Across multiple years of Examiner’s Reports, one issue appears with striking consistency: students frequently misunderstand what VCAA command terms are asking them to do. This misunderstanding is not confined to weaker students. In fact, it is often strongest among capable, fluent writers whose responses sound sophisticated but do not align with the task being assessed.
In VCE Psychology, command terms are not interchangeable. Each one signals a specific type of cognitive work, and responses are marked according to how precisely that work is carried out. When students respond to the wrong command, marks are capped regardless of how accurate or detailed the content may be.
Why command terms matter more in Psychology than students expect
Psychology is assessed as a science subject, and this has important implications for how command terms function. Unlike subjects where expressive or discursive writing can compensate for partial misalignment, Psychology marking is tightly criterion-based. Examiner’s Reports repeatedly note that responses were “relevant but did not address the command term” or “accurate but descriptive rather than explanatory”.
This language matters. It signals that the issue is not content, but task execution.
Because most of the exam is short-answer, students encounter command terms constantly. A single misunderstanding, repeated across the paper, leads to cumulative mark loss.
“Describe” versus “explain”
One of the most common command-term errors identified in Examiner’s Reports is the confusion between describe and explain.
When students are asked to describe, the VCAA is assessing their ability to outline features or characteristics. This might involve stating what a process involves, what a result shows, or what a component does, without requiring causal reasoning.
Explain, by contrast, requires students to account for how or why something occurs. Examiner’s Reports consistently note that many students describe a concept accurately but do not explain its relevance to the stimulus or outcome provided. These responses are often capped because they stop short of addressing the causal relationship the question is targeting.
In Psychology, explanation almost always requires linking a psychological concept to a specific behaviour, result, or data trend. Without that link, the response remains descriptive.
“Identify” and “state” are not invitations to elaborate
Another recurring issue is students treating identify or state as if they are asking for explanation.
Examiner’s Reports frequently note that students provide extended responses where only a specific element is required. While these answers may contain correct information, they often fail to clearly state the required idea and therefore do not earn full marks.
In short-answer questions, identify and state are used deliberately to assess precision. Examiners are looking for the correct term, variable, or factor. Writing beyond this does not increase marks and can obscure the required response.
“Explain” versus “evaluate”
As discussed in earlier posts, evaluation is one of the most misunderstood demands in VCE Psychology. Examiner’s Reports repeatedly show that students respond to evaluate prompts with explanation alone.
Explain requires students to account for relationships or processes. Evaluate requires students to make a judgement about quality, effectiveness, or usefulness, supported by evidence.
A response that explains a research design accurately but does not judge its strengths or limitations in context will be capped. Examiner’s Reports consistently indicate that evaluation requires students to move beyond “what happened” to “how well does this support the conclusion”.
“Discuss” and the problem of unfocused breadth
Discuss is another command term that often leads to unfocused responses. Examiner’s Reports frequently describe discuss responses as “too general” or “lacking depth”.
In Psychology, discuss does not mean list everything you know. It requires students to consider an issue from multiple relevant angles while maintaining alignment with the question. High-scoring discuss responses remain anchored to the stimulus and develop ideas selectively. Lower-scoring responses often drift into generic explanations that could apply to any context.
“Analyse” and the expectation of relationships
When analyse appears, Examiner’s Reports indicate that students often fail to meet its demands. Analyse requires students to break information down and examine relationships between components.
In Psychology, this often involves linking variables, identifying patterns in data, or explaining how different elements interact. Responses that merely describe components without examining their relationships are routinely capped.
Why these misunderstandings persist
One reason command-term errors persist is that students often rely on intuition rather than explicit interpretation. In SACs, teachers may scaffold tasks heavily, reducing the need for students to independently decode command terms. In the exam, that scaffolding disappears.
Examiner’s Reports make it clear that students who do not explicitly interpret command terms under exam conditions are at a significant disadvantage.
How command-term mastery changes performance
Students who understand command terms precisely tend to write less but score more. They match the depth and structure of their response to the task, rather than defaulting to explanation or description.
This skill is one of the strongest predictors of high-range performance across Section B, because it allows students to consistently meet the assessment criteria rather than approximating it.
How ATAR STAR approaches command terms in Psychology
At ATAR STAR, command terms are taught as assessment tools, not vocabulary. Students learn to recognise what each term requires, how it is marked, and how to adjust their responses accordingly.
This approach benefits students who are already knowledgeable but inconsistent, as well as students who feel they “know the content” but do not score as expected.
If you want Psychology preparation that reflects how the Examiner’s Reports show marks are actually awarded, command-term mastery is one of the highest-impact areas to address.