By Year 12, most students are familiar with command terms. They recognise them quickly during reading time and assume that this recognition alone is sufficient preparation for what follows. In practice, that assumption often proves costly.
In VCE Legal Studies, command terms play a decisive role in how responses are assessed. They shape the way assessors read an answer and determine which skills are being rewarded. When a response does not demonstrate the skill specified by the command term, accuracy of legal knowledge becomes far less influential in determining the final mark. The ceiling is set early, regardless of how fluent or confident the writing appears.
The 2024 Examiner’s Report reflects this pattern with striking consistency. Many students demonstrated a solid grasp of the course, using correct terminology and explaining legal concepts accurately. Despite this, marks were frequently capped because responses did not align with the type of thinking the question was designed to assess.
Why recognising a command term rarely changes how students write
Although most students can identify the command term in a question, far fewer allow it to meaningfully shape their response. Many answers follow a familiar structure regardless of task, relying on extended explanation as a default strategy. In the 2024 examination, this approach consistently limited performance in questions that required analysis or evaluation.
The Examiner’s Report refers to responses that were accurate, coherent and well expressed, yet misaligned with the assessed skill. These responses did not suffer from weak understanding of the law. They suffered from a failure to adapt their reasoning to the task set.
What explain actually rewards
When a question asks students to explain, assessors are looking for clarity, accuracy and logical sequencing. Students are expected to show how something works or why something occurs, using relevant legal knowledge and appropriate terminology. Once that task has been fulfilled, additional commentary does little to improve the response.
The Examiner’s Report highlights that many high-scoring explanation responses were concise and tightly focused. They demonstrated understanding efficiently, without attempting to broaden the answer beyond the scope of the question.
Why analyse is where many responses lose traction
Analysis requires engagement with significance. Students are expected to explore impact, relationships or consequences in a way that addresses why a factor matters within the context of the question. In the 2024 examination, many students responded to analysis tasks by explaining processes in detail without progressing into this deeper reasoning.
These responses often showed sound knowledge but failed to address the analytical dimension of the task. As a result, they plateaued early. Responses that performed more strongly moved quickly into impact and consequence, using explanation to support reasoning rather than allowing it to dominate the response.
Why discuss requires more than coverage
Discussion questions require students to engage with multiple considerations and develop them with control. The Examiner’s Report indicates that weaker responses often attempted to include several points without developing any of them adequately, resulting in breadth without depth.
Stronger responses selected fewer considerations and explored them in a way that remained closely aligned with the question. These responses demonstrated an awareness of complexity while maintaining focus and coherence.
Why evaluate exposes execution most clearly
Evaluation tasks were an area where many capable students underperformed. The Examiner’s Report frequently refers to responses where a brief judgement appeared at the end of an otherwise explanatory answer. While these responses demonstrated understanding of the topic, they did not apply evaluative reasoning consistently across the response.
Higher-scoring evaluative answers developed judgement throughout. Strengths and limitations were considered as part of each point, and conclusions followed logically from the reasoning already established rather than appearing as an afterthought.
How command terms interact with mark allocation
Command terms operate alongside mark values to shape expectations. Short-answer questions reward precision and relevance, while extended questions require sustained engagement with the specified skill. Writing beyond what is required in low-mark questions does not attract additional credit, and underdeveloped extended responses struggle to access higher mark ranges.
The Examiner’s Report repeatedly links weaker performance to misjudging this relationship across the paper, particularly where students failed to regulate depth in line with mark allocation.
How high-scoring students respond to command terms
High-scoring students allow the command term to govern the response from the outset. Before writing, they determine the type of thinking required and shape their paragraphs accordingly. Their responses are controlled, deliberate and closely aligned with the task, reflecting a clear understanding of how assessors interpret answers.
The takeaway
Improvement in VCE Legal Studies is closely tied to execution. Command terms signal what kind of thinking is being assessed, and students who respond accordingly place themselves in a far stronger position to convert understanding into marks.
Where ATAR STAR fits in
Understanding how command terms work is one of the clearest turning points for students studying VCE Legal Studies. It explains why strong content knowledge does not always translate into strong results, and why small adjustments in execution can produce meaningful gains.
ATAR STAR works with students at exactly this level. We focus on how questions are constructed, how assessors interpret responses, and how students can align their thinking with what is actually being rewarded. This includes targeted work on command terms, structuring responses appropriately, regulating depth based on mark allocation, and applying knowledge accurately under exam conditions.
Our approach complements classroom teaching rather than replacing it. Our role is to help students use the content taught by their teacher with great precision and control, particularly in SACs and the end-of-year exam.
For students who feel confident with Legal Studies but frustrated by results that do not reflect their effort, this is often the missing link. Improving performance does not require revising more material. It requires responding more accurately to the task in front of you.
ATAR STAR helps students build that skill deliberately and consistently, so that understanding turns into marks when it matters most.