Saarland Abitur Technik-Englisch common mistakes
Saarland Abitur Technik-Englisch · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the technical analysis, the candidate describes what a component does in everyday language ("the sensor tells the machine when something is there") instead of naming the functional principle and the physical/technical quantity involved (e.g. inductive proximity sensor detecting a metallic target via a damped electromagnetic field).
School English lessons reward fluent paraphrase, so candidates transfer that habit to Technik tasks and never switch into the precise Fachsprache register the subject demands; they also lack a rehearsed glossary of component/function pairs in English.
What to do instead
Before the exam, build a two-column list (German technical term – English term – one-sentence functional definition) for the components in the Saarland curriculum (sensor, actuator, controller, gear, bearing, circuit, microcontroller). In every answer, force yourself to write one sentence of the form "X works by [physical principle], which converts [input quantity] into [output quantity]." Practise until this sentence type is automatic.
The candidate analyses an open-loop control system (Steuerung) and a closed-loop control system (Regelung) as if they were the same, describing a feedback loop where none exists or omitting the sensor/feedback path where one does.
The German terms Steuerung and Regelung both translate loosely to "control" in everyday English, so the conceptual distinction gets lost in translation and the candidate does not check which structure the given system actually has.
What to do instead
Memorise the discriminator: closed loop = measuring element compares actual value with reference value and the difference acts on the actuator; open loop = no comparison, no feedback. In the exam, first draw the signal-flow chain (input → controller → actuator → process → output) and mark explicitly whether a measuring element feeds back. Then use the words "open-loop control" or "closed-loop control" consistently in the text.
When asked to evaluate a technical solution (Bewertung), the candidate only lists advantages and stops, or lists pros and cons without stating criteria or reaching a justified judgement.
Candidates conflate "describe" and "evaluate" because the operator verbs in the task (beschreiben, erläutern, bewerten, beurteilen) are not consistently mapped to distinct text structures in their preparation.
What to do instead
Use a fixed evaluation scaffold: (1) name the criteria (cost, efficiency, safety, environmental impact, maintainability), (2) weigh each against the stated use case, (3) state a clear judgement in one sentence, (4) name one limitation of your own judgement. Practise by rewriting three "describe" answers into "evaluate" answers using this scaffold.
The candidate uses calculations or dimensioning results without units, or mixes unit systems (e.g. writes a force in kg, or a power figure without W), and does not carry units through the working.
In the German Technik exam, points are often given for the method rather than the unit, so candidates under-rehearse unit discipline; in English tasks the marker expects SI notation and unit symbols to be handled correctly in running text.
What to do instead
Adopt the habit of writing the unit at every intermediate step, not just the final line, and check the dimension of the result (does kg·m/s² really give N?). Keep a short reference card of SI base and derived units with their English names (newton, joule, watt, pascal, volt, ampere, ohm, hertz) and use them in the explanatory sentences, not only in the numbers.
The candidate treats a technical diagram or block diagram as decoration and writes a general text about the topic instead of extracting the specific information the diagram carries (signal direction, measured variable, setpoint, disturbance variable).
Diagram-reading is rarely practised as a separate skill in English lessons, and candidates default to topic knowledge rather than to the artefact in front of them.
What to do instead
Train a fixed reading order for block diagrams: identify the controlled system, the manipulated variable, the disturbance input, the measuring point, the reference variable. Write one sentence per element. Do this on five different diagrams until you can do it in under three minutes, then apply the same routine in the exam before writing prose.
The candidate answers a comprehension question with long verbatim or near-verbatim passages from the source text rather than in their own words, or copies a sentence and changes one word.
Under time pressure, lifting text feels safer than reformulating, and candidates underestimate how strictly paraphrase is checked in the English part of the exam.
What to do instead
Use the three-step paraphrase drill: read the sentence, cover it, say the meaning aloud in your own words, then write it. Practise with a 10-minute timer on three paragraphs per session. In the exam, never look back at the source while writing the answer sentence; check afterwards only for factual accuracy.
The candidate writes an analysis or comment with no clear structure: no topic sentence per paragraph, no linking devices, and no visible line of argument from claim to evidence to conclusion.
Candidates plan content but not text architecture, and German-style long sentences get transferred into English, producing dense paragraphs without signposting.
What to do instead
Before writing, produce a five-line outline (thesis, three supporting points, conclusion) and allocate one paragraph per point. Open each paragraph with a topic sentence and use a small set of connectives deliberately (however, therefore, in contrast, consequently, moreover). Write shorter sentences than you would in German; one idea per sentence.
The candidate uses technical vocabulary imprecisely or invents anglicised pseudo-terms (e.g. "a control", "a feedback signal is given back", "the machine is steered") instead of established English technical terms.
Direct translation from German (steuern → to steer, Regelung → regulation) produces terms that are wrong or unnatural in English engineering usage, and candidates have no verified vocabulary list to check against.
What to do instead
Build and repeatedly test a personal glossary from reliable English-language technical sources (textbooks, manufacturer datasheets, standards), not from translation tools. For each German term, record the established English equivalent and one authentic example sentence. Flag every word you are unsure of and replace it with a construction you can defend.
The candidate misreads the operator in the task (e.g. "discuss" answered as "describe", "compare" answered without naming both objects and the criterion) and loses marks on task achievement despite correct content.
Operator verbs are read quickly and treated as interchangeable, and the tasks are in English while the candidate's mental processing may still be German, so subtle differences in the instruction are missed.
What to do instead
Underline the operator verb and the object of the verb in every task before writing. Keep a one-page operator table (describe = what; explain = why/how, causal; compare = similarities and differences against named criteria; evaluate = criteria plus judgement; discuss = positions plus weighing). Check your finished answer against that verb in a 30-second final pass.
The candidate runs out of time because they over-invest in the comprehension section and then writes the longer production task (analysis/comment) in the last minutes, leaving it unstructured and unproofread.
Comprehension feels concrete and safe, so candidates stay there too long; they also do not know their own writing speed and therefore cannot budget time realistically.
What to do instead
Set a fixed time budget before the exam (e.g. comprehension ≤ 40 % of total time, production ≥ 45 %, final check 10 %) and rehearse it under timed conditions at least twice. In the exam, write the production task first if it carries the most marks, and reserve a genuine final five minutes for checking verb forms, subject–verb agreement and technical terms.