible, then remove it and check that each sentence is present.
In life and earth sciences, the candidate uses a diagram or a graph as decoration: labels are placed without leader lines, axes are unlabelled, and a graph is described as 'increasing' without saying over which interval and with what rate.
Drawing is perceived as illustration rather than as a form of precise language, and graph-reading is often taught as naming the overall trend. The conventions of scientific representation are therefore not treated as mark-bearing content.
What to do instead
Learn the representation checklist as a rubric: title, labelled axes with units, scale, legend, and for anatomy a titled diagram with straight leader lines and correct terminology. Apply it to your own work and to textbook figures, grading each figure against the checklist.
In French, the candidate produces a dissertation or a commentary that is a sequence of generalities about the theme, with no analysis of the text's or the subject's specific wording, and quotations are paraphrased or invented.
The method is often reduced to a memorised plan (introduction, three parts, conclusion) without the analytical operations that fill it. Candidates also lack a stock of short, exactly memorised quotations, so they approximate under pressure.
What to do instead
Build a quotation bank of about ten short exact citations per set text, each with its line reference and one line of analysis. In every practice essay, require at least one quotation analysed word by word per paragraph, and mark your own draft for any sentence that could be transplanted into another subject unchanged.
In philosophy, the candidate treats the dissertation as an opinion piece or as a history of ideas, juxtaposing authors' views without formulating a problem, and the conclusion simply restates the introduction.
Philosophical writing looks like free expression, and the problematisation step is the hardest and least drilled part of the method. Reproducing course summaries is a low-risk strategy that earns partial credit, so it becomes the default.
What to do instead
Begin every essay with a written problem statement: a tension between two defensible answers, expressed as a question, before any plan is drawn. Then require each part to answer that question with an argument and an objection, and end the conclusion with a position that the introduction could not have stated.
In the foreign language, the candidate composes the essay or letter in French first and translates word by word, producing calques, wrong tenses and missing articles, and in the listening or reading section answers with a full sentence copied from the text rather than the required short form.
Translation feels safer than composing in the target language, and the classroom emphasis on grammar rules over production leaves little automatised phrasing. Instructions about answer format are skimmed because the candidate is anxious to start writing.
What to do instead
Memorise and rehearse a set of functional chunks (opening a letter, giving an opinion, linking arguments, closing) so that composition uses ready-made language. Write directly in the target language with a monolingual dictionary, and underline the instruction's format requirements before answering.
In history-geography, the candidate answers an essay question with a narrative of events or a list of facts, without a spatial or chronological framework, and map work is left incomplete: no title, no key, misplaced items.
History is confused with storytelling and geography with descriptive lists, so the organising tools (periodisation, scales, chorèmes, croquis conventions) are seen as optional presentation. Map skills are also under-practised relative to written content.
What to do instead
For every topic, produce a one-page skeleton: a dated timeline for history or a scaled sketch map with a legend for geography, and learn to build the essay from that skeleton. Practise full croquis under time with a fixed checklist (title, orientation, scale, key, neat lettering) and self-mark against it.
In physical education, the candidate trains only the technique of one or two favourite activities and neglects the endurance and the second activity required by the programme, then paces the endurance test by starting too fast and walking in the final minutes.
Practice gravitates towards enjoyable or already-mastered activities, and the baccalaureate evaluation rewards measured performance across different activities. Pacing errors come from adrenaline and from never having measured a target split.
What to do instead
Plan the year across all evaluated activities with a weekly endurance session at a target pace calculated from a recent test, and rehearse the test itself at least three times with split times recorded. Learn a simple negative-split strategy and check the watch at the halfway point.