June 2026
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development Exam Report made one issue very clear: many students lost marks because their responses did not match the command term.
This did not always mean students lacked knowledge. Often, they knew the relevant concept, model, factor or program. The problem was that the response did not do the specific type of thinking required by the question.
An outline question needed the main features.
A describe question needed characteristics and relevant detail.
An explain question needed a cause-and-effect link.
An analyse question needed ideas broken down and connected.
A justify question needed a reasoned defence.
A discuss question needed consideration of how something could work, often with more than one relevant angle.
In Health and Human Development, command terms are not decorative.
They tell students how far the answer must go.
“Identify” required precision
Some questions in 2025 began with identify.
For example, Question 6a asked students to identify the dimension of sustainability that best works towards an equitable society, sustainable birth rates and increased access to education.
The accepted answer was social sustainability.
This was not a question requiring a paragraph. It required the correct term.
However, precision still mattered. A student who wrote economic sustainability or environmental sustainability could not access the mark. A student who wrote a vague explanation about equality without naming the dimension also risked missing the command.
Identify usually asks for a clear, specific answer.
The challenge is not length.
It is accuracy.
“Outline” required the main features, not a one-word answer
Question 1a asked students to outline what is meant by social health and wellbeing and use an example to show how it can be dynamic.
This was not satisfied by simply writing:
Social health and wellbeing is about relationships.
That answer gestures towards the idea, but it does not outline it fully.
A stronger response explained that social health and wellbeing involves the state and quality of interactions and relationships with others, including supportive networks and the ability to adapt to different social situations. It then showed that the dimension is dynamic by giving an example of change over time, such as a person moving away from their friends and experiencing a reduced support network.
The command outline required students to provide the main characteristics.
Because the question also asked for an example, the response needed application as well.
A command term does not operate alone. It works with the rest of the question.
“Outline” plus data required comparison
Question 3b asked students to outline one variation in self-assessed health status between population group A and population group B, using data from the graph.
Here, outline required students to state the variation clearly and support it with data.
A high-scoring response could say that a greater percentage of population group B reported excellent or very good self-assessed health status, at approximately 60%, compared with approximately 40% of population group A.
This response worked because it included:
the variation
both population groups
data
the unit, percentage
The report noted that common issues included only referring to one population group or failing to use the correct unit.
This shows that outline does not mean “write vaguely”.
It means give the relevant main detail clearly.
“Describe” required meaningful detail
Many 2025 questions used describe.
For example, Question 2b asked students to identify and describe how one environmental challenge affects the ability to bring about nutritional change.
A weak response might say:
Transport affects healthy eating.
A stronger response would describe how lack of transport may reduce access to supermarkets selling fresh fruit and vegetables, increasing reliance on nearby fast-food outlets or convenience stores that sell foods high in saturated fat, salt and sugar.
That is description because it explains the relevant characteristics of the challenge and how it affects nutritional change.
The report noted that students needed to refer to specific dietary or nutritional change, rather than simply saying “healthy eating”.
This is exactly where describe often loses marks.
Students must give enough detail for the examiner to see the mechanism.
“Describe the relationship” required connection, not listing
Question 1b asked students to describe the relationship between physical and mental health and wellbeing.
The report explained that students needed to show how physical health and wellbeing affects mental health and wellbeing, and how mental health and wellbeing affects physical health and wellbeing.
This is important because many students treat describe as a listing command.
But the question was not asking students to describe physical health and wellbeing and then describe mental health and wellbeing separately.
It asked for the relationship.
That means the response needed a link.
For example:
Good physical health and wellbeing may allow a person to participate in sport, increasing self-esteem and confidence, thereby promoting mental health and wellbeing. Strong mental health and wellbeing may then increase motivation to be physically active, improving fitness and energy levels.
This answer shows connection.
The command term and the noun after it both mattered.
“Explain” required a cause-and-effect chain
The most important command term in the 2025 paper was explain.
Question 4a asked students to explain two ways smoking or vaping may affect health outcomes in Australia.
The report noted that generic statements such as “smoking increases morbidity” were not enough. Students needed to provide context, such as increased morbidity from lung cancer or increased incidence of cardiovascular disease. They also needed to state whether outcomes such as life expectancy would increase or decrease.
This is because explain requires a chain.
For example:
Cigarettes and e-cigarettes may contain carcinogens that damage body cells as they divide, increasing the risk of tumour development. This can increase the prevalence of lung cancer in Australia.
That response does more than name cancer.
It explains the pathway from smoking or vaping to a specific health outcome.
In Health and Human Development, explain usually means:
cause → mechanism → effect.
“Explain how” required application to the stimulus
Question 5a asked students to identify one WHO objective and explain how it was reflected in the cholera vaccination program in Zimbabwe.
The report noted that a common issue was listing promote, provide and protect, which are components of the WHO goal, not WHO objectives.
Even when students identified a relevant objective, they still needed to explain how the program reflected it.
A strong response could identify the WHO objective of rapidly detecting and sustaining an effective response to health emergencies. It could then explain that the cholera outbreak was a health emergency because it had spread across all 10 provinces and involved more than 27 055 suspected cases, while vaccinating more than 2.1 million Zimbabweans reflected an effective response to reduce disease transmission.
This is what explain how demands.
The student must connect the concept to the case study.
Naming the objective alone is not enough.
“Explain how” also required correct indicators
Question 5b asked students to explain how the cholera vaccination program could impact one HDI indicator for Zimbabwe.
The report showed that students often named HDI indicators incorrectly. The correct indicators include life expectancy at birth, expected years of schooling, mean years of schooling and Gross National Income per capita.
A strong response might explain that vaccinating 2.1 million people against cholera can reduce transmission and deaths from cholera, increasing life expectancy at birth and therefore contributing to a higher HDI.
The command explain how required students to connect:
program → disease reduction → specific HDI indicator → HDI impact.
A response that simply said “it improves life expectancy” was less precise because the indicator is life expectancy at birth.
The explanation depends on correct terminology.
“Analyse” required breaking down the concept
Question 8 asked students to analyse the role of Medicare in promoting health outcomes in terms of sustainability and equity.
This was a higher-demand question.
Students could not simply describe Medicare as Australia’s universal health insurance scheme. They needed to break down Medicare’s role and connect it to both sustainability and equity.
For equity, a strong response might explain that Medicare reduces financial barriers to essential health care, allowing people to access doctors, diagnosis and treatment regardless of income. This can reduce morbidity and mortality from treatable conditions.
For sustainability, a strong response might explain that Medicare supports earlier intervention and prevention, potentially reducing avoidable hospitalisations and long-term strain on the health system. A more analytical response might also recognise that Medicare’s sustainability depends on continued funding and management as demand grows.
The word analyse required students to do more than state benefits.
It required them to examine how Medicare works through the specified concepts.
“Analyse” in migration required implications, not a list
Question 10b asked students to analyse the implications of mass migration on the health outcomes of those migrating.
This type of question required depth.
Students could discuss how mass migration may increase exposure to communicable diseases due to overcrowded camps, limited sanitation and unsafe drinking water, increasing morbidity. They could also discuss increased mortality from conflict, exposure, malnutrition or lack of health care. Mental health outcomes could also be affected through trauma, family separation and uncertainty.
A stronger analysis could recognise that migration may also improve health outcomes if people move away from war, famine or persecution and gain access to shelter, food, safety and health services.
Analysis involves considering the implications of the issue rather than simply naming effects.
Students needed to explain how the health outcomes could change and why.
“Justify” required a reasoned defence
Question 11b asked students to justify why the Australian Government works in partnership with multilateral organisations on a project such as the Global Partnership for Education.
A justify response needs more than description.
It must provide a reasoned argument.
A strong response could explain that multilateral organisations combine funding, expertise, personnel and global reach from multiple countries and organisations. This allows programs such as the Global Partnership for Education to operate at scale, including in fragile and conflict-affected states, where a single government may have less capacity to deliver education programs alone. Therefore, Australia’s partnership can make aid more efficient, coordinated and effective.
This response justifies because it explains why the partnership is beneficial.
A weaker response might simply say:
Australia works with multilateral organisations because they help people.
That does not provide enough reasoning.
“Discuss” required more than defining
Question 12 asked students to discuss how health promotion could address low levels of physical activity among young Australians, referring to two Ottawa Charter action areas.
The stimulus stated that 83% of young people aged 15–17 did not meet the recommended 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day in 2022.
A discuss response needed to apply two Ottawa Charter action areas to the specific problem.
For example, build healthy public policy could involve governments requiring schools to include daily physical activity programs, increasing opportunities for young people to meet the recommended 60 minutes. Create supportive environments could involve funding safe parks, bike paths and recreation spaces, making it easier for young people to be active.
The answer should not merely define the action areas.
It should show how health promotion could address the low physical activity issue.
Discussion requires application.
“Discuss” in Section B required integration
Section B also required a broader discussion.
Students had to discuss water and sanitation using four sources and their own knowledge. The task required them to address country characteristics, access to safe water and sanitation, health status differences, and links between SDG 6 and SDG 3.
This was not a summary task.
A strong response needed to integrate source evidence and course knowledge.
For example, it could use Sources 1 and 2 to show that high-income countries had much greater access to safely managed drinking water and sanitation than low-income countries. It could then explain that high-income countries often have stronger infrastructure and government revenue, making safe water and sanitation systems more accessible. It could use Source 3’s diarrhoeal disease data to link poor access to morbidity and mortality, and Source 4’s case study from the Central African Republic to show how limited infrastructure affects daily life.
That is discussion.
It uses evidence to develop a connected response.
Command terms worked with mark allocation
Students also needed to read the mark allocation.
A 2-mark describe question does not require the same depth as a 6-mark analyse question. A 3-mark explain question usually needs a clear chain, while a 6-mark question may require multiple chains or a broader application.
For example, Question 5b was worth three marks. A strong response needed to identify the HDI indicator, use the case study and explain the impact.
Question 10b was worth six marks. A strong response needed multiple implications of mass migration on health outcomes, with analysis and examples.
Mark allocation tells students how much development is expected.
It should shape the response.
Command terms also worked with content words
Students should not focus only on the command term.
They also need to read the content words that follow it.
For example:
Describe the relationship is not the same as describe the dimension.
Explain how it is reflected in the program is not the same as explain the WHO objective.
Analyse the role of Medicare in terms of sustainability and equity is not the same as analyse Medicare generally.
Discuss how health promotion could address low levels of physical activity is not the same as discuss the Ottawa Charter generally.
The command term tells students what to do.
The content words tell them what to do it to.
Both matter.
Why command-term errors caused mark loss
Command-term errors were costly because they affected the whole response.
A student who lists when asked to explain will not show cause and effect.
A student who describes when asked to analyse may not break down the issue fully.
A student who names when asked to justify may not provide a reasoned defence.
A student who defines when asked to discuss may not apply the concept to the problem.
A student who identifies one side of a relationship may not meet the full demand.
These mistakes are especially frustrating because the content may be partly correct.
But the answer does not reach the required depth.
What future Health and Human Development students should learn from 2025
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development exam shows that command terms need to be practised deliberately.
Students should be able to:
- use identify for precise terms or examples
- use outline to provide main features and relevant detail
- use describe to give meaningful characteristics or links
- use explain to build cause-and-effect chains
- use explain how to connect concepts to stimulus material
- use analyse to break down issues and connect parts
- use justify to defend a reason with evidence
- use discuss to apply ideas to the issue and consider relevant dimensions
- match response depth to mark allocation
- read the content words after the command term
- avoid writing memorised definitions when application is required
These skills help students turn knowledge into marks.
In Health and Human Development, the command term decides the shape of the answer.
How ATAR STAR teaches command terms in Health and Human Development
At ATAR STAR, command terms are taught as response instructions.
Students learn how to recognise the level of thinking required, build appropriate cause-and-effect chains, use stimulus evidence and match their response to the mark allocation. They practise turning content knowledge into answers that meet the exact wording of the question.
The 2025 Examination Report confirms why this matters. High-scoring students did not simply know the course.
They knew what each question was asking them to do.