June 2026
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development exam showed that Section A was not a test of vague topic knowledge.
It was a test of precise applied understanding.
Students were asked to define, outline, describe, explain, analyse, justify and discuss. These command terms required different levels of response. Some questions needed a clear definition. Some needed comparison. Some needed stimulus evidence. Some needed cause-and-effect chains. Some needed links to health and wellbeing, human development, sustainability, equity or health outcomes.
The report shows that many students had relevant knowledge, but did not always express it in the way required for full marks.
They defined a dimension without showing the relationship.
They named a factor without explaining the variation.
They referred to healthy eating without naming a specific dietary change.
They described an initiative without linking it to the social model of health.
They named an HDI indicator imprecisely.
They used a stimulus generally rather than applying it directly.
In Section A, marks were often lost in the gap between knowing and answering.
“Outline” still required enough detail
Question 1a asked students to outline social health and wellbeing and use an example to show how it can be dynamic.
This question was worth three marks. A strong response needed more than a short phrase.
Students needed to show that social health and wellbeing involves the quality of interactions and relationships with others, such as relationships with family and friends, supportive networks and the ability to adapt to different social situations. They then needed to show that dynamic means changing.
The example mattered.
A response could explain that someone may have a strong friendship group and therefore experience positive social health and wellbeing, but after moving to another state they may lose that support network, reducing their sense of connection and belonging.
This is what a good outline can do.
It gives the main features, then applies them.
Relationships between dimensions needed two-way links
Question 1b was one of the clearest examples of students needing to connect ideas rather than list them.
The question asked students to describe the relationship between the physical and mental dimensions of health and wellbeing, with reference to how each dimension impacts the other.
The report stated that full marks required students to show both directions:
physical health and wellbeing affecting mental health and wellbeing
mental health and wellbeing affecting physical health and wellbeing
This means a response needed two clear links.
For example, good physical health and wellbeing may allow a person to participate in sport or school more easily, increasing confidence and self-esteem, which promotes mental health and wellbeing. In the other direction, strong mental health and wellbeing may increase motivation to exercise or socialise, promoting physical fitness and energy levels.
Students who simply defined physical health and wellbeing, then defined mental health and wellbeing, did not answer the relationship question.
The key word was relationship.
Comparison questions needed both sides
Question 2a asked students to outline one similarity and one difference between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating and the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating.
The report noted that students could use “both guides” when outlining similarities. But for differences, students needed to actually compare the two guides.
A strong similarity could be:
Both guides visually represent the five food groups and the proportions of those food groups that should make up the overall diet.
A strong difference could be:
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating includes cultural foods such as kangaroo and damper, whereas the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating uses more generic food examples.
The word whereas is useful because it forces comparison.
A weak difference would only describe one guide:
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide includes kangaroo.
That may be true, but it does not fully show how the two guides differ.
Respectful terminology mattered
The report also made an important note about terminology.
It stated that abbreviating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander is considered culturally inappropriate as best practice. While students were not penalised where general VCAA abbreviation conventions were followed, students were advised to avoid abbreviating the term.
This is worth highlighting because Health and Human Development requires respectful, inclusive and accurate language.
Students should write the full term Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rather than using abbreviations. This is not just about politeness. It reflects the subject’s emphasis on equity, respect, social justice and culturally appropriate practice.
Strong responses use language carefully.
Nutritional change had to be specific
Question 2b asked students to identify and describe how one environmental challenge affects the ability to bring about nutritional change.
The report noted that a common issue was referring generally to a decrease in “healthy eating” without naming a specific nutrient, food type or dietary change.
This is a major Section A lesson.
VCE Health and Human Development does not reward vague health language when the question asks for nutritional change.
Students needed to refer to specific changes such as increased consumption of foods high in sugar, salt or saturated fat, increased consumption of processed foods, decreased consumption of fruit and vegetables, decreased fibre intake or increased consumption of energy-dense foods.
For example, a student could write:
A lack of cooking facilities in the housing environment may make it difficult for people to prepare fresh meals using vegetables, lean meats and wholegrain foods. This may increase reliance on takeaway or microwavable meals, which are often higher in saturated fat, salt and sugar, making positive nutritional change more difficult.
This answer works because it links the environmental challenge to a specific dietary effect.
Data questions needed units
Question 3b asked students to outline one variation in self-assessed health status between two population groups using data from the graph.
The report noted two common issues:
students only referred to one population group
students did not use the correct unit, which was percentage
A strong response would write:
A greater percentage of population group B reported their self-assessed health status as excellent or very good, at approximately 60%, compared with approximately 40% of population group A.
This answer includes both groups, a direct comparison and the correct unit.
In data questions, numbers without units are weaker.
A student should not simply write 60 compared to 40. The graph showed percentages, so the response should say 60% compared with 40%.
Variations required explanation of both groups
Question 3c asked students to identify two sociocultural factors and describe how each could lead to the variation identified in part b.
The report noted that a common issue was only mentioning one population group.
This matters because the question asked about a variation between groups. Therefore, the answer had to explain why population group B might have a higher percentage of excellent or very good self-assessed health status compared with population group A, or why population group A might have a lower percentage compared with population group B.
A strong response might use income:
Population group B may have higher average income than population group A. This may allow more people in population group B to afford nutritious foods such as fruit and vegetables, supporting immune system functioning and reducing the risk of illness. As a result, more people in population group B may rate their health as excellent or very good compared with population group A.
The answer does not just name income.
It explains how income could create the difference.
Health outcomes needed specificity and direction
Question 4a asked students to explain two ways smoking or vaping may affect health outcomes in Australia.
The report noted that generic responses such as “smoking increases morbidity” or “smoking increases incidence” were not enough. Students needed to provide context, such as morbidity from lung cancer or incidence of cardiovascular disease.
Students also needed to state direction.
For example, “impacting life expectancy” was not enough. Students needed to say that smoking or vaping may decrease life expectancy.
A strong response might write:
Cigarettes and e-cigarettes can contain carcinogens that damage body cells as they divide, increasing the risk of cancer. This can increase the prevalence of lung cancer in Australia.
Another response might write:
Chemicals in cigarettes and e-cigarettes can contribute to plaque build-up in arteries, increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease and therefore increasing mortality from heart attacks.
The strongest responses linked the risk factor to a specific outcome and stated whether the outcome increased or decreased.
Initiatives needed to reflect the social model of health
Question 4b asked students to describe one initiative based on the social model of health and outline how it could reduce rates of smoking or vaping.
The report noted that students needed to show how the initiative reflected the social model of health.
This was not enough:
The Quit program helps people stop smoking.
A stronger answer explains the model:
The Quit program reflects the social model of health because it focuses on health promotion and prevention by providing education and support to help people quit smoking. It can also help individuals develop personal skills by giving them strategies to manage cravings, increasing the likelihood that they stop smoking or vaping.
The initiative had to be connected to one or more features of the social model, such as addressing broader determinants, focusing on prevention, targeting communities, reducing inequities or reflecting Ottawa Charter action areas.
Naming the initiative was only the beginning.
“Resource” answers needed a practical consequence
Question 4c asked how reducing smoking or vaping could act as a resource, both individually and nationally.
The report showed that students needed to link reduced smoking or vaping to an example of a resource.
For the individual, a response could explain that reduced smoking may reduce the risk of respiratory illness, allowing a person to attend work more regularly, earn income and afford necessities such as nutritious food, housing and health care.
For the nation, a response could explain that reduced smoking may reduce hospitalisations for lung cancer or cardiovascular disease, decreasing pressure on the health system and allowing government funds to be redirected to infrastructure, education or medical research.
The important point is the resource link.
Improved health is not automatically the end of the answer. Students needed to explain how improved health supports income, productivity, government spending, access to resources or social participation.
WHO objectives were often confused with the WHO goal
Question 5a asked students to identify one World Health Organization objective and explain how it was reflected in Zimbabwe’s cholera vaccination program.
The report noted a common error: students listed promote, provide and protect, which are components of the WHO goal, not WHO objectives.
This distinction mattered.
Relevant WHO objectives included:
rapidly detect and sustain an effective response to all health emergencies
prevent, mitigate and prepare for risks to health from all hazards
advance the primary health care approach and essential health system capacities for universal health coverage
improve health service coverage and financial protection to address inequity and gender inequalities
address health determinants and the main causes of ill health
Students did not need to reproduce the objective word-for-word, but they needed key terms.
A strong answer would link the cholera outbreak to a health emergency and explain that vaccinating more than 2.1 million Zimbabweans reflected an effective response.
HDI indicators needed exact names
Question 5b asked students to explain how the cholera vaccination program could affect one HDI indicator.
The report noted that students often named indicators incorrectly.
The correct HDI indicators are:
life expectancy at birth
expected years of schooling
mean years of schooling
Gross National Income per capita
A response that says life expectancy instead of life expectancy at birth is less precise. A response that says Gross National Income instead of Gross National Income per capita is also not exact.
A strong answer could explain:
Vaccinating 2.1 million people against cholera may reduce transmission and deaths from cholera. This can increase life expectancy at birth, contributing to a higher HDI for Zimbabwe.
The indicator must be correct.
The case study must also be used.
Sustainability answers needed “now and into the future”
Question 6 asked about social sustainability.
The report noted that students needed to show the ongoing nature of sustainability. This could include phrases such as now and into the future, continuing, ongoing or indefinitely.
This is a simple but powerful exam point.
If students discuss social sustainability without showing continuity over time, the answer may not fully address sustainability.
A strong response might write:
Improving gender equality now and into the future can allow more women to access education and employment, earn income and afford resources such as food, shelter and health care. This promotes human development by supporting a decent standard of living and expanding choices.
The phrase now and into the future helps show sustainability.
But it must be connected to human development.
Human development links needed meaning
Question 6b also required students to link social sustainability to human development.
The report noted that some students listed concepts of human development without demonstrating their meaning.
Human development concepts include:
access to knowledge
access to a decent standard of living
participation in decisions affecting lives
expanding choices
reaching full potential
living a long and healthy life
participating in the community
enhancing capabilities
A weak response might simply write:
This promotes human development because it increases choices.
A stronger response explains the choice:
Access to education now and into the future can allow children to develop literacy and numeracy skills, increasing access to knowledge and expanding future employment choices. This can help people reach their full potential and improve human development.
The human development concept needs to be unpacked.
Stimulus-based questions required stimulus evidence
Question 7 asked students to use material about VACCA’s Koorie Kids Playgroup.
The report stated that students were required to link to the stimulus material and should use quotation marks when drawing directly from the stimulus.
A strong answer might refer to children and parents “gathering with other Koorie families”, “hearing stories” or participating in cultural activities such as art, craft and dance. It would then explain how these activities promote health and wellbeing, such as by building meaningful relationships, strengthening cultural identity or creating a sense of belonging.
The stimulus needed to be part of the answer.
Students should not write a generic response about playgroups or community programs. The question asked about this program.
Medicare analysis had to address both equity and sustainability
Question 8 asked students to analyse the role of Medicare in promoting health outcomes in terms of sustainability and equity.
This required students to address both concepts.
For equity, students could explain that Medicare reduces financial barriers to essential health care, giving people access to services regardless of income. This can support earlier diagnosis and treatment, reducing morbidity and mortality.
For sustainability, students could explain that Medicare supports prevention and early intervention, potentially reducing long-term hospitalisations and pressure on the health system. A strong analysis could also acknowledge that maintaining universal access requires funding and careful management as population needs increase.
The word analyse required students to break down Medicare’s role, not merely define it.
Ottawa Charter responses needed action-area application
Question 12 asked students to discuss how health promotion could address low levels of physical activity among young Australians, using two Ottawa Charter action areas.
The stimulus gave important data: 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 strong response needed to apply action areas such as:
Build healthy public policy
Create supportive environments
Strengthen community action
Develop personal skills
Reorient health services
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 60-minute guideline.
Create supportive environments could involve developing safe bike paths, parks and recreational facilities, making it easier and safer for young people to be active.
The action area needed to be applied to the specific issue.
Defining the action area alone was not enough.
Section A rewarded chains of reasoning
Across the whole section, the best answers built clear chains.
A strong chain often looked like this:
factor or initiative → mechanism → health and wellbeing or human development impact → outcome.
For example:
Limited cooking facilities may increase reliance on takeaway foods high in saturated fat and salt, increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease and reducing physical health and wellbeing.
or:
Vaccination against cholera can reduce transmission of the disease, lowering deaths from cholera and increasing life expectancy at birth.
These chains show cause and effect.
They help the assessor see the student’s reasoning.
Short answers still need logic.
Why Section A errors happened
Section A errors often happened because students stopped too early.
They named a concept but did not explain it.
They described one group but did not compare both.
They used data but omitted the unit.
They named a factor but did not link it to the variation.
They mentioned health outcomes but did not specify the disease or direction.
They named an initiative but did not connect it to the model.
They named an HDI indicator incorrectly.
They used the stimulus only generally.
They defined an Ottawa Charter action area but did not apply it to the issue.
These mistakes are avoidable.
Students need to practise completing the answer, not just starting it.
What future Health and Human Development students should learn from 2025
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development exam shows that Section A preparation should focus on precise short-answer execution.
Students should practise:
- defining terms and applying them to examples
- showing two-way links between health and wellbeing dimensions
- making direct comparisons between models or groups
- using respectful terminology
- naming specific nutrients, foods and dietary changes
- using graph data with both groups and correct units
- explaining variations between population groups
- linking risk factors to specific health outcomes
- stating the direction of health outcome changes
- applying initiatives to features of the social model of health
- distinguishing WHO goals from WHO objectives
- naming HDI indicators exactly
- showing sustainability as ongoing
- unpacking human development concepts
- using stimulus material directly
- applying Ottawa Charter action areas to the specific health issue
These are the skills that turn knowledge into marks.
Section A rewards precision.
How ATAR STAR approaches Section A in Health and Human Development
At ATAR STAR, Section A is taught through command-term execution and applied reasoning.
Students learn to identify exactly what each question requires, select the relevant concept, use stimulus material, and build concise cause-and-effect chains. They practise writing responses that are specific enough to meet the mark allocation without becoming unnecessarily long.
The 2025 Examination Report confirms why this matters. High-scoring students did not simply know the content.
They answered with precision.