The recurring examiner frustration
One of the quiet through-lines in the 2024 Physics examiner’s report is not about wrong formulas or weak maths. It is about misaligned answers.
Students frequently demonstrate correct physics, but not the physics the question required.
From an examiner’s perspective, this is one of the most frustrating outcomes. The understanding is there. The execution is not.
How this happens on otherwise straightforward questions
Many Physics questions are carefully scoped. They specify a system, a condition, or a limitation. They may ask for a comparison, a justification, or an explanation under stated circumstances.
Students often ignore that framing.
They provide a correct explanation in general terms, rather than answering within the conditions set by the question. The response sounds knowledgeable, but it drifts.
In marking, drift costs marks.
A common pattern: correct principle, wrong focus
The examiner’s report repeatedly notes responses where students identified a valid physical principle but failed to apply it to the specific scenario.
For example, students correctly referenced Newton’s laws, conservation of energy, or electromagnetic principles, but then explained them generically rather than using them to account for the behaviour described.
The issue is not that the principle was wrong. It’s that the answer never landed on the question.
Why context is doing more work than students realise
Physics questions rarely ask students to explain everything about a phenomenon.
They ask students to explain this situation, this setup, or this change.
When students ignore contextual details — such as constraints, orientations, or given conditions — they often default to a broader explanation than required. The result is an answer that sounds impressive but earns fewer marks.
Specificity is not optional in Physics. It is the mark scheme.
How comparison questions quietly trap capable students
The examiner’s report highlights comparison tasks as another weak point.
Students often describe two situations accurately, but never actually compare them. They write two mini-explanations side by side and assume the contrast is obvious.
It isn’t.
Comparison requires a relationship. Something must be greater, smaller, more significant, or more effective because of a stated reason. Without that explicit comparison, marks are capped.
When “explain” does not mean “describe”
Another repeated issue is misunderstanding command terms.
Students frequently interpret “explain” as “describe what happens”. In Physics, explanation requires a causal link.
The examiner’s report makes it clear that describing an outcome without explaining the physical reason behind it does not earn full marks. The why must be explicit.
If a response stops at observation, it stops short of scoring.
Why extra information rarely helps
Some students try to protect themselves by writing more.
They include additional physics, extended explanations, or tangential ideas in the hope that something will pick up marks. According to the report, this strategy is ineffective.
Extra information does not compensate for misalignment. In some cases, it makes the response harder to follow and obscures the relevant reasoning.
Physics rewards precision, not padding.
A subtle but costly error: answering the stem, not the task
In multi-part questions, students sometimes answer the introductory information rather than the actual task.
They engage with the scenario, restate it, or explain background physics, but never quite respond to what they were asked to determine, justify, or evaluate.
The examiner can only award marks for what the task specifies. Engagement alone is not enough.
What high-scoring responses do instead
Strong responses stay tightly tethered to the wording of the question.
They identify exactly what is being asked, select only the physics that is needed, and apply it directly to the context given. They do not explain more than necessary, and they do not explain less.
Their answers feel economical and deliberate.
A simple discipline that prevents this error
Before writing, strong students pause and ask one question:
“What is this question actually asking me to do?”
Not what topic it’s from.
Not which formula it reminds them of.
But what the task requires on this page.
That pause alone prevents a large proportion of avoidable errors.
What this means for Physics preparation
Physics preparation needs to include practice in interpreting tasks, not just solving problems.
Students should practise identifying the command term, the scope, and the context before writing a single line of working or explanation. Without that skill, even strong physics knowledge can be misdirected.
Working with ATAR STAR
ATAR STAR Physics tutoring places heavy emphasis on question interpretation and alignment.
We train students to read Physics questions the way examiners write them, identify exactly what is being assessed, and shape their responses accordingly. The goal is not to know more physics, but to use it more accurately.
If your Physics answers are often “nearly right” but not scoring as they should, the issue is often not understanding — it’s direction. ATAR STAR helps students learn how to aim their knowledge properly, every time.