And why strong biology answers still stalled
The 2023 paper rewarded construction, not recall
The 2023 Biology exam sat firmly within the Study Design, but it quietly raised the bar on how answers needed to be constructed.
Extended-response questions made up a larger proportion of the paper, and many required students to build explanations across multiple steps. Knowing isolated facts was not enough. Students needed to assemble those facts into a coherent biological sequence.
This is where many answers faltered.
Extended responses broke down when students treated them like short answers
Several of the higher-mark questions required students to link ideas across stages of a process. Instead, many students wrote what amounted to a collection of short responses placed side by side.
For example, in questions involving gene regulation, immunity or biotechnology, students often named correct components but failed to show how those components interacted over time. Marks were lost not because ideas were wrong, but because the chain of reasoning was incomplete.
In a five-mark response, each missing link removed access to a mark.
Compare and justify were regularly misunderstood
The 2023 exam included questions that used task words such as compare, justify and explain, and examiner feedback shows these were frequent stumbling blocks.
In comparison questions, many students described one process well but did not explicitly link it to the second process. Similarities and differences were implied rather than stated. This limited marks even when descriptions were accurate.
In justification questions, students often provided explanations without making a decision. They explained relevant biology but did not clearly state why one option, condition or participant was more suitable than another.
Justification requires commitment. Without it, answers plateaued.
Data questions exposed surface-level understanding
Data interpretation was a recurring issue across the 2023 paper.
Many students correctly described trends shown in tables and graphs, but did not use those trends to support a biological conclusion. For example, they noted increases or decreases without explaining what those changes revealed about enzyme activity, immune response or treatment effectiveness.
Marks were awarded when students linked data to mechanism. Description alone did not move the answer forward.
Students frequently answered at the wrong biological level
A consistent pattern in the 2023 responses was mismatch between the level of explanation required and the level provided.
Some questions required molecular explanations, but students responded at a cellular or organism level. In other cases, students explained outcomes without addressing the underlying molecular cause.
Correct biology at the wrong level was not rewarded fully. Precision mattered more than breadth.
Biotechnology questions revealed gaps in sequencing
Questions involving technologies such as CRISPR, plasmids or recombinant protein production exposed a common weakness: students knew the steps, but not the order.
Responses often listed processes correctly but failed to show how one step enabled the next. Without clear sequencing, the biological logic of the method was lost.
Examiners consistently rewarded answers that showed progression rather than accumulation.
Ethical questions required application, not definition
In questions involving ethical considerations, many students named appropriate ethical principles but did not apply them convincingly to the scenario.
Definitions alone were not sufficient. Marks were earned when students showed how an action aligned with or violated an ethical principle in context.
This distinction separated mid-range from high-range responses.
Why these issues capped otherwise capable students
The 2023 exam report makes it clear that many students understood the content. What they lacked was control over how that content was deployed.
Answers that were unfinished, unsequenced or unanchored to the task consistently lost marks. Students were not penalised for knowing less biology, but for leaving too much implicit.
In Biology, examiners do not fill gaps on a student’s behalf.
What high-scoring students did differently in 2023
High-scoring responses shared clear features.
They:
- stayed tightly aligned to the task word
- completed explanations by stating outcomes
- used data to support claims
- matched the level of explanation to the question
- showed biological processes unfolding step by step
Their answers were deliberate rather than dense.
What this means for Biology preparation
The 2023 exam reinforces that preparation must go beyond content coverage.
Students need to practise:
- building explanations across multiple steps
- responding precisely to task words
- using data as evidence, not decoration
- finishing answers decisively
Without this, even strong understanding will continue to be under-rewarded.
Working with ATAR STAR
ATAR STAR Biology preparation is designed around patterns that emerge from exams like the 2023 paper.
We focus on training students to construct full, sequenced responses that align with how marks are allocated. The emphasis is on execution, not memorisation.
The 2023 exam showed that Biology is not about how much you know. It is about how completely you explain it.