Section B of the VCE English Language examination is worth forty per cent of the total marks. The VCAA’s published Expected Qualities make clear that this weighting is not about length or difficulty, but about the kind of thinking the task demands. When these criteria are read carefully, Section B emerges as a test of analytical control, not feature accumulation.
What follows unpacks how the VCAA differentiates responses across the Section B mark range, using the Expected Qualities themselves as the organising framework .
At the top of the range, the difference is not knowledge but control
Responses awarded 14–15 marks are described as demonstrating confident and detailed analysis with sophisticated discussion of language features, alongside excellent understanding of function, purpose, tenor, register, audience and context.
What is important here is that none of these terms refer to additional content. They refer to how analysis is handled. High-scoring responses do not simply analyse more features. They analyse features that matter, and they do so in a way that remains focused across the commentary.
The repeated emphasis on function, intent and contextual influence signals that the VCAA is rewarding explanations that move beyond observation. Language choices are not described as present; they are explained as doing work in context. This is why high-range responses often feel narrower but deeper.
Responses in the 12–13 range show strength, but less consistency
Responses worth 12–13 marks are described as demonstrating detailed analysis and very good understanding of context, purpose and audience. The distinction between this band and the top band is subtle, but important.
At this level, students usually select appropriate features and explain them well. What is often missing is the sustained sophistication implied at the top of the range. Analysis may fluctuate in depth. Some explanations are tightly linked to context, while others drift into more general commentary.
The Expected Qualities here still emphasise organisation and controlled written discourse, but with slightly less insistence on tightness. This is where examiners recognise strong understanding, but not yet complete analytical authority.
In the 10–11 range, analysis is present but uneven
Responses worth 10–11 marks are described as demonstrating good analysis and sound understanding of function, purpose and context. The language of the criteria shifts noticeably here. “Sophisticated” and “confident” disappear, replaced by “mostly accurate” and “indicates an ability”.
This band captures responses where students understand what they are meant to do, but do not always execute it consistently. Analysis may be clear in places and thinner in others. Feature selection may be appropriate, but not always well prioritised.
Importantly, the criteria note that written discourse features are utilised, but not necessarily controlled. This suggests that structure is present, but not yet working in service of analysis throughout.
Responses worth 8–9 marks show partial analysis that cannot be sustained
At the 8–9 mark range, the Expected Qualities become more diagnostic. These responses demonstrate some analysis and some understanding of context, but analysis is not sustained.
The criteria explicitly note that metalanguage is used sporadically and not always accurately, and that written discourse features are applied inconsistently. This signals that the response may contain moments of insight, but lacks coherence as an analytical piece.
This is often where students can identify relevant features and occasionally explain them, but cannot maintain that level of explanation across the whole commentary.
Below this range, responses shift from analysis to description
From 6–7 marks downward, the Expected Qualities make a decisive distinction. Responses are described as limited, general, superficial or descriptive. Metalanguage use becomes minimal or absent. Examples are few or poorly selected.
What is notable is that the criteria do not accuse these responses of misunderstanding English Language as a subject. Instead, they indicate that the student has not met the analytical demands of the task. Language is described, not analysed. Context is mentioned, not used.
This reinforces that Section B is not a test of familiarity with linguistic terms, but of the ability to deploy them analytically.
What the criteria reveal about Section B as an assessment task
Taken as a whole, the Expected Qualities show that Section B is assessed along three intertwined dimensions:
- the quality and consistency of analysis
- the use of context as an explanatory framework
- the control of written discourse to sustain explanation
Feature knowledge is assumed across the cohort. What differentiates responses is how effectively that knowledge is mobilised to explain language in context, over an extended response.
This is why Section B produces such a wide mark spread. It exposes differences in analytical control that shorter responses cannot.
Working with ATAR STAR
ATAR STAR uses the VCAA Expected Qualities as the primary reference point for Section B preparation. Students are taught to recognise how analysis shifts across mark bands and how examiner language translates into practical writing decisions.
This approach supports students who are already performing strongly and want to refine control, as well as students whose Section B marks have stalled despite solid understanding. In both cases, the aim is alignment with how the VCAA actually differentiates responses.
If you want Section B preparation grounded in the assessment criteria rather than generic commentary advice, ATAR STAR provides support built directly from the VCAA’s own framework.