Effectiveness questions are where Unit 4 most clearly exposes weak execution.
They are also where students most often believe they have answered well, only to receive fewer marks than expected. The responses are usually fluent, content-rich and confident. They explain what a strategy involves. They outline its aims. They describe who it targets.
And yet, they still fall short.
The reason is simple: students explain action when the question is asking for outcome.
What students think “effectiveness” means
When students see the word effectiveness, many interpret it as an invitation to describe a strategy in detail.
They explain what the strategy does, how it is implemented, and why it exists. In aid questions, this often becomes a description of how aid is delivered. In global development questions, it becomes an explanation of what a goal is trying to achieve.
These explanations are usually accurate.
They are also not enough.
What effectiveness actually requires
Effectiveness is not about intention. It is about result.
An effective strategy is one that produces measurable improvement in health or human development. That improvement must be stated clearly.
If a response does not explain what changes as a result of the strategy, it has not answered the question fully.
This is where many responses stop too early.
A common pattern in low- and mid-range responses
In many effectiveness questions, students describe features such as accessibility, sustainability or targeting of vulnerable groups. They explain why these features are important.
What they fail to do is connect those features to outcomes.
For example, students may explain that a strategy improves access to services, but never state what that improved access leads to. They may describe education initiatives without explaining how they translate into improved human development.
The logic is implied, but not completed.
In Unit 4, implied outcomes do not score as well as explicit ones.
Why describing aid often replaces evaluating it
Aid questions are particularly vulnerable to this problem.
Students often explain the type of aid being used or the organisation delivering it. They describe what aid is intended to address. Sometimes they even identify appropriate features of effective aid.
But they do not show whether the aid works.
Effectiveness requires students to explain how aid leads to reduced mortality, improved access to resources, increased participation in education or employment, or improved living standards.
Without that final step, the response remains descriptive.
How students lose marks even when they mention outcomes
Some students do mention outcomes, but only in general terms.
They state that health improves or human development increases without explaining how or why. These responses sit higher than purely descriptive ones, but still lose marks because the reasoning is thin.
Strong responses explain the pathway. They show how the strategy produces the outcome.
Outcome statements without justification are not enough for top marks.
Why this mistake is so persistent
This error persists because explanation has been rewarded earlier in the course.
Students are used to gaining marks for explaining concepts clearly and thoroughly. Unit 4 quietly changes the rules. It demands judgement, not narration.
Students who do not adjust their approach continue to explain well, but score less well.
This feels unfair to them, but it is consistent.
What high-scoring effectiveness responses do differently
High-scoring responses treat effectiveness as a cause-and-effect problem.
They identify the strategy.
They explain how it operates.
They state the outcome it produces.
They justify why that outcome improves health or human development.
Each step is explicit. Nothing is left for the examiner to infer.
These responses feel purposeful rather than padded.
A quick self-check for students
If an effectiveness response could be improved by adding “which results in…” or “therefore leading to…”, it is probably unfinished.
If the response explains what something does but not what it achieves, it is probably descriptive.
If the outcome is stated but not justified, it is probably mid-range.
What this means for Unit 4 preparation
Students preparing for Unit 4 need to practise finishing their thinking.
They should practise turning descriptions into evaluations and explanations into outcomes. This means fewer rehearsed responses and more deliberate application.
Effectiveness questions are not harder. They are stricter.
Working with ATAR STAR
ATAR STAR trains Unit 4 Health and Human Development students to handle effectiveness questions the way they are actually marked.
Students learn how to move from explanation to evaluation, how to justify outcomes clearly, and how to avoid the common traps that cost marks on aid and global development questions.
This approach is particularly valuable for capable students whose answers sound strong but do not consistently reach the top of the mark range.
If effectiveness questions feel like a weak point, the issue is rarely knowledge. It is knowing how to finish.