“Relevant” is not the same as “rewarded”
One of the most common phrases students hear in Health and Human Development is “that’s relevant”. Unfortunately, relevance on its own does not earn marks.
Students routinely include examples that sit clearly within the course. They mention low socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, education levels, lifestyle behaviours, or living environments. None of these ideas are wrong. Many are entirely appropriate.
And yet, they still lose marks.
The issue is not what students are choosing. It is how they are using those examples.
What a generic example looks like in practice
A generic example is one that names an influence without explaining its operation.
For example, a student might state that low socioeconomic status negatively impacts health outcomes, or that limited access to healthcare worsens health status. These statements sound analytical, and they are directionally correct.
But they stop too early.
They do not explain how socioeconomic status affects health, which outcomes change, or why those changes occur. The examiner is left to do the work the student should have done.
In Health and Human Development, that gap costs marks.
Why students rely on generic examples
Generic examples are attractive because they feel safe.
Students know they are relevant across many questions. They are easy to recall under pressure. They sound “HHD-like” and often appear in revision notes and practice responses.
Under time pressure, students reach for them instinctively.
The problem is that the exam does not reward instinct. It rewards precision.
What makes an example specific enough to score
A scoring example does three things.
First, it situates the example in the context of the question. The student makes it clear who is affected and in what situation.
Second, it explains the mechanism. The student shows how the influence operates, not just that it exists.
Third, it finishes with an outcome. The student states what happens to health status, burden of disease, or human development as a result.
Without all three, the example remains generic.
The difference between naming and applying
There is a critical difference between saying that access to healthcare improves health and explaining how access leads to earlier diagnosis, improved treatment, reduced severity of illness and increased life expectancy.
Both refer to access. Only one applies it.
Application requires movement. Something must change. An outcome must be stated.
If the example does not do anything in the answer, it is not carrying marks.
Why generic examples collapse under evaluation questions
Generic examples are particularly weak in evaluation questions.
When students are asked to assess effectiveness, impact, or importance, naming a broad influence without unpacking it contributes very little to a judgement. The response becomes a list of ideas rather than an argument.
Evaluation requires students to prioritise and justify. Generic examples make that difficult because they are not anchored to a specific outcome.
This is why many evaluation responses sound busy but feel empty.
How generic examples waste time as well as marks
Generic examples do not just cost marks. They cost time.
Students often write multiple generic examples in the hope that quantity will compensate for lack of depth. This slows them down and leaves less time for questions that require careful reasoning.
Ironically, writing one well-developed example would take less time and score more highly.
Health and Human Development rewards restraint.
What high-performing students do instead
Strong students still use familiar examples, but they control them.
They narrow the example immediately, explain the pathway clearly, and state the outcome explicitly. They do not stack examples. They develop one and move on.
Their responses feel intentional rather than padded.
This is not about knowing better examples. It is about finishing the ones they choose.
What this means for preparation
Students should stop asking, “Is this example relevant?” and start asking, “Have I finished it?”
Preparation should involve practising how to turn common influences into complete explanations. That means rehearsing pathways, outcomes and language of change, not memorising more content.
Generic examples are not the enemy. Unfinished ones are.
A final reality check
If a response could apply to almost any HHD question with only minor changes, it is probably too generic to score well.
Marks are earned where specificity begins.
Working with ATAR STAR
ATAR STAR helps Health and Human Development students learn how to turn familiar examples into scoring responses.
Our focus is not on giving students more examples to memorise, but on teaching them how to finish their thinking. Students are trained to narrow examples quickly, explain mechanisms clearly, and state outcomes explicitly, so that each idea they use actually earns marks.
This approach is particularly effective for capable students whose answers sound right but do not score as well as expected, and for high-performing students who want greater consistency under exam conditions.
If your HHD responses feel relevant but under-rewarded, ATAR STAR’s approach is designed to close that gap.