June 11, 2025 by Doug McCurry from BooBook Education
Are the Section B exam tasks going to differ in 2025?
The VCAA seems to be trying to improve communication about the mysteries of the examination process by adding a presentation by the Chief Assessor to the English assessment pages of the website.
Information is much needed by teachers and students on VCAA assessment processes, and one hopes to see more such information in the future.
The VCAA seems to be trying to improve communication about the mysteries of the examination process by adding a presentation by the Chief Assessor to the English assessment pages of the website.
Information is much needed by teachers and students on VCAA assessment processes, and one hopes to see more such information in the future.
The most significant piece of information in the presentation is the following hint about a change in the format of the Section B task in 2025.
It's tempting to assume that the format of the 2024 exam will be the format for future years, and it may be, but it's worth using the exam specifications when designing practise examination material for students. The exam specifications do not specify that there must be three pieces of stimulus material or that one must be an image and another a short verse. With this in mind, preparing students to have the confidence to use a range of stimulus material may well show foresight.
So, we would be wise to resist the temptation to think we know what the exam will be like and to consider a wider range of stimulus material in practising for the Section B of 2025.
Does this statement suggest that the presence of an image and a short verse in the task is optional?
What options are possible within the scope of the announced exam specification?
And why might other options be preferred in 2025 over the approach of 2024?
According to the specification the task will have stimulus material that has to be used along with the title as the basis of an exam response. As video is out, there is only a choice between stimulus in the form of text and static visual material.
The Chief Assessor says all went smoothly in the first marking of Section B and the performance of students satisfied expectations. In this case one wonders why the exam panel would not repeat the format of the exam sample and the paper of 2024 in 2025.
The Section B task is very adventurous and potentially very difficult to set and to assess. It is difficult, for instance, to get comparability in the difficulty of titles and stimulus set for the different Frameworks.
The four titles used in 2024 are quite different in the degree of constraints on responses they construct.
Country Title: 'Connections'
Protest Title: 'Resist and Persist'
Personal Journeys Title: 'Finding My Way'
Play Title: 'Time to Play'
The single word topic on Country is clearly the easiest to hang a response on.
‘Finding My Way’ is a very similar to the Framework title of Personal journeys and should be easy.
The title ‘Resist and Persist’ need not refer to Protest and would require some definite linkage to the Framework.
‘Time to play’ is almost a proposition about the Framework, and it could be seen as requiring analysis and even argument.
It is a challenge for the exam panel to get comparability between titles of one and three words. It is possible that the titles will be at least three or more words in future.
What are the problems with this task design?
Because the Framework is known in advance, students could hope to present a preprepared or even plagiarised response. There is no comment in the exam report, the presentation on the website or the VATE meet the assessors session on the difficult issue of what degree of reference is needed to a title and a stimulus. There has been no comment on how and how successfully students fulfilled the requirement to base their exam response on the set title and stimulus.
We are given no indication of whether the degree to which students focus on the title and stimulus has a substantial impact on the quality of the piece.
Was and how was and the degree to which students referred to the title and stimulus an issue in the assessment?
How were distinctions made in the assessment between substantive and substantial references to the title and stimulus and nominal and perfunctory references?
The set title and the stimulus should be specific enough to prevent or at least discourage such preprepared responses. Given the openness of some of the titles and stimulus of 2024 there is a good chance that a preprepared response can be hooked onto the task. And this is, of course, a significant issue for students, teachers and markers.
This issue is particularly difficult if the emphasis of the prepared response is on form and language rather than substantive discussion of the title and the Framework. It is noticeable that the nine stellar examples in the exam report are mostly typified by attention to form and language rather than substantive commentary on the Framework. There are actually few penetrating insights about the titles or the Frameworks in the stellar examples and copious evidence of an emphasis on form, ‘flair’ and ‘voice’ in the examples.
It seems likely that if there were difficulties in the status of the title and the stimulus in the exam task, then the tasks of 2025 will change to be significantly more specific than those of 2024. To mitigate problems with satisfactory and unsatisfactory reference to the title and stimulus and the possibility of preprepared responses, the task of 2025 could be more definite and more clearly propositional than in 2024.
In line with these speculations, the titles of 2025 could be a number of words (‘Connections’ as a title is much too open), probably more than three words, and the title would have a fairly definite propositional content. Going with a fairly definite title, the stimulus would also have to have a fairly definite relationship or range of possible relationships to the title.
The potentially problematic openness of the current tasks would be most acute with the visual stimulus. It would seem easiest to unload a preprepared response on the kind of visuals used in the tasks of 2024, and this openness would cause most difficulty of interpretation for the markers. It may be the case that visual stimulus is dropped for 2025 because it is too open and too easy to hook a response on to the kind of images used in 2024. Or more specific images could be used in 2025 that require a convergent or relevant use of the image in responses.
Images could have a more distinct relevance to the title and the Framework, but this opens up other difficulties. As has been noted in a number of exam reports on the images in Section C tasks, students have more difficulty giving a convergent (or relevant) reading of images and they are more likely to project their own preferences onto an image. This is a problem for markers. Is the student dealing with the image or composing their own task to suit a prepared answer?
What might a more specific version of the Section B task look like?
As it happens, the GAT Section B writing test is not unlike the English exam’s Section B in some respects. It is unlike the English task in that the topic is not known in advance (and this is a crucial difference) so the issue of prepared responses is negligible. The strength of the GAT task design is that is an unseen topic that balances a degree of choice for the student with commonality of topic for markers.
Look at the GAT Section B task of 2023. Add a title to the GAT task and it would be like a more specific and propositional version of English Section B.
Suppose for a moment that the GAT task is about a Framework called Ability and Achievement.
The specific title for the set task could be the question: ‘Inspiration or Perspiration?’.
The four pieces of stimulus are quite tightly related to the title and the Framework, and it would be difficult to hang a preprepared piece on this task. Responses would have to be about the title and one or more quite specific piece of stimulus.
Note the difference in the GAT task in the propositional content of the stimulus in relation to the imaginary Framework. This tightening of the title and stimulus would make it more difficult and more obvious if a response is preprepared and or merely nominally related to the set title and stimulus. It would not be easy (as it is now?) to hang a preprepared response, and particularly a prepared mode of response and language (including ‘voice’) appropriate for that mode on such tightened tasks.
I suspect moving the propositional content of the Section B task in the direction of the GAT task would make it a clearer task for students and easier to assess for markers.
The most significant piece of information in the presentation is the following hint about a change in the format of the Section B task in 2025.
It's tempting to assume that the format of the 2024 exam will be the format for future years, and it may be, but it's worth using the exam specifications when designing practise examination material for students. The exam specifications do not specify that there must be three pieces of stimulus material or that one must be an image and another a short verse. With this in mind, preparing students to have the confidence to use a range of stimulus material may well show foresight.
So, we would be wise to resist the temptation to think we know what the exam will be like and to consider a wider range of stimulus material in practising for the Section B of 2025.
Does this statement suggest that the presence of an image and a short verse in the task is optional?
What options are possible within the scope of the announced exam specification?
And why might other options be preferred in 2025 over the approach of 2024?
According to the specification the task will have stimulus material that has to be used along with the title as the basis of an exam response. As video is out, there is only a choice between stimulus in the form of text and static visual material.
The Chief Assessor says all went smoothly in the first marking of Section B and the performance of students satisfied expectations. In this case one wonders why the exam panel would not repeat the format of the exam sample and the paper of 2024 in 2025.
The Section B task is very adventurous and potentially very difficult to set and to assess. It is difficult, for instance, to get comparability in the difficulty of titles and stimulus set for the different Frameworks.
The four titles used in 2024 are quite different in the degree of constraints on responses they construct.
Country Title: 'Connections'
Protest Title: 'Resist and Persist'
Personal Journeys Title: 'Finding My Way'
Play Title: 'Time to Play'
The single word topic on Country is clearly the easiest to hang a response on.
‘Finding My Way’ is a very similar to the Framework title of Personal journeys and should be easy.
The title ‘Resist and Persist’ need not refer to Protest and would require some definite linkage to the Framework.
‘Time to play’ is almost a proposition about the Framework, and it could be seen as requiring analysis and even argument.
It is a challenge for the exam panel to get comparability between titles of one and three words. It is possible that the titles will be at least three or more words in future.
What are the problems with this task design?
Because the Framework is known in advance, students could hope to present a preprepared or even plagiarised response. There is no comment in the exam report, the presentation on the website or the VATE meet the assessors session on the difficult issue of what degree of reference is needed to a title and a stimulus. There has been no comment on how and how successfully students fulfilled the requirement to base their exam response on the set title and stimulus.
We are given no indication of whether the degree to which students focus on the title and stimulus has a substantial impact on the quality of the piece.
Was and how was and the degree to which students referred to the title and stimulus an issue in the assessment?
How were distinctions made in the assessment between substantive and substantial references to the title and stimulus and nominal and perfunctory references?
The set title and the stimulus should be specific enough to prevent or at least discourage such preprepared responses. Given the openness of some of the titles and stimulus of 2024 there is a good chance that a preprepared response can be hooked onto the task. And this is, of course, a significant issue for students, teachers and markers.
This issue is particularly difficult if the emphasis of the prepared response is on form and language rather than substantive discussion of the title and the Framework. It is noticeable that the nine stellar examples in the exam report are mostly typified by attention to form and language rather than substantive commentary on the Framework. There are actually few penetrating insights about the titles or the Frameworks in the stellar examples and copious evidence of an emphasis on form, ‘flair’ and ‘voice’ in the examples.
It seems likely that if there were difficulties in the status of the title and the stimulus in the exam task, then the tasks of 2025 will change to be significantly more specific than those of 2024. To mitigate problems with satisfactory and unsatisfactory reference to the title and stimulus and the possibility of preprepared responses, the task of 2025 could be more definite and more clearly propositional than in 2024.
In line with these speculations, the titles of 2025 could be a number of words (‘Connections’ as a title is much too open), probably more than three words, and the title would have a fairly definite propositional content. Going with a fairly definite title, the stimulus would also have to have a fairly definite relationship or range of possible relationships to the title.
The potentially problematic openness of the current tasks would be most acute with the visual stimulus. It would seem easiest to unload a preprepared response on the kind of visuals used in the tasks of 2024, and this openness would cause most difficulty of interpretation for the markers. It may be the case that visual stimulus is dropped for 2025 because it is too open and too easy to hook a response on to the kind of images used in 2024. Or more specific images could be used in 2025 that require a convergent or relevant use of the image in responses.
Images could have a more distinct relevance to the title and the Framework, but this opens up other difficulties. As has been noted in a number of exam reports on the images in Section C tasks, students have more difficulty giving a convergent (or relevant) reading of images and they are more likely to project their own preferences onto an image. This is a problem for markers. Is the student dealing with the image or composing their own task to suit a prepared answer?
What might a more specific version of the Section B task look like?
As it happens, the GAT Section B writing test is not unlike the English exam’s Section B in some respects. It is unlike the English task in that the topic is not known in advance (and this is a crucial difference) so the issue of prepared responses is negligible. The strength of the GAT task design is that is an unseen topic that balances a degree of choice for the student with commonality of topic for markers.
Look at the GAT Section B task of 2023. Add a title to the GAT task and it would be like a more specific and propositional version of English Section B.
Suppose for a moment that the GAT task is about a Framework called Ability and Achievement.
The specific title for the set task could be the question: ‘Inspiration or Perspiration?’.
The four pieces of stimulus are quite tightly related to the title and the Framework, and it would be difficult to hang a preprepared piece on this task. Responses would have to be about the title and one or more quite specific piece of stimulus.
Note the difference in the GAT task in the propositional content of the stimulus in relation to the imaginary Framework. This tightening of the title and stimulus would make it more difficult and more obvious if a response is preprepared and or merely nominally related to the set title and stimulus. It would not be easy (as it is now?) to hang a preprepared response, and particularly a prepared mode of response and language (including ‘voice’) appropriate for that mode on such tightened tasks.
I suspect moving the propositional content of the Section B task in the direction of the GAT task would make it a clearer task for students and easier to assess for markers.
Title: ‘Inspiration or Perspiration?’
