What the VCAA has been testing for over a decade and why it hasn’t really changed
Section A of the VCE English Language examination is often misunderstood because of its brevity. The questions are short, the marks are small, and the tasks appear discrete. However, when the Section A papers from 2016 through to the most recent examinations are read side by side, a clear pattern emerges. The VCAA is not testing isolated knowledge points. It is testing whether students can perform controlled linguistic reasoning under strict constraints.
Across years, texts, and contexts, Section A has remained remarkably stable in its intellectual demands.
Section A is built around recurring conceptual clusters, not random features
If you examine the Section A questions from 2016 onwards, the surface focus shifts each year: jargon, prosodic features, tense, sentence structure, discourse strategies, register, coherence, identity. What does not change is the underlying conceptual work required.
Repeatedly, students are asked to do one of four things:
- link a specific linguistic feature to a purpose and intent or function
- explain how language choices reflect or construct identity or relationships
- analyse how features contribute to cohesion, coherence or information flow
- demonstrate understanding of register as an interaction between context, audience and purpose
This is evident as early as 2016, where students were asked how register supports purpose and how discourse strategies are used to control an interview. The same conceptual expectations recur in later years, even when the terminology becomes more specialised.
The questions are deliberately narrow and that is the point
One of the most consistent features of Section A is how tightly bounded the questions are. Students are told:
- how many examples to use
- which lines to draw from
- which subsystem or concept to focus on
For example, the 2025 Section A paper specifies not just what to identify, but where, how many, and for what analytical purpose — whether that is supporting a purpose and intent, analysing register, or explaining a function via Jakobson’s framework .
This design is intentional. Section A is not testing fluency or breadth. It is testing whether students can read a question literally, extract only what is required, and complete the full analytical task without drifting.
Students who overgeneralise, bring in unnecessary concepts, or respond impressionistically tend to lose marks not because their ideas are wrong, but because they have not respected the precision of the task.
Identification is never enough in Section A
Across every paper from 2016 to the present, no Section A question rewards identification alone unless it is explicitly a one-mark task. Even then, identification is usually a stepping stone to explanation in the following question.
Consider how often questions are phrased:
- “Identify and explain”
- “Using appropriate metalanguage, discuss”
- “Analyse how…”
- “Describe the impact of…”
This is consistent across years. In 2022, students were asked to identify a verb tense and explain how it helps achieve a purpose . In 2023, students were required to analyse how features contribute to coherence, not simply identify examples from the text. In 2024, even low-mark questions required students to describe impact, not just locate features .
Section A consistently assesses whether students can complete the analytical chain:
feature linked to context linked to function linked to effect.
Stopping anywhere along that chain will cap marks.
Section A repeatedly tests the same “high-yield” concepts
While students often revise Section A by memorising long lists of features, the exams themselves show a far narrower focus.
Across the papers, the most frequently assessed concepts include:
- register and its relationship to audience and purpose
- coherence, particularly through discourse features and information flow
- identity construction, using syntax, lexis, stance or discourse strategies
- spoken interaction, including prosody, turn-taking and rapport management
These concepts appear again and again, even when framed through different texts or terminology. For instance, coherence is tested explicitly in 2018, 2019, 2023 and indirectly in several other years through discourse management questions .
This suggests that Section A rewards students who understand how language operates systemically, rather than those who chase novelty.
Metalanguage is assessed for accuracy, not sophistication
Another consistent feature of Section A is that the metalanguage required is precise but not ornate. Students are not rewarded for naming obscure terms. They are rewarded for using appropriate terminology accurately and deploying it in service of explanation. Please draw your metalanguage from the Study Design along.
For example, when students are asked to refer to syntactic features, they are expected to distinguish between sentence types, clause structures or patterning with clarity, not to list multiple terms in the hope that one fits. When Jakobson’s functions are referenced, as in the 2025 paper, the expectation is not philosophical depth but correct application to observable language use within the specific line ranges.
What Section A is actually doing as an assessment tool
Taken together, the design of Section A across years reveals its role in the exam. It is a diagnostic section. It separates students who understand how linguistic analysis works from those who know terminology but apply it loosely.
Because the questions are short, there is nowhere to hide. Because the marks are small, errors are magnified. And because the tasks are precise, success depends on method rather than flair.
Students who perform well in Section A are not necessarily faster or more confident writers. They are students who can slow down, read carefully, select accurately, and explain succinctly.
ATAR STAR and Section A preparation
At ATAR STAR, Section A preparation is built around patterns drawn directly from past examinations. Students are taught to recognise the recurring conceptual demands, interpret question wording literally, and practise completing full analytical chains within tight constraints.
This approach benefits students across the spectrum. High-performing students refine precision and consistency. Students who have found Section A frustrating learn exactly where marks are being lost and why.
Section A is not unpredictable. It is methodical. ATAR STAR helps students meet it on its own terms.