What the 2024 examiner feedback revealed, question by question
The pattern the 2024 exam exposed
The 2024 paper made something very clear: a lot of marks were lost in places where students actually had the right topic in mind. The issue wasn’t “they didn’t learn it”. It was that they didn’t execute cleanly under exam conditions.
When you look across the examiner commentary, the same leaks keep appearing: students ignore a force that’s clearly in the scenario, use the wrong mass, mishandle units, lose sign convention discipline, or give an explanation that sounds plausible but doesn’t answer what’s being asked.
Below are the most useful examples, tied to specific questions, because this is where Physics becomes fixable.
Question 1a: forgetting friction, or using the wrong system mass
In Question 1a, the most common errors weren’t exotic. Students either failed to account for the frictional forces or they used the total mass of all three boats, rather than the mass of the relevant system.
This is classic “recognition rush”. Students see a dynamics setup, reach for F = ma, and forget that the net force is what matters. Friction isn’t a background detail. It’s part of the net force, so leaving it out changes everything.
If you’re going to lose marks in Physics, this is a common way: the equation is correct, but the model is incomplete.
Question 1b: subtracting friction the wrong way, and double-counting mass
Question 1b kept the same theme, just in a different form. Students commonly used the mass of both vessels when they shouldn’t have, or they subtracted the frictional force from ma rather than incorporating friction correctly in the force balance.
This kind of error usually comes from rearranging too early, or writing an equation before deciding what’s acting on what. A free body diagram would have prevented a lot of these responses, and the examiner explicitly noted that diagrams made students’ thinking clearer.
Question 2a: the kilometre-to-metre conversion that quietly destroys the whole response
Question 2a exposed a problem that never goes away: students are technically capable, but their unit discipline collapses under pressure.
The most common errors were not converting the radius from kilometres to metres or using the wrong trigonometric identity. It’s telling that the examiner pointed out many students seemed to have a similar worked example on their A3 sheet, but very few could derive or adapt confidently when conditions changed.
This is a recurring VCE Physics reality: memorised setups can work, but only if your unit handling is bulletproof and you understand what the relationship is doing.
Question 2b: misunderstanding what the normal force actually does
This was one of the most revealing conceptual errors in the whole report.
In Question 2b, the most common incorrect response claimed the inclined track caused the normal force to point inwards to the centre of the turn. The examiner’s point was sharp: the normal force does not magically point at the centre. It points perpendicular to the surface, and in this setup that direction is not “straight in”.
This mistake happens when students confuse “centripetal force” with “a force called centripetal”. Centripetal is the net inward result. It can be made up of components of real forces. If you treat it like a single force that must align with the centre, you’ll write confident nonsense.
Question 3a: sign conventions drifting until gravity points upwards
Question 3a is the kind of question students often feel confident with. Then they bleed marks.
The examiner noted students did not maintain a strong sign convention, with acceleration due to gravity acting upwards rather than downwards. That’s not a “small error”. It breaks the internal logic of the whole solution.
The report also described a common unforced error: students broke the motion into multiple phases and then lost track of the time handling. Others used pre-derived formulas but didn’t know how to apply them to the specific situation.
If you want a practical takeaway, it’s this: choose a direction, state it mentally, and don’t betray it halfway through the working. Physics punishes inconsistency far more than it punishes choosing “up” instead of “down”.
Question 5b: calling something inelastic for the wrong reason
Question 5b is a perfect example of a student writing something that sounds Physics-like, but isn’t what the concept means.
The examiner’s commentary notes two common errors: students said the collision was inelastic because momentum is not conserved, or they wrote that energy is not conserved without identifying kinetic energy specifically.
That’s not pedantry. Momentum is conserved in isolated systems even in inelastic collisions. What changes in inelastic collisions is kinetic energy. If you say “momentum isn’t conserved”, you’re signalling you don’t know the definition you’re using.
This is why mid-range responses can feel “close” but still score lower than expected. The idea is familiar, but the reasoning is not accurate.
Question 12a: the unit in the box is not decoration
Question 12a is almost painfully simple, which is why it matters.
The correct result was 30 kW, but the most common error was to write 30 000 kW. The examiner explicitly reminded students: if the answer box specifies a unit, you must respond in that unit, and the stem also stated the required unit.
This is not just a units mistake. It’s a reading discipline mistake. The maths is fine. The attention to the task isn’t.
Question 12c: parallel circuits exposing weak foundations
Question 12c revealed a deeper issue: students scaling both values in a way that shows they don’t properly understand parallel circuits.
The most common error was to multiply both quantities by 5 and state 1000 V and 150 A, and the examiner explicitly interpreted this as weak understanding of parallel circuit behaviour, along with the reminder that Units 3 and 4 assumes mastery of the underpinning concepts.
This is the sort of mistake that doesn’t come from “forgetting a formula”. It comes from not having the mental model straight. If your circuit thinking is procedural rather than conceptual, this is exactly where you get punished.
Question 15b: diffraction misconceptions that keep resurfacing
Question 15b flagged a misconception that good students often carry without realising it.
A concerning number of students stated diffraction would not occur if the wavelength was less than the spacing. The examiner clarified that diffraction can still be observable as the ratio falls below 1; it’s not a binary “yes/no” threshold in the simplistic way students often remember it.
This is a reminder that physics phenomena often scale, rather than switch on and off. When students treat them as absolute cut-offs, their explanations become brittle.
Question 16b: the line of best fit is not a line through the first and last dot
If you want a single “please stop doing this” moment from the report, it’s this.
In Question 16b, the most common error was drawing the line of best fit through the first and last points only, ignoring the rest. The examiner even pointed out the question was written with this mistake in mind, because the middle points provided a visual cue that the line was wrong.
This is one of the clearest examples of VCE Physics rewarding students who treat data properly. A best-fit line is a judgement about the trend across all points, not a join-the-dots exercise.
Question 16h: photoelectric effect responses that became a pile of facts
Question 16h exposed a very particular kind of exam panic.
Students could refer to a finding such as threshold frequency, no time delay, or the frequency–energy relationship. But they then needed to do something harder: state the wave model prediction, state the experimental finding, and use this contrast to conclude that only the particle model explains it.
The examiner noted that many students could articulate the finding and its support for the particle model, but could not articulate the wave model prediction, and some responses became an amalgam of all three findings—essentially copying disjointed notes without answering the specific task.
This is one of the most important warnings in the whole report: dumping your A3 sheet onto the page is not a strategy. If the response isn’t shaped to the question, it reads like noise.
What this means for preparation
The most useful thing about the 2024 feedback is that it shows how predictable the mark leaks are.
Students lost marks because they didn’t model forces correctly, didn’t control sign conventions, didn’t respect units, didn’t handle data properly, or didn’t complete an explanation by contrasting models and drawing a conclusion. None of those are “hard content”. They are execution skills.
And execution skills are trainable.
Working with ATAR STAR
ATAR STAR Physics tutoring targets exactly these mark-leak patterns: modelling the system correctly, writing working that earns method marks, controlling sign conventions, interpreting graphs with discipline, and answering explanation questions with the precise structure they demand.
If your Physics results feel lower than your understanding, the fix is rarely learning more formulas. It’s tightening the way you apply what you already know, under pressure, to the exact wording of the task. That is what ATAR STAR trains students to do.