March 30, 2025 by Doug McCurry from BooBook Education

What do you think of the Section A comments in the VCAA English Exam Report for 2024?

With the introduction of the new Section B this is probably one of the most anticipated exam report of the last 25 years. Teachers and students will look to this report to learn more about Section B in particular.

This analyses of the English exam is done by the BooBook partners. It is not based on marking the exam for the VCAA. We would not be able to publish such an analysis if we had been markers. Markers are not supposed to divulge the insider knowledge they gained as markers.

We are very experienced exam writers and markers (and are currently working for BooBook as such) and we draw on this experience in the comments that follow. We aim to offer an unconstrained analysis of the exam and Examiners' Report.

The VCAA would say that the assessment process is transparent because the criteria for assessment are on the exam paper, and that the marking takes place according to the published Expected Qualities for English. But this published material is blandly uninformative.

The Report of 2024 is a marked change and improvement on those of the recent past. In Section A it is much more descriptive and analytical than previous years and in the Section C comments are clearly and rigorously analytical.

The tables of marks for each question are much as they have been in the past. The new section B produces much the same mean and range of scores as the other sections. The EAL Section C is lower that other sections. The system sets out to produce these results for each section and it has done so.

The data about the percentage of responses to each Section A text that has been given in past is not included in this report, although some of it is included in the EAL report. One supposes the results would be similar for English.

Rainbow's End has been remarkably popular with EAL students, and Oedipus continues to draw a surprising amount of attention for such an ancient and confronting text. The average score for Rainbow's End was substantially lower than for Oedipus.

Section A

The comments on this section of the report are a remarkable improvement on recent years. There are six tables that are admirably explicit descriptions of what the examiners take to be the issues in Section A. One hopes the specificity of the tables on Sections A and C are an indication of what is to come for Section B in future.

The approach now  taken in the text questions

The following in the introductory comments on Section A is a new statement of the approach currently taken in the text questions.

These topics invited students to consider the ideas and/or values that the author presented in relation to the topic.

This is a very particular focus for text study that is shown in the exam questions and the comments on them. We are referred to the exam criteria and the expected Qualities for Section A which are summarised as:

• the capacity to create a reading of the text's ideas/values
• the capacity to sequence and substantiate ideas relevant to the topic; and
• the capacity to communicate these ideas.

The first of these points might seem obvious and innocuous but notice how it contracts the first dot point of the published criteria.

• knowledge and understanding of the text, its structure, and the ideas, concerns and values it explores

The emphasis on 'ideas/values' (rather than 'the text') that is everywhere in this section of the report is significant, and it is reflected in the exam questions and possibly reflected in the exam marking. Sixteen of the twenty text set for this part of the exam are fiction, and the reading of fiction is not readily reduced to 'a reading of text's ideas/values'.

Removing context, plot and character from questions

No characters are named in the questions of 2024, but authors are named in a few cases. No incidents or actions are referred to in the questions. This removal of context, plot and character from questions about fiction texts in the exam questions contrasts markedly with questions in the past.

These ideas/values questions take an oblique slant on the fictional texts. It seems that questions are to be generalisations about context, ethos and the views and values of a writer rather than about characters and actions. It is suggested in the comments that questions about characters are seen as narrow, and questions about actions are stigmatised as merely discussion of 'facts' rather than of 'the strategies/vehicles the author had used to convey ideas'.

The exam questions are explicitly framed as about concepts and the relationship between concepts, or about how concepts/ideas are introduced, developed and 'conveyed by the author'.

There is a kind of awkward generality about the section A questions in the current paper because they do not mention characters or what happens in the story. There is even a question strategy presented in the report that is described as having meaning: 'By the 'silence' in a proposition (or quote)'. The example question of this strategy is about Things Fall Apart which refers to 'a man' (bolded in the report) which can only be taken as referring to Okonkwo but he is not to be named.

'Why should a man suffer so grievously for an offence he had committed inadvertently?'
In Things Fall Apart the consequences of actions are rarely fair.
Do you agree?

The quote from the text (in this paper in single rather than double quotes) used before this question is doubly awkward because it refers to an incident years before the violent climax of the story and as such does not focus discussion of the buildup and climax of the story.

As well as an example of a significant 'silence', this question is also an example of the attempt to both diversify and narrow the focus of the questions by adding quotes as preambles or adjuncts. As we will see below, this oblique way of referring to characters and actions makes some questions complicated, confusing and unwieldy.

ChatGPT gave the following appropriate and accurate summary of the commentary given about text questions in the report on Section A.

• The examiners highlighted that strong responses demonstrated an ability to interpret the nuances of the topic, construct a clear analytical argument, substantiate ideas effectively, and communicate with precision.
• Students who engaged critically with the implications of the prompt and used strategic sequencing of ideas performed best.
• The understanding of textual strategies, rather than just content, was crucial in higher-scoring responses.

The tables in the report about Section A present:

• three types of topics (proposition, quotation, and direct question);
• three invitations (analysis of, relationship between and development of concepts);
• a list of verbs used in topics; and
• strategies that enhanced or limited responses.

The last pair of tables about strategies that enhance and limit responses have rows for:

• topic interpretation;
• argument construction;
• argument substantiation;
• capacity to resolve the topic; and
• capacity to communicate ideas.

It is particularly noticeable that what are called the 'invitations' of the topics emphasize concepts rather than the 'facts' of context, character and action.

The list of terms used in the 2024 paper points out a new term, 'interplay', that is used in the paper. It seems to be a favoured word because it appears six times in other parts of the report.

The evolution of text questions and a narrowing of the scope

The evolution of text question in recent years is made clear in this report. In the past a range of kinds of propositions were offered followed by 'Discuss.' or by 'Do you agree?'

The propositions could be about characters, actions, themes of some combination of the three.

Now there are three kinds of questions called invitations. There are questions about concepts, the relationships between concepts or about how concepts are introduced and developed. This is a significant narrowing of the scope of the questions.

The first two kinds of questions are straight forward. They are what would be usually thought of as thematic questions rather than character and plot questions.

Professor Google tells us that a theme in fiction is more than just the subject matter of a story, it is the author's perspective or opinion on the subject.

A "theme" in a novel is the central idea, message, or underlying meaning that the author is trying to convey through the story, often exploring universal concepts about life, society, or human nature, which is expressed through the characters, plot, and setting of the narrative; it's essentially the "big takeaway" the reader should understand from the story.

One wonders how many writers would accept this Google gloss of what they do and mean in writing fiction.

Google definition of a theme gives a good summary of the focus of the current exam questions. The questions are attempting to focus on 'universal concepts about life, society, or human nature' without reference to 'the characters, plot, and setting of the narrative'. This is a radical change in the possible range of questions, and it is not without problems.

In the past there were two kinds of invitation following a proposition: the direction 'Discuss.' or the 'Do you agree?' question. It was common for there to seem no reason why one 'invitation' was offered rather than another. It is not clear why some questions invite a global discussion but other questions ask for agreement or some degree of disagreement.

The invitation to discuss is the most general and it can be taken to allow any kind of propositional commentary, other than the so-called 'creative response'. The question for teachers and students about such an invitation is what kind of discursive response is more valued by markers. The current report suggests that conceptual discussion is preferred.

The invitation to agree allows the possibility of qualification or disagreement with a proposition. The student response to this invitation should be a kind of argument justifying agreement or explaining why there is qualification or disagreement.

We are told in the report it is not acceptable to disagree and deal with an alternative issue or reading instead of the one presented. The reasons for qualifying or disagreeing have to be the focus and substance of the discussion.

Questions have changed so that there are now questions as such and there are more propositions preceded by quotations. The first innovation is straight forward but the increasing use of a quotation is becoming problematic.

My Brilliant Career and the problem of quotations

This format can cause complications and problems as we can see in the question, as an example, in which the word interplay in introduced.

'It is worth being poor once or twice in a lifetime ...'
Discuss the interplay between wealth and poverty in My Brilliant Career.

Such a quotation before a proposition proses the test for students of knowing who made the statement and why. It could be the comment of a character, a narrator or the author, and who makes the comment and why changes its substance and significance. In the case of My Brilliant Career, we can't be sure about the status of the comment in terms of ideas/values as the narrator is not the author. Whether Sybylla is the avatar of the writer or a persona is uncertain at different points in the novel and in general.

Sybylla makes some wild and contradictory statements in the novel, and we often feel there is some distance between the narrator and the author. (The author knows they are wild statements.)

We also have to wonder how the quote is to stand in relation to the direction to discuss 'the interplay between wealth and poverty'. Given that it is hard to know what the quote means or signifies out of context, can we effectively ignore it and just discuss the 'invitation'?
Is there a premium for students who know who made the statement, when and why?
Is there a penalty for those who can't contextualise the quote, and just deal with the proposition?

Here is the quote in context.

In poverty you can get at the real heart of people as you can never do if rich. People are your friends from pure friendship and love, not from sponging self-interestedness. It is worth being poor once or twice in a lifetime just to experience the blessing and heart restfulness of a little genuine reality in the way of love and friendship.

These comments are an instance of Sybylla's hyperbole and contrast markedly with the way she consistently deplores poverty and enjoys wealth, and the comfort and culture that goes with wealth.

Sybylla is full of conflicts and contradictions. She loathes the peasant life because she is not a peasant, but at times she praises the peasants and their virtues and wishes she was more like them. If we don't know the context of the quote, does the question expect us to take seriously the idea that we can only know love and friendship if we are poor or have had an experience of being poor? Are we to believe that Franklin thinks that poverty brings 'the blessing and heartrestfulness of a little genuine reality in the way of love and friendship'?

The simple answer to this question is that Franklin (and Sybylla also when she is being sensible) does not believe poverty is any kind of blessing.

Leaving aside the context and the rhetorical nature of the pronouncement offered as a concept for discussion, what can we take the idea of an 'interplay' between wealth and poverty to mean in the novel?

Here are the mere facts.
The story is based on the differences between poverty and wealth.
The Melvyns go from wealth to poverty.
Much of the story is about the horrors of poverty and the benefits of wealth.
Poverty can be genteel as in the case of Sybylla's mother or crude as in the case of the McSwatts.
Wealth brings comfort, refinement and pleasure.
The Beechams are wealthy, but Harry loses his wealth which be bears with fortitude and then has it miraculously returned to him.

What is supposed to be the interplay between wealth and poverty here? The rich can become poor but retain their gentility as in Mrs Melvyn’s case or their wholesomeness and strength as in Harry’s case?

The poor can become richer but remain crude as in the McSwatt’s case?
If this is the substance of the story, then the question is about the difference (not the interplay) between the refinement (that comes from wealth?) and crudeness that may be rich or poor.

As well as Harry being all virtue and wholesomeness without being poor, Sybylla’s grandmother, Aunt Helen and Uncle Julius have not been poor, and they do not seem to lack the blessing of genuine love and friendship. Grandma, Helen, Julius and Harry are seen as having greatly benefitted rather than missing out, from the gracious and cultured lifestyle that their wealth brings.

How does one get an ‘interplay’ from these basic facts without remembering the passing, casual and inconsistent claim that without knowing poverty one does not experience (and know?) genuine love and friendship?

The quote is difficult to give meaning without the context, and the ‘invitation’ has no meaning in terms of the story itself. It seems that the conceptual discussion of wealth and poverty (however they are imagined to ‘interplay’) and the question offers only one not very helpful ‘entry point’ for discussing the novel. And one has to discuss only that entry point because of the nature of the question.

Analysing the question’s proposition with sub questions- Requiem for a Beast

The limitations of these conceptual or quote-and-conceptual questions can be seen in the three examples of invitations used in the report from 2024.

In the table about topic invitations we are told that topics might ask students to consider two or more concepts and the validity of a specified relationship between the terms. We are also told that the responses can challenge the relationship but must address the ideas presented by the author in relation to the nominated concepts.

Requiem for a Beast is used as the text for an example of a topic that requires the consideration of ‘two or more concepts and the validity of a specified relationship between the terms’.

‘Tell her your story – I mean your own story.’
Requiem for a Beast suggests that shared stories are vital for connecting people and communities.
Discuss.

This question requires agreement and exposition: there is no room for argument.
Let us analyse the proposition with sub-questions.
When are stories shared in the text?
What stories are shared?
How do stories connect people and communities?
In what sense and how are these connections vital?

Again let us review the basic facts.
In this text there are two stories, that of the narrator and his parents and that of the stolen Indigenous woman and her community.
The first story involves the dissatisfaction of the narrator as a child, the distress of his father remembering an incident in the past, and the narrator’s experience as a ringer with the beast.
The second story is about being stolen and the place of Indigenous stockmen.
The two stories come together after the narrator’s experience with the beast, when he wants to communicate with the Indigenous elder and her community about the boy who went missing in his father’s time as a ringer.
In the quote preceding the proposition Pete, the Indigenous ringer, says to the narrator that: ‘Aboriginal families are all pretty well connected’.
The narrator wants to connect with the elder and the family of the missing boy.
He feels it is vital to tell what happened, as a kind of reconciliation and redress.
In the quote Pete encourages the narrator to tell his own story to the elder, as shown in the text itself. The question asks for a discussion of sharing stories that does not happen during the story but that seems to be proposed for the future.

This question is very difficult because it requires the remembering of a good deal of specific knowledge of what is told and shown at the end of part four. And the substance and significance of Pete’s statement about stories is complicated. The complexity of the quote added to the proposition makes this question,  about a complicated text, very complicated.

Requiem for a Beast is also used as an example of how ‘concept/ideas’ are explored in a text ‘both by discussing the way ideas were introduced and developed and by exploring the way in which they were conveyed by the author.’

How does Ottley explore the power of both guilt and forgiveness?

‘How’ questions

There are a few of these ‘how’ questions in contemporary VCAA exams, and they are not easy to construe.

Does the how question mean no more than:

Ottley shows the power of both guilt and forgiveness.
Discuss. / Do you agree?

It is not clear how the direction to show ‘how’ something is done is different from other invitations.
We are told that a ‘how question’ directs students to discuss the way ideas are ‘introduced and developed and by exploring the way in which they were conveyed by the author’.
Is a ‘how question’ just an exposition questions by other means?
Or is a ‘how’ discussion supposed to focus on techniques or the characteristics of a form?
Should a ‘how question’ encourage or does it require discussion of narrative, poetic or filmic techniques for instance?
Is it a question about how a story is told as conceptually distinct from the story that is  told?

The use of image, word and music in Requiem for a Beast is certainly an unusual approach. The story is told using a comprehensive range of techniques, but it is very difficult to see or explain how the multimodal presentation shapes the story told. The medium is not the message.

It would be helpful to have some discussion in future reports about whether and how responses to ‘how questions’ are to differ from responses to conceptual questions. Or is there no real difference between how and conceptual questions?

The assumption behind the current questions seems to be that the best way of approaching texts is through the concepts/ideas that are ‘explored’ in the text. Most questions are based on concepts and ask students to ‘drill into’ and discuss one (or more) specified aspect(s) of the concept.

Oedipus the King

The following question is offered as an example of this kind of question.

In Oedipus the King all who deserve it are justly punished.
Do you agree?  (Words are bolded in the report but not in the exam.)

As usual this question is best analysed by breaking it into sub-questions. The question is actually about the notion of punishment.
Who is punished in Oedipus the King?
Who does the punishing?
Are those who are punished justly punished because they deserve it?
These sub-questions reveal the awkwardness of the question.

In a general sense everyone, from the citizens of Athens in the chorus to Oedipus’s children, is punished. It is a tragedy: all are punished.

The question is awkward and in a sense prejudicial, in using the words ‘justly’ and ‘punished’ about what happens in Oedipus the King. The term punishment is awkward because it is not punishment in the normal sense, as what matters in the play is the self-inflicted punishment of Jocasta and Oedipus. And adding the issue of the justice of this kind of punishment makes the question even more awkward.

Rather than being about the justice of the punishment of Oedipus and Jocasta, the question would more appropriately be about whether Oedipus and Jocasta should have punished themselves and why they did so.

The question of whether punishment is just in Oedipus is not a useful ‘access point’ for discussing the play. It is likely to end up in a discussion of the fate and the gods, and that is not a good way of dealing with the play as experienced by modern audiences. Concluding that the play is about obedience to the gods does not explain why the play retains its power after so long in such a different context and culture as our own.

The concepts of punishment and justice are not helpful for giving an account of Oedipus the King.
But the assumptions of the conceptual Section A approach would seem to reject the idea that students should give an account or reading of Oedipus the King. The question poses the problem to students of applying the concepts of punishment and justice in relation to Oedipus the King. In terms of punishment, a question about why they punish themselves is a more meaningful one in our time.

The assumption of the question is that the play is about justice. This is a problematic assumption.
The question takes the play to be either about whether we accept the justice of the gods, or more appropriately whether we see what happens as just or deserved, whatever the means of exacting justice.

Does it seem just that Oedipus, Jocasta and their children are punished?
Or more appropriately, is it understandable (and in that sense is it justified) for Oedipus and Jocasta punish themselves and their children so brutally?

In unknowingly killing his father Oedipus sets off the events that lead to disaster. His incestuous marriage is unintentional and a fate he tried to avoid. Hence, he cannot be held responsible and found guilty in the incestuous marriage that leads to his self-inflicted punishment.

Jocasta can be said to be guilty in her initial involvement in the proposed killing of her child.
Like Oedipus, she attempts to escape the prophecy, and her incestuous marriage is unwitting.
The play is horrifying in that Jocasta kills herself and that Oedipus savagely injures himself and lives on in miserably exiled vulnerability, because of what they do unknowingly and unintentionally.

The horror is self-inflicted and so it is not a matter of just punishment. We can understand their revulsion given the near universal taboo on incest that prompts the actions of Oedipus and Jocasta, but we do not think of it in terms of justice. We experience their situation and the most powerful of taboos with horror and pity.

If you take the set question too literally it leads to the concept of justice rather than an experience of the play. This conceptual approach to fiction is awkward and inappropriate. Rather than making arguments about concepts, reading fiction is better thought of as experiencing and giving an account of what happens and why and how it impacts on us, the audience, than an analysis or debate about concepts such as justice and punishment.

The story is about what happens, who does it or who it is done to and why. To give a reading and an interpretation of a story is to describe and explain these things. Giving a reading or an interpretation is not about conceptualising the story (nominalising it as a theme?) and drilling into that concept or relating different concepts. This conceptual approach to text questions is focussed on themes as such (the notions of punishment and justice) without direct reference (remaining significantly silent about?) context, plot and character.

Resolving the topic

Which brings us to another new way of discussing exam questions and texts introduced in this exam report and that is the concept of ‘resolving the topic’.

This Oedipus the King question is discussed under the heading of ‘Capacity to resolve the topic’.
We are told that resolving the topic is a matter of ‘showing an understanding of the interplay between the author’s context, audience(s) and purpose in relation to the topic’.

This discussion uses the conclusion of a student script to show the resolving of a topic and, thus presumably, a high level completion of a response.

There is a sense that no human, no matter your accolades or past achievements, or even perception from others can succumb to their ego and lose touch with reality. Sophocles imparts to us that every being must understand their existential value in the world they find themselves in, and must be careful in attempting to take self willed action undermining the natural order, as you will find yourself measured and found wanting with just punishment. ‘Oedipus the King’ is not a play that demonstrates the atrocities, but rather the tragic enlightenment of the fundamentally ignorant …

We can’t assess the nature or adequacy of this conclusion to an essay because we do not know what is meant by key phrases that might have been well explained and elaborated in the preceding text.
What does it mean for every individual to understand their existential value?
It is not readily apparent how the concept of ‘existential value’ applies to Oedipus.
And to gloss the moral of the story as a warning for individuals to be ‘careful in attempting to take self-willed action undermining the natural order, as you will find yourself measured and found wanting with just punishment’ prompts more questions than it resolves.

In what sense does Oedipus take self-willed actions that undermine the natural order?
Who measures Oedipus and Jocasta, finds them wanting in what way, and justly punishes them?
These statements in the quoted comments do not ‘resolve the topic’, and the uncertainty of the claims makes clear the awkwardness of the concepts presented by the set question.

In quite a few questions the concepts introduced as the entry point cause similar problems and impede students from offering a reading of the text. Rather than focussing on generalised concepts, exam question are better focused on what happens, to whom and why in the story.

From mere story-telling, to offering a reading  

One suspects that the proponents of this conceptual approach would see discussion of what happens and why as mere storytelling with character sketches. Students approaching what happens through characters is not a problem that has to be prevented, but mere storytelling can be a problem. This problem is not satisfactorily avoided by questions that ignore plot and character and ask for inferred conclusions about the views and values of authors.

Students have to be emphatically warned against the danger of mere storytelling, but limiting questions to concepts and themes impedes and limits students from offering a reading of what happens and why in a text. Questions that encourage students to offer (without mere storytelling) their reading of a text will raise matters (what happened?) that need explanation and explication (why?) that adds up to a reading of the text from the student.

Given the awkward slant of the current text questions that deal with conceptual themes as such, students have to consider how they can meaningfully relate such questions to what happens and why in the story. The value of their response should be judged (and one hopes it is judged) on the quality of the reading they offer of the text.

More on What do you think of the Section B and C comments in the VCAA English Exam Report for 2024?