June 2026
The 2025 VCE French Exam Report made one thing very clear about Section 3: students needed to write for the prompt they were given.
This sounds obvious, but it is one of the most important lessons from the report.
Many students entered Section 3 with useful vocabulary, prepared phrases and familiar topic areas. That preparation mattered. But high-scoring responses did not simply reproduce memorised material. They read the prompt carefully, selected relevant content, matched the required text type and writing style, and communicated accurately in French.
The strongest responses were not necessarily the most complicated.
They were controlled.
What is the text type?
Who is the audience?
What is the purpose?
What content is required?
Does the response need to evaluate, inform, describe, reflect or imagine?
Does the conclusion complete the task?
Is the French accurate enough to communicate clearly?
These were the questions that mattered in 2025.
Section 3 required relevance, breadth and depth
Section 3 was assessed according to two major areas: relevance, breadth and depth of content, and accuracy, range and appropriateness of vocabulary and grammar.
This means students needed both ideas and language.
A response with accurate French but thin content could still be limited. A response with interesting ideas but weak grammar could also be limited if communication became unclear.
The best responses balanced both.
They included enough relevant content to satisfy the task, but they also kept the French controlled. They used paragraphs and linking words. They planned their response. They proofread for grammatical and spelling accuracy.
The report’s advice was practical: students should take time to plan and proofread.
That time is not wasted.
It protects marks.
Question 5 required evaluation, not just description
Question 5 was the most popular Section 3 question.
Students had to write an email to their cousin after completing their first month in a part-time job. The cousin was thinking of applying for a similar position. Students needed to evaluate the positive and negative aspects of the job and indicate whether the cousin should apply.
This prompt had two parts.
First, students had to evaluate the job.
Second, they had to make a recommendation.
The report noted that most students handled the first half reasonably well, but some failed to mention what type of job they had. Others did not produce a satisfactory conclusion because they did not make a recommendation about whether the cousin should apply.
This is a very important lesson.
If the prompt asks for a recommendation, the response must include one.
An email that describes a job without advising the cousin is incomplete.
Evaluation required positives and negatives
High-scoring responses to Question 5 included two positive and two negative aspects of the job, as well as the student’s opinion.
Possible positive aspects included:
- earning money
- making new friends or meeting new people
- gaining experience for future jobs
- improving time-management skills
- receiving benefits such as store discounts, vouchers, memberships or improved fitness
Possible negative aspects included:
- management treating employees poorly
- less time for current interests and activities
- impact on schoolwork or homework
- very early starts or late returns home
- bullying from other workers
A strong response did not simply list these.
It weighed them.
For example, a student might explain that the job is tiring and sometimes affects homework, but that it also develops confidence and independence. The final advice to the cousin should follow logically from that evaluation.
That is what makes the writing evaluative.
The job had to be specified
The report noted that many students failed to mention what type of job they had.
This is a small omission with a large effect.
If the student does not identify the job, the positives and negatives can become vague. A part-time job in a café, tutoring, retail, babysitting, sport coaching or hospitality would each create different examples.
A student writing about tutoring might discuss helping younger students, improving communication and managing preparation time.
A student writing about retail might discuss dealing with customers, long shifts, discounts and standing for hours.
A student writing about a café might discuss early mornings, teamwork, fast service and tiredness after shifts.
Specificity makes the response more believable.
It also gives the French more purpose.
Email format and register mattered
Question 5 required an email to a cousin.
That meant the response needed an appropriate beginning and ending and informal language.
A suitable opening might be:
Salut Camille,
J’espère que tu vas bien.
A suitable closing might be:
Écris-moi bientôt !
Bisous,
À bientôt,
The language should sound natural for communication with a cousin. It should not become overly formal.
This does not mean the French should be careless. Informal language still needs accuracy. But the register should match the audience.
A response beginning like a formal business letter would not suit the task.
Text type shapes tone.
Question 6 required an informative blog, not a persuasive essay
Question 6 asked students to write a blog post to inform readers about their ideal sustainable city design.
The report noted that low-scoring responses appeared pre-prepared, were based on opinion rather than fact, and were written in a persuasive rather than informative style. High-scoring responses were targeted to the question and written in an informative style.
This distinction matters.
The prompt did not ask students to persuade readers that sustainability is important. It asked them to inform readers about a city design.
That required description and explanation of features such as:
- technology
- sustainability practices
- energy-efficient buildings
- open spaces for recreation
- parks and bike paths
- houses, shops, schools and medical facilities
- distribution of land between buildings and green spaces
A strong response would explain how the city is designed, not merely argue that the environment should be protected.
The style had to be informative.
Blog conventions were required
The report stated that the blog format required:
- date
- headings
- subheadings
- hyperlinks
This is a practical but important point.
Students sometimes treat text type as optional decoration. It is not.
If the question asks for a blog post, the response should look and sound like a blog post.
A suitable blog might include:
12 juin 2026
Ma ville durable idéale
Des bâtiments intelligents
Des espaces verts pour tous
Cliquez ici pour voir le plan de la ville
The content still matters most, but the conventions help establish the text type. They also show that the student has read the question carefully.
In VCE French writing, formatting choices can support task alignment.
Question 7 required the image to be used
Question 7 asked students to write a personal journal entry about visiting a Paris flea market, using information from the image provided. Students had to describe the experience and their feelings when they discovered and bought a special object.
The report noted that low-scoring responses did not refer to the image or to an item from the image, and did not mention the special item bought.
This was a direct failure to satisfy the prompt.
The image showed a flea market by the Seine, with many vintage objects on display: ceramics, plates, decorative objects, framed pictures, glassware and other antique items. The city setting and lively atmosphere were part of the stimulus.
A high-scoring response needed to use that visual information.
It might describe wandering among the stalls, noticing old plates and paintings, hearing voices near the river, and discovering a special object that triggered emotion or memory.
The image was not optional.
It was evidence for the writing.
Personal journal writing needed emotional depth
Question 7 required a personal journal entry.
The report stated that high-scoring responses were written in the first person, used informal language, and made a connection between the photo and the student’s feelings. They used emotional language and personal reflection.
Useful expressions included:
Je suis émerveillé(e).
Je suis stupéfait(e).
Je n’arrivais pas à croire.
La grandeur du marché aux puces était impressionnante.
Des objets variés comme je n’en avais jamais vu.
Cet objet que j’ai trouvé m’a fait redécouvrir une période de mon enfance.
This shows what the task was really asking for.
It was not enough to write a basic description of the market. The student needed to describe the experience and emotional response.
A journal entry should feel personal.
It should include reflection, not just observation.
The special object needed significance
The prompt for Question 7 specifically required students to describe their feelings when they discovered and bought a special object.
This means the object needed to matter.
A student could choose an old painting, a ceramic vase, a framed photograph, a plate, a small antique box, a necklace or any object visible or plausibly connected to the image. But the response needed to explain why it was special.
Perhaps it reminded the student of a grandparent.
Perhaps it looked like an object from childhood.
Perhaps it represented Paris.
Perhaps it felt mysterious or historically rich.
Perhaps it made the student imagine the life of its previous owner.
The emotional connection gives the journal depth.
Without it, the response remains shallow.
Question 8 required imagination and task completion
Question 8 asked students to write an imaginative informal letter to be placed in a bottle and thrown into the sea after waking alone on a deserted island.
The student had to:
- ask for help
- describe the first days spent on the island
- mention some of the objects found in the suitcase
The suitcase contained:
une boussole
une boîte d’allumettes
une paire de jumelles
une lampe de poche
un stylo
du papier
une bouteille vide
The report noted that low-scoring responses contained very simple content and direct language. High-scoring responses used creativity and imagination, established the setting and character clearly, included informal letter features, described adventures and objects, and asked for help.
This task rewarded controlled creativity.
Students needed a situation, not just a list of objects.
The objects had to be used, not merely mentioned
Question 8 required students to mention some objects found in the suitcase.
A stronger response would not simply list them.
It would use them.
For example:
J’ai utilisé la boussole pour marcher vers le nord, mais je n’ai trouvé que des arbres et des rochers.
Avec les allumettes, j’ai réussi à faire un petit feu pendant la deuxième nuit.
Grâce aux jumelles, j’ai aperçu un bateau très loin, mais il a disparu avant que je puisse attirer son attention.
These sentences integrate the objects into the story.
They help establish the first days on the island and create tension.
That is stronger than writing:
Dans la valise, il y avait une boussole, des allumettes et des jumelles.
Mentioning is acceptable, but using is more powerful.
Informal letter conventions mattered
Question 8 required an imaginative informal letter.
This meant students needed letter features such as a greeting, date and signature.
For example:
Le 19 novembre
À la personne qui trouvera cette bouteille,
Aidez-moi, s’il vous plaît.
Luca
Even an imaginative task still requires text-type control.
The letter should sound urgent, personal and situational. It should not sound like a formal report or a diary entry. It should directly ask for help because that was part of the prompt.
Students needed to remember that creativity does not remove the requirements of the task.
Pre-prepared writing was risky
The report advised students to avoid pre-prepared or previously attempted responses.
This advice matters across all Section 3 tasks.
A pre-prepared job email may fail to make a recommendation.
A pre-prepared sustainability essay may become persuasive instead of informative.
A pre-prepared Paris travel piece may ignore the flea market image.
A pre-prepared adventure story may fail to mention the suitcase objects or ask for help.
Prepared language is useful.
Prepared responses are dangerous.
Students should prepare vocabulary, structures and topic ideas, but they must adapt them to the exact prompt.
Idioms were not necessary
The report advised students to avoid idioms because they are not part of the marking criteria and are often used incorrectly.
This is especially important in Section 3, where students may try to sound sophisticated.
A clear sentence such as:
Ce travail m’a aidé à devenir plus indépendant.
is better than an awkward idiom used incorrectly.
French writing rewards accuracy, range and appropriateness. Idioms only help if they are correct and natural, and they are not required.
Students should prioritise clear communication.
Paragraphing and linking words helped structure
The report noted that most students remembered to use paragraphs and linking words.
This is a strength students should maintain.
Useful linking words include:
d’abord
ensuite
cependant
en revanche
de plus
par exemple
grâce à
malheureusement
en conclusion
à mon avis
These help organise ideas and show logical relationships.
For Question 5, linking words help evaluate positives and negatives.
For Question 6, they help structure the description of the city.
For Question 7, they help move through the market experience.
For Question 8, they help sequence the first days on the island.
Good structure makes the French easier to follow.
Proofreading protected marks
The report advised students to proofread for grammar and spelling accuracy.
This is essential in Section 3.
Students should quickly check:
subject-verb agreement
tense consistency
gender and number agreement
adjective placement
accent errors where meaning changes
common verb forms
register and text type
whether all parts of the prompt have been answered
Even a short proofreading routine can improve the response.
Students do not need perfect French, but they should reduce avoidable errors.
High-scoring writing was specific
Across all four Section 3 prompts, high-scoring responses were specific.
For Question 5, students specified the job and gave clear positives and negatives.
For Question 6, students described actual features of a sustainable city.
For Question 7, students used the image and described a special object.
For Question 8, students established a setting and used suitcase objects in the story.
Specificity creates depth.
Vague responses often sound like they could have been written before seeing the prompt. Specific responses show that the student has responded to the task.
This is one of the clearest lessons from 2025.
What future French students should learn from 2025
The 2025 VCE French exam shows that Section 3 writing requires prompt control.
Students should practise:
- identifying the text type before writing
- matching register to audience
- planning content before beginning
- including every required part of the prompt
- writing evaluative responses with positives, negatives and a conclusion
- using informative style when required
- applying blog conventions such as headings and dates
- using visual stimulus in descriptive or reflective writing
- creating emotional depth in journal entries
- integrating objects into imaginative writing
- avoiding pre-prepared responses
- avoiding risky idioms
- proofreading for grammar and spelling accuracy
These skills help students produce writing that is relevant, controlled and accurate.
Section 3 rewards students who can write French for a specific purpose.
How ATAR STAR approaches Section 3 in VCE French
At ATAR STAR, Section 3 writing is taught through prompt execution.
Students learn to identify audience, purpose, style and text type before writing. They practise building relevant content, using appropriate structures, developing ideas with depth, and proofreading for accuracy. They also learn how to adapt prepared vocabulary to unfamiliar prompts without producing memorised responses.
The 2025 Examination Report confirms why this matters. High-scoring students did not simply write more French.
They wrote the right French for the task.