When you read the Business Management Examiner’s Reports alongside the exam papers, a clear pattern emerges. Students rarely fail because they misunderstand the course. They lose marks because they misunderstand what a particular question is asking them to do.
Below are concrete examples of how this played out in recent exams.
Short-answer questions: explaining when identification was required
In both the 2023 and 2024 exams, early short-answer questions asked students to identify or state a business concept drawn directly from the case study.
Examiners noted that many students:
- wrote extended explanations
- defined the concept
- used generic examples
These responses often earned no additional marks beyond the initial identification, because the question did not ask for explanation .
Responses worth full marks were concise and precise. Students who treated these questions as mini-essays wasted time and gained nothing.
“Explain” questions answered with definitions
A recurring issue highlighted in both reports involved questions that asked students to explain how a management strategy or process affected business performance.
For example, in questions relating to motivation strategies or operations processes, many students:
- defined the strategy
- described what it is
- failed to explain its impact on productivity, efficiency or effectiveness
Examiners explicitly noted that definitions alone did not demonstrate explanation and therefore limited marks .
High-scoring responses explained cause and effect. They showed how the strategy influenced employee behaviour or operational outcomes in the specific business context.
Analyse questions answered as advantages and disadvantages
One of the most consistent errors appeared in analyse questions.
In the 2023 exam, an analyse-style question required students to examine the impact of a management strategy on business performance. Many students responded by listing advantages and disadvantages with little connection between ideas.
The Examiner’s Report noted that these responses were descriptive rather than analytical and were capped accordingly .
Responses worth higher marks broke the strategy into components and explained how each contributed to performance outcomes, often linking back to objectives or KPIs.
Evaluation questions without judgement
In both years, longer questions required students to evaluate the effectiveness of a strategy.
A common error was stopping at explanation. Students explained how a strategy worked but did not:
- assess effectiveness
- link back to objectives
- acknowledge limitations
Examiners repeatedly stated that evaluation requires a judgement, not just explanation .
Responses worth full marks clearly stated whether the strategy was effective, under what conditions, and why.
Case studies named but not used
Across multiple questions, examiners noted superficial application of the case study.
Students often:
- named the business
- restated what the business did
- failed to explain why the strategy suited that business
For example, in operations management questions, students mentioned technology or quality management but did not explain how these strategies aligned with the business’s resources, workforce or objectives.
The reports emphasised that simply referring to the case study did not constitute application .
Outdated case studies limiting marks
In the 2023 report, examiners specifically commented on the use of case studies that fell outside the required four-year window. Even when explanations were strong, marks were limited because the examples did not meet Study Design requirements .
Students who used recent, well-integrated examples were rewarded.
Extended responses lacking structure
The highest-mark questions in both exams revealed a clear structural divide.
Examiners noted that weaker responses:
- drifted between topics
- repeated ideas
- failed to sustain a line of reasoning
Stronger responses were clearly structured, addressed all parts of the question, and integrated multiple areas of study where appropriate .
Length was not the differentiator. Organisation was.
What these errors show
Across both exams, the errors were consistent and procedural:
- misunderstanding command terms
- over-defining
- under-evaluating
- superficial case study use
Students who corrected these issues often improved without learning additional content.
Working with ATAR STAR
ATAR STAR prepares Business Management students using detailed analysis of past exams and Examiner’s Reports. We focus on question interpretation, command terms, case study application and response structure — the exact areas where marks are most often lost.
This approach supports high-performing students aiming for top-end consistency and students who feel their exam marks do not reflect their understanding.
If you want Business Management exam preparation grounded in how the VCAA actually marks questions, ATAR STAR provides structured, exam-focused support.