What the 2024 exam showed about “calculate”, “determine”, “explain” and “justify”
The problem students don’t realise they’re having
One of the clearest themes running through the 2024 Physics exam was not weak physics, but weak task interpretation.
Students often knew exactly what topic they were in. They recognised the content area immediately. And then they answered the question as if all command words meant the same thing.
They don’t.
In Physics, the difference between calculate, determine, explain and justify is not semantic. It is structural. And misunderstanding that difference quietly caps marks, even when the physics itself is sound.
“Calculate” means show the physics, not just the number
In the 2024 paper, a recurring issue on calculation questions was students writing a final value with little or no supporting working.
This is where capable students were punished hardest.
A calculation question is not asking whether you can reach the answer. It is asking whether you can demonstrate the reasoning that leads to it. Marks are allocated to steps: identifying the correct relationship, substituting correctly, handling units and direction, and arriving at a justified result.
When students skipped steps because “it’s obvious”, they left marks on the table. The examiner cannot credit thinking that isn’t visible.
“Determine” is not a softer version of “calculate”
This was one of the most misinterpreted command words in the exam.
When a question asked students to determine a value, many responded as though it were a one-line calculation. The problem is that determine often implies decision-making as well as calculation.
Students may need to decide which quantities are relevant, which assumptions apply, or which physical model fits the situation before any mathematics begins.
In several questions, students jumped straight to an equation without demonstrating that decision process. The maths looked neat. The physics reasoning was invisible.
Why “explain” questions exposed shallow understanding
The 2024 exam included several explanation-style questions where students described what happened rather than explaining why it happened.
This is a critical distinction.
An explanation in Physics must identify a cause, not just an outcome. It must refer to forces, fields, energy transfer, interactions, or model predictions. Describing motion or behaviour without naming the physical mechanism behind it does not meet the task.
The examiner feedback made it clear that many students stopped at observation. They told the story of what occurred, but never identified the physics driving it.
“Justify” demands evidence, not repetition
Justification questions were another consistent source of lost marks.
Students often restated part of the question, or repeated a claim using different words, believing that emphasis counted as justification. It doesn’t.
To justify in Physics, students must link evidence to a conclusion. That evidence might come from data, a calculation, a comparison, or a physical principle. Without that link, the response reads as assertion rather than reasoning.
Several 2024 responses named the correct option but failed to justify it properly, resulting in partial or zero credit.
Where command words collide with data questions
One of the most damaging misunderstandings occurred when students were asked to use data to justify or explain a conclusion.
Many simply described the graph or table. They identified trends accurately, but never used those trends as evidence for a claim.
In these cases, students technically “used” the data, but not in the way the question required. The examiner commentary makes it clear that data must support an argument, not sit alongside it.
Why writing more didn’t help
Some students attempted to hedge against misinterpretation by writing more.
They included extra formulas, extra explanations, and extra facts. According to the examiner’s feedback, this rarely improved outcomes. In some cases, it actively obscured the relevant reasoning.
Physics marking is targeted. If the response doesn’t align with the command word, extra content is ignored.
What high-performing students did instead
Strong students treated command words as instructions, not suggestions.
They adjusted the structure of their response to match the task. Calculations showed steps. Explanations named causes. Justifications linked evidence to conclusions. Determinations showed decision-making.
Their answers didn’t just contain physics. They followed directions.
A practical self-check for students
Before answering any Physics question, students should pause and ask:
- Am I being asked to find a value, or decide between options?
- Do I need to explain why something happens, or prove that it does?
- Is evidence required, or is calculation enough?
That pause often prevents an entire class of avoidable errors.
What this means for Physics preparation
Effective Physics preparation must include practice with command-word discipline.
Students need to learn how the structure of their answer changes depending on what the question is asking them to do. Without that skill, even strong conceptual understanding can be misdirected.
This is why students often feel they were “unlucky” on exam day. In reality, they misread the task.
Working with ATAR STAR
ATAR STAR Physics tutoring explicitly trains students to decode command words and shape their responses accordingly.
We work through past-style questions to show how marks are allocated, how responses are structured, and how small shifts in wording demand different kinds of answers. The aim is not to add content, but to sharpen execution.
If your Physics answers are often correct but inconsistently rewarded, the issue is rarely knowledge. It is alignment. And that is exactly what ATAR STAR helps students master.