HKDSE English common mistakes
HKDSE English · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In Paper 1, the candidate answers a question by copying a whole sentence from the passage instead of writing the word or phrase the question actually asks for (e.g., asked for a reason, writes the full sentence containing it).
Under time pressure, lifting a full sentence feels safer than isolating the target, and candidates are used to comprehension exercises that reward longer answers. They also misread the question stem, which usually specifies 'in one word' or 'in a short phrase'.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the task word in the question (reason, example, contrast, definition) and the instruction about length. Then point to the exact words in the text that answer it and trim everything else. Practise a set of questions where each answer is one to four words, and mark yourself strictly on length as well as content.
The candidate misses questions that require inference, comparison across two paragraphs, or understanding a writer's attitude, and instead answers only with literal restatements of one sentence.
Many candidates have trained on literal 'find the fact' questions. Paper 1 Part B and the more demanding texts test implied meaning, tone, and the function of a paragraph, which need reading beyond a single line. Candidates also run out of time and skim the harder items.
What to do instead
Build a habit of asking three questions after each paragraph: what does the writer want me to believe, what is implied but not stated, and what is the writer's attitude. Practise identifying tone adjectives (sceptical, approving, cautious, ironic) and the words that signal contrast or concession (however, although, admittedly). Answer inference questions by combining two pieces of textual evidence rather than one.
In Paper 2, the candidate produces a piece with correct grammar but wrong genre features - for example, a letter to the editor with no salutation or sign-off, a report with no headings, or an argument with no counterargument.
Candidates revise grammar and vocabulary but rarely study the conventions of each text type. They write everything as a school essay and assume content alone earns marks, ignoring the organisation and appropriacy criteria in the marking scheme.
What to do instead
Keep a one-page checklist per text type (letter to the editor, report, proposal, blog, email, speech, article, short story) listing the required format features, register, and typical structure. Before writing, spend two minutes noting the format skeleton and the register (formal/informal, first or third person). After writing, check the skeleton is visibly present.
The candidate addresses only part of the question or drifts off the topic, because they write from a memorised essay or ignore the specific angle in the prompt (e.g., asked about 'at school', writes about 'society in general').
Memorised essays feel efficient, and candidates fear running out of ideas. They also skim the prompt and latch onto the first familiar keyword instead of the whole task.
What to do instead
Underline every element of the prompt: the topic, the audience, the purpose, and any limiting condition (place, time, viewpoint). Write a one-sentence thesis that includes the limiting condition and check each paragraph against it. Reject any memorised material that does not fit the exact angle.
In Paper 3, the candidate spends too long on the first task or on note-taking and then rushes or abandons the later integrated task, leaving the longer writing piece unfinished or underdeveloped.
Candidates treat listening as dictation and try to transcribe everything. They underestimate how much time the data file and the extended writing task need, and they do not practise under timed conditions.
What to do instead
Practise with a fixed time budget: note-taking for Part A must be fast and selective, writing down only answers and key facts. Reserve a set block of time for reading the data file and drafting the extended task. Do full timed run-throughs so the pacing becomes automatic, and leave the last minutes for checking format and word count.
In the integrated task, the candidate copies chunks of the data file verbatim into their writing instead of selecting, reorganising, and rephrasing information to fit the new text type and purpose.
Copying feels accurate and saves time. Candidates do not realise that integrated skills marks reward transformation of source material and that verbatim lifting is penalised.
What to do instead
Annotate the data file before writing: mark which points are relevant, which are irrelevant, and which need combining. Then write each point in your own words in one short sentence, changing the grammar and vocabulary while keeping the fact. Never copy more than a proper name or a technical term.
In Paper 4, the candidate gives one-line answers, does not develop ideas, and fails to interact with the group - either dominating or staying silent during the group discussion.
Candidates prepare content but not communicative functions. They do not know that the assessment rewards initiating, responding, building on others, and repairing communication, not just producing correct sentences.
What to do instead
Learn and rehearse a small set of functional phrases: opening a point, inviting a quieter member, disagreeing politely, building on someone's idea, and summarising. In practice, set yourself a target of at least two contributions that respond directly to another candidate. Record yourself and check whether you developed each point with a reason or example.
In Paper 4, the candidate reads a memorised script or recites prepared sentences regardless of what the examiner or group actually says, producing fluent but irrelevant speech.
Memorised scripts reduce anxiety, and candidates believe fluency is the main criterion. But the individual response and group interaction require responding to unseen prompts, and off-topic recitation loses marks for relevance and communication.
What to do instead
Prepare topic vocabulary and a few flexible structures, not full scripts. Practise answering unseen follow-up questions in one breath, with a point plus a reason plus an example. Train yourself to listen for the key word in the question and answer that word explicitly before elaborating.
For SBA, the candidate submits a book report or portfolio that is a plot summary with no personal response, no evaluation of the text, and no evidence of independent reading beyond the blurb.
Candidates confuse SBA with a comprehension exercise or a school book report. They do not realise the assessment looks for personal response, critical evaluation, and reflection on the reading or viewing experience.
What to do instead
Read the SBA assessment criteria and structure each entry around three parts: a concise outline of the text, a personal response with reasons (what worked, what did not, what it made you think), and a reflection on your own reading process. Quote one or two short lines as evidence and comment on them. Keep a reading log as you go so the response is genuine.
For SBA, the candidate submits work that is plagiarised, heavily paraphrased from online summaries, or clearly not their own, and cannot discuss the text when questioned.
Time pressure and fear of poor language lead candidates to online summaries. They underestimate that teachers verify authenticity through discussion and drafts, and that plagiarism can void the assessment.
What to do instead
Choose texts you can genuinely finish and discuss, and keep dated drafts, notes, and a reading log as evidence of process. Write responses in your own words from your own notes, cite any quoted line, and rehearse explaining your views aloud so you can defend them in a teacher conference.