What the 2024 Examiner’s insights reveal about Sections A, B and C
Each year, students walk into the VCE English exam believing it is primarily a test of content. The 2024 Examiner’s recording makes it very clear that this belief is misplaced. VCE English is assessed as a skills-based subject. Knowledge matters, but only insofar as students can apply it purposefully to an unseen task under exam conditions.
This distinction explains why strong students can underperform and why others exceed expectations. The examination does not reward what students know about texts, arguments or frameworks in isolation. It rewards how effectively they interpret tasks, select relevant ideas, structure thinking and communicate with precision.
The Examiner’s explanation of the 2024 paper provides unusually clear insight into how scripts were judged and why marks clustered where they did.
English is assessed globally, not criterion by criterion
One of the most important clarifications in the Examiner’s discussion is that English is marked holistically. Examiners do not award separate scores for interpretation, structure and expression and then add them together. They read the entire response and make a global judgement about the quality of thinking demonstrated across all Expected Qualities.
This has significant implications for how students should prepare. A strong paragraph does not compensate for a weak overall response. Similarly, one lapse in expression does not doom an otherwise sophisticated essay. What matters is whether the response sustains complexity, relevance and clarity from beginning to end.
This is why partial preparation is so risky in English. Students who rehearse introductions or memorise paragraph templates often fail to adapt once the task demands something different.
Section A is about reading the invitation of the topic
The Examiner made it clear that performance in Section A was strongly linked to how accurately students understood what the topic was inviting them to do.
In 2024, Section A included propositional topics, quotation topics, direct questions and a growing number of hybrid questions. Hybrid questions now account for nearly half the paper. These questions require students to manage more than one conceptual demand at once.
High-scoring responses demonstrated a precise understanding of the relationship embedded in the topic. For example, when a question proposed a relationship between two concepts and asked the extent to which a student agreed, the strongest responses focused on interrogating that relationship. Weaker responses discussed one concept in isolation or treated both concepts descriptively without engaging with the tension between them.
Similarly, topics that asked whether a text was “as much about” one idea as another were not invitations to list themes. They required comparative judgement. Students who understood this were able to weigh ideas against each other and explain why one might dominate or complicate the other.
Lower and mid-range responses often demonstrated sound textual knowledge but failed to narrow their focus to the specific invitation of the topic. This distinction, not writing fluency, was one of the main discriminators of marks.
Substantiation is qualitative, not quantitative
Another persistent misconception addressed in the Examiner’s commentary is the idea that marks are awarded for the number of quotes or examples used.
Examiners do not count evidence. They judge how well evidence is used to support a reading.
Upper-range responses selected evidence with clear purpose and explained how it contributed to the author’s construction of ideas. These students were able to move fluidly between plot, character, language, structure and context because they understood these as tools for meaning, not as a checklist.
Mid-range responses often included relevant evidence but treated it as general support rather than analytical leverage. Quotes were inserted to demonstrate knowledge rather than to unpack how meaning was created.
Lower-range responses frequently demonstrated knowledge of the text but lacked the skill to apply that knowledge to the topic. The Examiner emphasised that this is not a lack of effort or intelligence, but a gap between knowing and using.
Structure reflects thinking, not formula
The Examiner’s discussion of structure is particularly important. There is no preferred structure rewarded by the VCAA. What is rewarded is strategic sequencing of ideas that allows the assessor to follow the student’s thinking.
Upper-range responses clearly guided the reader through a line of argument. The connections between ideas were explicit and purposeful. Students showed awareness of how ideas built on one another and why that ordering mattered.
Mid-range responses often demonstrated an understanding of the need for structure but relied on listing ideas rather than linking them. Paragraphs were placed next to each other without a clear sense of progression.
Lower-range responses frequently lacked evidence of planning altogether. In these cases, the absence of structure reflected the student’s difficulty in forming and sustaining a reading under time pressure.
Section B rewards ideas before style
The Examiner was unequivocal in explaining how Section B is assessed. The primary criterion is the quality of ideas in relation to the framework and title. Form, language choices and stylistic devices are secondary to this.
High-scoring responses conveyed thoughtful, relevant ideas that engaged directly with the title and framework. These students used stimulus material flexibly. Some incorporated imagery. Others used language from the stimulus. Others treated the stimulus as a conceptual anchor. No single approach was preferred.
Mid-range responses often spent too much time establishing context or narrative and not enough time developing ideas. In many cases, students resolved complex issues too neatly or relied on moral conclusions rather than exploring consequences or tensions.
Lower-range responses tended to confuse attention-grabbing with effectiveness. The Examiner explicitly cautioned against assuming that shock or spectacle equates to purpose. Ideas, not theatrics, drive marks.
Section C distinguishes knowledge from analysis
Section C revealed a familiar pattern. Many students could identify contention, audience and purpose. Fewer could use that knowledge analytically.
Upper-range responses demonstrated an ability to explain how language choices worked together to position an audience. These students moved beyond identification and into explanation and implication. They showed how sequencing, tone, imagery and values interacted to persuade.
Mid-range responses often identified techniques accurately but struggled to explain how they functioned. Analysis was present but approximate. Ideas were recognised but not fully unpacked.
Lower-range responses frequently demonstrated surface knowledge without application. The Examiner repeatedly emphasised that knowing what a technique is does not earn marks unless students can explain what it does.
What this means for preparation
The 2024 Examiner’s insights reinforce a consistent message. Success in VCE English depends on transferable skills, not rehearsed responses. Students must practise interpreting tasks, making judgements, selecting evidence purposefully and communicating clearly under time pressure.
Preparation that focuses only on content coverage or stylistic polish will plateau quickly. The students who improve most are those who learn how to think through the task the exam actually sets.
At ATAR STAR, this is exactly how we teach English. We train students to read invitations, not keywords. We focus on developing judgement, not templates. We build analytical flexibility so students can adapt regardless of how the paper is framed.
If your child knows the content but is not yet converting that knowledge into marks, this is where targeted, skills-based coaching makes the difference.