Stúdentspróf common mistakes
Stúdentspróf · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the Icelandic literature essay, the candidate retells the plot of the prescribed novel or short story at length and only in the final paragraph states a thesis about it, so the analysis of style, narrative voice and theme is thin and the essay reads as a summary.
Secondary-school essay practice in Iceland often rewards showing you have read the text, and under time pressure summarising feels safer than arguing. Candidates also confuse 'evidence' with 'description of events' and have not rehearsed a claim-first structure.
What to do instead
Before writing, draft a one-sentence thesis (e.g. about how a first-person narrator's unreliability shapes the reader's sympathy) and open with it. Then allocate each body paragraph to one claim, one short quotation with line reference, and one sentence of interpretation linking back to the thesis. Cap plot summary at two sentences total; practise converting any summary sentence into an analytical one ('The narrator hides X, which means the reader...').
On the Icelandic grammar and usage section, the candidate leaves the middle-voice (miðmynd) and impersonal constructions unanalysed, writing answers such as 'það er talað um' as if 'það' were the subject, and mislabels case government of prepositions in fill-in items.
Icelandic grammar teaching often centres on identifying parts of speech and declensions, while syntactic argument (finding the true subject, distinguishing -st verbs from reflexive -st) gets less drilling. Candidates transfer English subject-verb intuitions onto Icelandic impersonal sentences.
What to do instead
Build a one-page reference of the four cases with the prepositions that govern each (e.g. til + genitive, með + dative, um + accusative) and of -st verb types (reciprocal, passive, middle). For each impersonal sentence, rewrite it in active voice to locate the logical subject, then answer. Do ten short parsing exercises per session and justify each case aloud.
In the mathematics paper the candidate writes only the final answer, or writes a correct result with no working, and loses method marks on multi-step problems such as solving a trigonometric equation or optimising a function.
Candidates from computational drilling assume the answer is the whole mark, and in Iceland the formula sheet is provided, so they skip the setup step that the marking scheme rewards. Time pressure encourages shortcutting.
What to do instead
Train a fixed four-line layout for every problem: given/unknown, chosen formula or model, substitution and manipulation, then answer with units. Even when using a calculator for a numeric answer, show the equation solved symbolically first. Do past-paper-style problems with a mark scheme visible and count how many marks each line earns.
When reading a Danish or English source text, the candidate answers comprehension questions by copying a whole sentence containing a keyword rather than locating the specific clause that answers the question, and misses negation or hedging words ('ikke', 'næppe', 'hardly', 'unless').
Keyword matching is a fast reading strategy that works on easy items and fails on inference items. Candidates under time pressure stop at the first occurrence of the keyword and do not re-read the surrounding clause for scope words.
What to do instead
Practise underlining the exact words in the text that justify each answer and writing the question number beside them. Before choosing, circle every negation, modal and comparative in the relevant sentence. For inference items, require yourself to state which sentence supports the answer and which sentence rules out the strongest distractor.
In written production in a foreign language, the candidate composes complex sentences in Icelandic or English first and translates word by word, producing wrong word order in Danish subordinate clauses and wrong verb forms in English conditionals.
Translation feels like it preserves ideas, but the source language's syntax leaks through. Candidates have not automatised the target language's fixed patterns (Danish inverted word order after a fronted adverbial, English third conditional).
What to do instead
Memorise and drill a small set of sentence frames per language (Danish: 'Hvis jeg havde vidst det, havde jeg...'; English: 'If I had known, I would have...') and write the exam text directly in the target language using those frames. Keep a personal error log of recurring interference errors and rewrite five sentences from it before each practice essay.
In physics and chemistry calculations, the candidate substitutes numbers before converting to SI units, mixing grams with kilograms or cm³ with m³, and reports an answer with more significant figures than the given data support.
Formulas are often memorised in symbolic form without a unit-checking habit, and calculators display many digits that look authoritative. Candidates also confuse mass and weight or molar mass and molecular mass under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Adopt a unit-first routine: write every given quantity with its unit, convert to SI in a separate line, then substitute. Carry units through the calculation and cancel them explicitly. At the end, round to the least number of significant figures in the data and state the unit. Practise ten conversion-only drills (g to kg, cm³ to m³, kJ to J) until automatic.
In biology, the candidate describes a process such as osmosis, enzyme action or the cardiac cycle as a list of nouns without direction, gradient or sequence, so answers omit the causal link that earns the mark (water moves from higher to lower water potential; the enzyme's active site changes shape).
Revision by labelling diagrams builds vocabulary but not causal chains. Mark schemes reward comparative and directional statements, and candidates do not practise writing them.
What to do instead
For each core process, write a three-part causal sentence: condition, movement or change with direction, consequence. Learn the standard comparatives (higher/lower concentration, water potential, affinity) and use them explicitly. Convert each labelled diagram into five such sentences and check them against a mark scheme.
In history and social science essays, the candidate narrates events chronologically without addressing the question's command word, so an essay asking to 'assess the significance of' or 'compare the causes of' becomes a timeline with no judgement or explicit criteria.
Chronological narrative is the easiest structure to recall and feels comprehensive. Candidates underprepare for command words and for weighing factors against each other.
What to do instead
Underline the command word and the topic scope before planning, then write a thesis that answers it directly. Plan in a table of factors with a column for 'weight/importance' and 'evidence', and build paragraphs that each argue one factor's relative importance. Finish with an explicit judgement paragraph that ranks the factors and states the criterion used.
In geography and earth science data questions, the candidate describes a graph or map ('the line goes up, then down') instead of quantifying and explaining the pattern, and ignores the axis units, scale and the date or region the data refer to.
Students practise reading graphs in mathematics but not annotating them with figures and causes. Descriptive language is easier than identifying the underlying process (erdosion, urbanisation, plate boundary type).
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-step answer frame: quantify (state the highest, lowest and the change with units and time period), describe the spatial or temporal pattern, then explain it with a named process. Always read the title, axes, units, legend and year before writing. Do five graph-annotation exercises per topic, writing the numbers into the answer.
In arts, music and physical education electives, the candidate gives a purely personal reaction ('I liked it', 'it felt good') instead of using subject-specific terminology and criteria, and in the practical or performance component neglects the stated assessment criteria (technique, composition, training principles).
These electives are often chosen for interest, and candidates assume enthusiasm substitutes for analysis. The assessment criteria may be shared only briefly, and performance anxiety pushes attention onto finishing rather than technique.
What to do instead
Obtain the marking criteria for the elective and rewrite them as a checklist of observable features (e.g. use of dynamics and phrasing; correct hand position; FITT principles in a training plan). For every evaluative answer, use the pattern: identify the feature with its technical term, give specific evidence from the work or performance, then judge it against the criterion. Rehearse the practical component against the checklist with a peer scoring it.