What the Physics course is actually asking students to do
One of the clearest messages running through the Physics materials is that students are expected to reason physically, not narrate processes.
This sounds obvious. Most students would say they are doing exactly that.
In practice, many explanations describe what happens without ever explaining why it happens in terms of forces, fields, energy transfers or interactions. The response feels fluent. It feels familiar. It just doesn’t quite earn the marks.
Physics explanations are not judged on how clearly something is described. They are judged on whether the correct physical cause has been identified and linked to the outcome.
Why describing the sequence of events is not enough
A very common pattern in lower- and mid-range responses is a step-by-step description of what occurs in an experiment or system.
Students explain what moves, what changes, or what is observed. They often do this accurately.
The issue is that description replaces explanation.
In Physics, explanation requires identifying the agent of change. Something must be doing the work. A force must act. A field must interact. Energy must be transferred or transformed.
If the explanation never clearly identifies that agent, the response remains incomplete.
The recurring problem with cause and effect
The materials make it clear that students are expected to link cause to effect explicitly.
Many responses state an effect without naming its cause, or name a cause without tracing its effect. The relationship is assumed rather than demonstrated.
For example, students may say an object accelerates without explaining which force causes the acceleration. Or they may mention a force without explaining how it changes the object’s motion.
Physics rewards students who complete that causal link every time.
Why phrases like “this causes” matter more than students think
In strong responses, causal language appears naturally.
Phrases such as this results in, therefore, as a consequence, or because of this force signal that the student is finishing the reasoning rather than stopping halfway.
When these links are missing, explanations often sound observational rather than analytical.
The difference is subtle on the page, but significant in marking.
Where this shows up most clearly in exam questions
This issue appears most often in questions that ask students to account for behaviour, explain observations, or justify outcomes.
Students often respond by restating information from the question or describing what the system does. What is missing is the physical principle that explains why it does that.
In these questions, marks are not awarded for recognising what happened. They are awarded for identifying the principle responsible.
Why correct terminology alone does not save an explanation
Another pattern that appears repeatedly is the use of correct terminology without correct application.
Students mention Newton’s laws, conservation principles, fields or energy, but do not actually use those ideas to explain the situation.
Naming the principle is not the same as applying it.
If the principle could be removed from the sentence without changing the meaning, it is not doing any work.
How incomplete explanations quietly cap marks
Many explanations that lose marks are not wrong. They are unfinished.
They introduce the correct idea, begin explaining it, and then stop just before the conclusion. The final step — linking the principle to the outcome — is missing.
Under time pressure, students often move on once they feel the idea is clear. In Physics, clarity without completion does not earn full credit.
What high-performing Physics explanations do differently
Strong students build explanations around physical principles from the outset.
They identify the relevant interaction, explain how it operates, and state the consequence clearly. Each sentence pushes the reasoning forward rather than restating what is already known.
Their explanations are often shorter, but tighter.
They sound deliberate rather than rehearsed.
What this means for Physics preparation
Preparing for explanation questions means practising how to move from observation to cause to outcome.
Students need to practise explaining why something happens using physical principles, not just what happens. This requires slowing down slightly and checking whether each explanation actually identifies a cause.
When students learn to complete that causal chain, their explanations become far more reliable.
Working with ATAR STAR
ATAR STAR Physics tutoring focuses on helping students turn descriptions into explanations that score.
We work with students to identify the physical principles driving each situation, link those principles clearly to observed outcomes, and present explanations that show controlled, causal reasoning. The emphasis is on finishing ideas properly, not adding more words.
If your Physics explanations sound right but don’t consistently earn full marks, the issue is rarely vocabulary. It is whether the physics has been made explicit — and that is exactly what ATAR STAR helps students refine.