Why does my child keep making the same mistakes in exams?

Ask a student why they lost marks on a paper and they will tell you the topic: I did not know the third module well enough, the essay question was on a text I had not revised. Ask a marker and they will tell you something different: the student misread the verb, ran out of time on the last extended response, made a sign error in a method that was otherwise correct. Students think in topics; marks are lost in patterns. The error log is the one page document that translates between them, and students who keep one tend to stop repeating their most expensive mistakes.

The log is simple. Every time a mark is lost in marked work, the student writes down not the question but what actually went wrong, classified by type. Four types cover almost everything: timing ( unfinished or rushed ), reading ( the wrong verb, a missed constraint, an answer to a nearby question ), precision ( a sign, a unit, a rounding, a final line ), and content ( genuinely not known ). Beside each entry goes the subject and the date. That is the whole method. Its power comes from what the page shows after a month.

What the page shows is that content, the thing the student has been revising, is usually the smallest category, and that two or three specific patterns account for most of the loss. A student who discovers that a third of their lost marks come from timing, mostly unfinished extended responses has found something that no amount of content revision will fix and that a fortnight of timed practice will. A student who discovers that they lose marks in every calculation to the final line has found a habit, and habits are the most fixable things in the HSC.

Each type has its own fix, and none of them is more revision. Timing is fixed by rehearsal under conditions: sitting the section with the clock running until the pace is automatic. Reading is fixed by the two-minute plan: underlining the verb and the constraints, and mapping the answer onto the exact question before writing. Precision is fixed by a checking routine drilled until it is reflexive: substitute the answer back, reread the stem after the response, count the parts answered against the marks. Only content is fixed by revision, and the log tells the student which content, so even that is faster.

The log changes the conversation at home. A parent who asks what mark a child got receives a number and a mood. A parent who asks what the log says receives a pattern and a plan, and can help without knowing the subject: a timing pattern can be practised with a kitchen timer, a reading pattern with a highlighter, a precision pattern with the question, did you check it by a different route? The log makes progress visible in the weeks between reports, which is where most family anxiety lives.

At MA99 the error log is not optional. Every timed practice is marked against the criteria and every lost mark is logged by type; the log is reviewed when the Term Academic Plan is reissued and its top patterns become the next fortnight's targets. The written report to the family lists the patterns closed and the patterns open, which is a far more honest account of progress than a mark. Students who arrive sceptical usually come round, because it is the first document that tells them precisely why the marks went.

The log has one more effect worth naming: it changes how a student feels about a bad mark. A mark is a verdict; a pattern is a task. A student who receives 62 and reads it as a judgement on their ability loses a day to it. A student who receives 62 and reads that seven of the lost marks were unfinished responses has found a fortnight's work and can start it that evening. Resilience in the HSC is largely a matter of having somewhere useful to put a disappointing number.

Edward MaDirector, MA99 Education