PEI ELA English common mistakes
PEI ELA English · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On multiple-choice reading items, the candidate picks the first option that sounds true in general instead of the option that is best supported by the passage, and does not return to the text to verify it.
Under time pressure, options that restate common knowledge or a plausible opinion feel safe, and the candidate confuses 'true' with 'supported by this text'. Distractor options are usually written to be true in the abstract.
What to do instead
For every option, locate the exact sentence or paragraph that supports it and point to it mentally; eliminate any option you cannot anchor to a line. Treat 'true but not in the passage' as wrong. Practise with a pencil, marking the supporting line for the chosen answer before moving on.
The candidate summarises or retells the passage in a constructed-response answer rather than answering the question asked (for example, explaining a character's motive or the effect of a structural choice).
Retelling is a low-risk strategy learned in earlier grades; the candidate may not have parsed the command word (explain, compare, evaluate, analyse) and defaults to narrative recap.
What to do instead
Underline the command word and the content words in each prompt before writing, and open the response with a sentence that directly answers it. Then supply two or three pieces of textual evidence with brief commentary linking each to the answer. If a sentence only restates plot, cut it.
When asked about a visual or multimodal text (an advertisement, infographic, film still, or layout), the candidate describes what is depicted but does not analyse how techniques construct meaning or position the viewer.
Candidates read images literally and lack a working vocabulary for camera angle, framing, colour, font, salience, and layout, so description substitutes for analysis.
What to do instead
Build a short technique checklist (composition, gaze, colour, typography, juxtaposition, omission) and practise writing one analytic sentence per technique using the frame: 'The [technique] positions the viewer to [effect] because [evidence from the image].' Always move from what is shown to why it is shown that way.
The candidate writes an essay or response with no defensible thesis, or with a thesis that merely names the topic ('This essay is about conflict in the novel') instead of making a claim that could be argued against.
Candidates often draft the introduction before deciding what they think, and a topic-naming sentence feels complete enough to proceed. Time pressure discourages revision of the opening.
What to do instead
Draft the thesis as a full claim with a 'because' clause: 'The novel presents conflict as [claim] because [reason].' Test it by writing the strongest counter-sentence; if no counter is possible, sharpen the claim. Revise the introduction last so it matches the argument actually made.
Body paragraphs quote evidence but do not explain it, leaving the quotation to speak for itself, and the paragraph's point appears only in its final sentence or not at all.
Candidates have been taught to embed quotations and equate quoting with proving; they may also be unsure how to comment on language without simply translating it.
What to do instead
Use a fixed paragraph architecture: claim sentence, context, quotation, then at least two sentences of commentary naming a specific word or choice and its effect on meaning or reader. End by linking the point back to the thesis. Check that every quotation is followed by more explanation than quotation.
In oral or presentation tasks, the candidate reads a prepared script word for word, keeps eyes down, and does not adjust register or pace for the audience.
Reading verbatim reduces anxiety and guarantees coverage, and rehearsal time is usually spent on wording rather than delivery. Candidates may never have received feedback on eye contact or pacing.
What to do instead
Reduce the script to cue cards with keywords only, and rehearse aloud at least three times, once recorded, checking for eye contact, pace, and filler words. Practise a deliberate pause after key points and a planned opening and closing sentence delivered from memory.
In group discussion or listening tasks, the candidate responds only with agreement or a new unrelated point, and cannot summarise or build on the previous speaker's contribution.
Candidates treat discussion as turn-taking rather than co-construction, and active listening skills such as paraphrasing and questioning are rarely rehearsed in class.
What to do instead
Practise three moves until automatic: paraphrase ('So you're saying...'), extend ('Building on that...'), and probe ('What makes you say...?'). In listening tasks, take brief notes on speaker, claim, and evidence, then write the summary from the notes without reopening the prompt.
The candidate confuses similar conventions in editing items, such as its/it's, their/there/they're, comma splices versus correctly joined clauses, and restrictive versus non-restrictive commas.
These errors survive because spellcheck and casual writing tolerate them; candidates often apply a rule by ear rather than by identifying the grammatical function of the word or clause.
What to do instead
For each editing item, name the function before choosing: is the word a possessive determiner or a contraction, is the clause independent or dependent, is the modifier essential? Drill ten items per pattern and write the rule in your own words beside each correction.
The candidate uses sophisticated vocabulary imprecisely, choosing a word for its sound or prestige rather than its exact meaning and connotation, and misreads register in formal writing tasks.
Vocabulary is often learned from lists without collocations or example sentences, so the candidate knows a rough gloss but not the word's constraints, connotations, or typical partners.
What to do instead
Learn each new word with a collocation and one original sentence, and check connotation (positive, negative, neutral) and register before using it. In formal writing, prefer precise common words over rare ones you cannot use idiomatically.
In literary analysis, the candidate identifies a device (for example, 'the author uses imagery and symbolism') without linking it to theme, character, or effect, and treats the device as the point rather than the means.
Device-spotting is easy to teach and easy to reward in early years, so candidates list techniques as if naming them constituted analysis; they lack practice moving from technique to interpretation.
What to do instead
Never name a device without completing the chain: technique, specific example, effect on the reader, contribution to theme or character. Where possible, discuss why the writer chose this technique over an available alternative. Aim for one fully developed analytic paragraph rather than a list of five named devices.