Jump to a verb
How to Use This Guide
Every exam question contains a directive verb: a word that tells you exactly what type of thinking the marker expects. Most students read the question, understand the topic, but miss the verb. That's how you end up writing a great response that doesn't answer the question.
This guide breaks down the most common directive verbs you'll encounter in Year 11 and 12. For each one, you'll find:
- Definition: what the verb actually means in an exam context.
- What the marker actually wants: the practical expectation, or what your response needs to demonstrate.
- Common mistake: the error students make most often with this verb, so you can avoid it.
- Example: a sample question and what a strong response looks like.
- Thinking level: where this verb sits on the difficulty scale, so you can calibrate your depth.
Before you write any response, find the directive verb, check this guide, and make sure you're answering at the right level.
The Thinking Level Hierarchy
Not all verbs are equal. Here's the hierarchy from lowest to highest demand. Understanding where a verb sits tells you how deep your response needs to go.
| Level | Verbs | What it demands | Depth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundational | Identify, Define, Recall, Recount, Calculate | Name it, remember it, state it. Precision and accuracy. | ★ |
| Low–Mid | Describe, Outline, Classify, Clarify, Demonstrate, Extract, Summarise, Distinguish | Provide detail, organise and communicate clearly. | ★★ |
| Mid | Explain, Compare, Contrast, Discuss, Apply, Predict, Construct, Deduce, Examine, Interpret, Investigate | Show reasoning, cause and effect, connections and depth. | ★★★ |
| High | Analyse, Evaluate, Assess, Justify, Synthesise, Appreciate, Propose, Recommend | Break down, judge, weigh evidence and take a position. | ★★★★ |
| Highest | Critically Analyse, Critically Evaluate | Nuance, multiple perspectives, sophisticated judgement. | ★★★★★ |
Directive Verbs A–Z
A Back to A–Z
Account / Account for / Give an account of
Definition: account for means to state reasons for something, to report on why something happened or exists. Give an account of means to narrate or retell a series of events or transactions in sequence.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to show you understand causation. For "account for", you need to provide clear reasons and logical explanations: not just describe what happened, but explain why it happened. For "give an account of", you need a clear, ordered narrative that covers key events without unnecessary detail.
Example question: Account for the rise of nationalism in the 20th century.
What to do: identify specific causes (economic instability, political movements, cultural identity) and explain how each contributed to the rise. Don't just list events; connect each cause to the outcome.
Thinking level: Mid-range. Requires explanation and reasoning but not necessarily judgement.
Analyse
Definition: identify the components of something and examine the relationship between them. Draw out and relate implications of those relationships.
What the marker actually wants: this is one of the most common top-band verbs. The marker wants you to break something apart and show how the pieces work together to create meaning. You must go beyond describing what is there: you need to show how and why those elements function, interact and produce effects. In English, this means identifying techniques and explaining their impact. In Science, it means interpreting data and explaining patterns. In every subject, it means showing the "so what".
Example question: Analyse how the composer uses imagery to explore the theme of isolation.
What to do: identify specific images, explain how each one functions (what associations it creates, what emotions it evokes), and then connect those images to the broader theme. Show how the images work together across the text to build a layered understanding of isolation.
Thinking level: High. This is a top-band verb in most rubrics. Requires breaking down, connecting and drawing implications.
Apply
Definition: use knowledge, skills or concepts in a different, new or unfamiliar situation.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants to see that you can transfer what you've learned to a new context. This isn't about recalling information; it's about demonstrating you understand it well enough to use it somewhere new. You need to select the right knowledge and show how it fits the new scenario.
Example question: Apply your understanding of supply and demand to explain the housing crisis.
What to do: take the principles of supply and demand and show specifically how they operate in the housing market. Reference real factors (limited supply, population growth, interest rates) and connect them to the economic model.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Requires understanding deep enough to transfer to unfamiliar contexts.
Appreciate
Definition: make a judgement about the value of something.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to demonstrate understanding of why something has value or significance. This goes beyond description: you need to show sensitivity to the qualities, importance or impact of the subject. In English, this often means showing understanding of a composer's craft. In History, it might mean recognising the significance of an event from multiple perspectives.
Example question: Appreciate the role of the chorus in Greek tragedy.
What to do: explain what the chorus contributes (commentary, emotional response, context), provide specific examples, and make a judgement about its value to the overall dramatic experience.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Requires judgement and understanding of significance.
Assess
Definition: make a judgement of value, quality, outcomes, results or size.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants a clear judgement supported by evidence. You're being asked to weigh up and evaluate: how effective was it? How significant was it? How successful? Your response must arrive at a position. Sitting on the fence without a conclusion is not assessing.
Example question: Assess the effectiveness of the government's response to the pandemic.
What to do: identify key aspects of the response, evaluate each one against criteria (speed, outcomes, public impact), and arrive at an overall judgement. Use evidence to support your position.
Thinking level: High. Requires evaluation and judgement, not just description.
C Back to A–Z
Calculate
Definition: ascertain or determine a value from given facts, figures or information.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants a correct numerical answer with clear working shown. In most subjects, showing your method is as important as the final answer, because partial marks are awarded for correct process even if the final number is wrong.
Example question: Calculate the acceleration of the object.
What to do: write the formula, substitute values, show each step of the calculation, include units, and clearly present the final answer.
Thinking level: Foundational. Process-driven. Marks are in the working as much as the answer.
Clarify
Definition: make clear or plain.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to take something that could be confusing or ambiguous and make it easy to understand. This usually means restating it in simpler terms, providing examples or removing ambiguity. You're demonstrating that you understand something well enough to make it clear for someone else.
Example question: Clarify the difference between weather and climate.
What to do: define each term simply, provide a concrete example of each, and highlight the key distinction (short-term vs long-term patterns).
Thinking level: Low-to-mid. Focus is on clarity of communication.
Classify
Definition: arrange or include in classes or categories.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to organise information into logical groups based on shared characteristics. You need to identify the categories, explain the basis for grouping, and place items into the correct groups with justification.
Example question: Classify the following rocks as igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic.
What to do: state the defining characteristics of each category, then place each rock in the correct group with a brief explanation of why it belongs there.
Thinking level: Low-to-mid. Organisational thinking with some reasoning.
Compare
Definition: show how things are similar or different.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to examine two or more things side by side and identify both similarities and differences. A common rubric expectation is that you discuss both, not just one. The best responses integrate the comparison rather than writing about each thing separately.
Example question: Compare the leadership styles of two world leaders.
What to do: identify 2–3 criteria for comparison (decision-making, communication, policy approach), then discuss both leaders against each criterion in the same paragraph.
Thinking level: Mid. Requires identification of criteria and parallel analysis.
Construct
Definition: make, build or put together items or arguments.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to create something, whether it's a physical model, a graph, a diagram or a written argument. The emphasis is on the building process: assembling components in a logical, purposeful way. For written arguments, this means developing a thesis and supporting it with structured reasoning.
Example question: Construct an argument for the significance of the Industrial Revolution.
What to do: build a thesis statement, support it with 2–3 structured points with evidence, and connect them into a cohesive argument that builds logically.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Requires purposeful assembly and logical structure.
Contrast
Definition: show how things are different or opposite.
What the marker actually wants: unlike "compare", which asks for similarities and differences, "contrast" focuses specifically on differences. The marker wants you to highlight what sets things apart. Be explicit about the points of difference and explain why those differences matter.
Example question: Contrast the portrayal of women in two different periods.
What to do: identify specific points of difference (roles, agency, representation), provide evidence from each period, and explain what those differences reveal.
Thinking level: Mid. Focused analytical comparison.
Critically analyse / Critically evaluate
Definition: critically analyse means to use interpretation and reasoning to assess a range of evidence and make judgements based on detailed analysis. Critically evaluate means to add a degree or level of accuracy, knowledge, understanding, logic, questioning, reflection and quality to your evaluation.
What the marker actually wants: this is the highest level of thinking a rubric can ask for. The marker wants depth, nuance and sophistication. You're expected to question assumptions, consider multiple perspectives, weigh evidence carefully and arrive at a well-reasoned judgement. Your response should show independent thinking, not just a rehearsed answer. The word "critically" means you engage with complexity rather than simplifying.
Example question: Critically evaluate the effectiveness of international aid.
What to do: examine multiple forms of aid, consider evidence for and against effectiveness, address counterarguments, acknowledge complexity, and arrive at a nuanced judgement that shows depth of reasoning.
Thinking level: Highest. Requires nuance, multiple perspectives and sophisticated judgement.
D Back to A–Z
Deduce
Definition: draw conclusions from available information.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to use given evidence or information to arrive at a logical conclusion. You're reasoning from what's provided to what's implied. Show your reasoning process; don't just state the conclusion.
Example question: Deduce the relationship between temperature and reaction rate from the data.
What to do: reference specific data points, identify the pattern, and state the conclusion with reasoning that connects the evidence to your deduction.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Requires logical reasoning from evidence to conclusion.
Define
Definition: state the meaning and identify the essential qualities of something.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants a clear, precise definition that captures the essential characteristics. This is usually a low-mark question, so be concise. Don't pad it out with unnecessary context. Get straight to the meaning.
Example question: Define osmosis.
What to do: "Osmosis is the movement of water molecules from a region of higher water concentration to a region of lower water concentration across a semi-permeable membrane." Precise, complete, concise.
Thinking level: Foundational. Recall and precision.
Demonstrate
Definition: show by example.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to prove your understanding through concrete examples. Don't just state that something is true; show it in action with specific instances, cases or evidence.
Example question: Demonstrate how the composer uses symbolism.
What to do: identify a specific symbol, quote the relevant text, and show how it creates meaning. The example does the work.
Thinking level: Low-to-mid. Evidence-driven.
Describe
Definition: provide characteristics and features.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to say what something is, what it looks like, how it works or what its features are. This is about providing detail, not about explaining why or making judgements. Be thorough and specific in your description.
Example question: Describe the process of photosynthesis.
What to do: walk through each stage with specific details: what happens, where it happens, what's involved. Don't explain why it matters (that's "explain").
Thinking level: Low-to-mid. Detail and accuracy, not judgement.
Discuss
Definition: identify issues and provide points for and/or against.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants a balanced exploration. "Discuss" is an invitation to consider multiple sides of an issue. You should present arguments for and against, consider different perspectives, and show that you understand the complexity of the topic. A strong discussion doesn't just list pros and cons; it engages with the tension between them.
Example question: Discuss the impact of social media on young people.
What to do: present positive impacts (connection, information access, self-expression) and negative impacts (mental health, comparison, misinformation). Engage with the complexity and show that the answer isn't simple.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Requires balanced analysis and engagement with complexity.
Distinguish
Definition: recognise or note/indicate as being distinct or different from. To note differences between things.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to clearly separate two or more things that might be confused. You need to identify the key feature(s) that make them different. Be precise about where the boundary lies.
Example question: Distinguish between mitosis and meiosis.
What to do: identify the key differences (number of divisions, number of daughter cells, genetic variation) and state each one clearly, showing what makes each process distinct.
Thinking level: Low-to-mid. Precision and identification of key differences.
E Back to A–Z
Evaluate
Definition: make a judgement based on criteria. Determine the value of something.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants a reasoned judgement, not just an opinion. You need to establish criteria (or use given criteria), assess the subject against those criteria, and arrive at a clear conclusion. "Evaluate" is one of the highest-demand verbs in any rubric. Your response must take a position: was it effective? Was it significant? To what extent?
Example question: Evaluate the significance of the Stolen Generations for Indigenous Australians.
What to do: establish what "significance" means in this context (impact on identity, culture, families, ongoing effects), assess the evidence for each, and make a clear judgement about the overall significance. Support every claim.
Thinking level: High. Requires criteria, evidence and judgement.
Examine
Definition: inquire into something in detail.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants a thorough investigation. "Examine" means look closely, consider different angles and explore the subject in depth. It's more thorough than "describe" but doesn't necessarily require the judgement of "evaluate". Think of it as a deep, careful investigation.
Example question: Examine the causes of World War I.
What to do: investigate multiple causes (alliances, imperialism, nationalism, militarism, the assassination), explore how they interconnected, and consider which were most significant.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Depth of investigation.
Explain
Definition: relate cause and effect. Make the relationships between things evident. Provide why and/or how.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to show understanding of how or why something happens or works. This goes beyond description. "Describe" says what. "Explain" says how or why. You need to make the reasoning, process or cause-effect relationship clear.
Example question: Explain why the Weimar Republic failed.
What to do: identify specific causes (economic crises, political instability, the Treaty of Versailles) and for each one, show the mechanism: how exactly did it contribute to the failure? Don't just list causes; connect them.
Thinking level: Mid. Cause-effect reasoning and clarity.
Extract
Definition: choose relevant and/or appropriate details from a source.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to identify and pull out the most relevant information from given material. This is about selection: showing that you can identify what matters and leave out what doesn't.
Example question: Extract the key findings from the report.
What to do: identify the most important results or conclusions and present them concisely, without unnecessary background.
Thinking level: Low-to-mid. Selection and relevance.
Extrapolate
Definition: infer from what is known. Extend known information to predict or project beyond the given data.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to go beyond the given information and make a reasonable prediction or inference based on established patterns. You need to show the logical basis for your extrapolation: what known information supports your projection?
Example question: Extrapolate the population trend for the next decade based on the data.
What to do: identify the trend in the data, state the pattern, and project it forward with reasoning. Acknowledge any assumptions you're making.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Requires pattern recognition and logical projection.
I Back to A–Z
Identify
Definition: recognise and name.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to correctly recognise and name something. This is usually a low-mark question that requires a specific, precise answer. Don't over-explain; just name it accurately.
Example question: Identify the narrative perspective used in the text.
What to do: "The text uses a first-person narrative perspective." Clear, direct, correct.
Thinking level: Foundational. Recognition and naming.
Interpret
Definition: draw meaning from something.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to explain what something means: not just what it says or shows, but what it signifies. In English, this means interpreting a text's meaning. In Science, this means interpreting data. In Visual Arts, this means interpreting what an artwork communicates. Your interpretation should be supported by evidence.
Example question: Interpret the data shown in Figure 3.
What to do: identify the key patterns or trends, explain what they mean in context, and draw a conclusion about what the data reveals.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Meaning-making from evidence.
Investigate
Definition: plan, inquire into and draw conclusions about something.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants a systematic exploration that includes planning how to find out, gathering or considering evidence, and arriving at conclusions. This verb often appears in Science and involves methodology as well as findings.
Example question: Investigate the factors that affect enzyme activity.
What to do: identify the factors (temperature, pH, concentration), describe how you would test them, present evidence, and draw conclusions from the findings.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Systematic inquiry and conclusion-drawing.
J Back to A–Z
Justify
Definition: support an argument or conclusion with evidence and reasoning.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to prove that your position is valid. You're not just stating what you think; you're providing the evidence and reasoning that make your position convincing. Every claim needs support. The strength of your justification is what earns the marks.
Example question: Justify your choice of experimental method.
What to do: state your method, then provide specific reasons why it's the best choice (reliability, accuracy, practicality) with evidence or reasoning for each reason.
Thinking level: High. Evidence-based reasoning and persuasion.
O Back to A–Z
Outline
Definition: sketch in general terms; indicate the main features of something.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants a broad overview, not a deep dive. Hit the main points without going into extensive detail. Think of it as the skeleton, not the full body. An outline shows you understand the big picture.
Example question: Outline the stages of cellular respiration.
What to do: name each stage (glycolysis, Krebs cycle, electron transport chain), give a one-to-two sentence summary of each, and move on. Don't explain the chemistry in depth.
Thinking level: Low-to-mid. Overview and main features.
P Back to A–Z
Predict
Definition: suggest what may happen based on available information.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants a prediction that is grounded in evidence or established principles. You're not guessing; you're using what you know to project a likely outcome. Always state the basis for your prediction.
Example question: Predict what will happen to the reaction rate if the temperature is increased.
What to do: state your prediction, then explain why based on collision theory or kinetic energy principles. Ground it in science, not intuition.
Thinking level: Mid. Application of knowledge to predict outcomes.
Propose
Definition: put forward a point of view, idea, argument or suggestion for consideration or action.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to generate an original idea or suggestion and present it with reasoning. This is about initiative and creativity, supported by logic. Your proposal should be realistic and well-reasoned.
Example question: Propose a strategy to reduce urban air pollution.
What to do: present a specific strategy, explain how it would work, provide evidence for its likely effectiveness, and acknowledge potential challenges.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Creative thinking supported by reasoning.
R Back to A–Z
Recall
Definition: present remembered ideas, facts or experiences.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants accurate retrieval of information. This is straightforward recall: can you remember and present the relevant facts correctly? Accuracy is everything here.
Example question: Recall the key features of the Enlightenment.
What to do: list and briefly describe the main features: reason, individualism, scientific method, scepticism of authority. Be accurate and concise.
Thinking level: Foundational. Memory and accuracy.
Recommend
Definition: provide reasons in favour of something.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to advocate for a particular course of action or choice with clear justification. Unlike "justify" (which supports an existing conclusion), "recommend" asks you to actively suggest something and argue for it.
Example question: Recommend the most suitable material for the bridge design.
What to do: state your recommendation, then provide 2–3 specific reasons (strength, cost, durability) with evidence or data to support each.
Thinking level: Mid-to-high. Requires judgement and persuasive reasoning.
Recount
Definition: retell a series of events.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants an accurate, ordered retelling. Focus on getting the sequence right and including all key events. This is narrative, not analysis: tell what happened in order.
Example question: Recount the events leading to Federation in 1901.
What to do: present the key events in chronological order with enough detail to show understanding, but without analysing their significance (unless asked).
Thinking level: Foundational. Sequential recall and narrative.
S Back to A–Z
Summarise
Definition: express, concisely, the relevant details.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to condense information to its essential points. A good summary captures everything important in significantly fewer words than the original. This tests your ability to distinguish what's essential from what's not.
Example question: Summarise the author's argument in the article.
What to do: identify the thesis and 2–3 main supporting points. Present them in a few sentences. Leave out examples, anecdotes and secondary details.
Thinking level: Low-to-mid. Selection, compression and clarity.
Synthesise
Definition: put together various elements to make a whole.
What the marker actually wants: the marker wants you to combine information from multiple sources, perspectives or ideas to create a new, integrated understanding. This is higher-order thinking: you're not just summarising different things side by side, you're weaving them together to produce something new. In an essay conclusion, synthesis means bringing your arguments together to create an insight that's greater than the sum of its parts.
Example question: Synthesise your findings from the three experiments to draw a conclusion.
What to do: identify what each experiment revealed, find the connections between them, and combine these findings into a single coherent conclusion that none of the experiments could have produced alone.
Thinking level: High. Requires integration and original thinking.
Quick Reference: Every Verb at a Glance
Print this and keep it in your study folder. Before every practice response, check your directive verb here.
| Verb | Core meaning | Key action |
|---|---|---|
| Account for | State reasons for | Explain WHY something happened |
| Analyse | Break down and show relationships | How do the parts create meaning? |
| Apply | Use in a new context | Transfer knowledge to a new situation |
| Appreciate | Judge value | Show why something has significance |
| Assess | Judge quality or outcomes | Weigh up and arrive at a position |
| Calculate | Determine from data | Show working, include units |
| Clarify | Make clear | Simplify, define, give examples |
| Classify | Sort into categories | Group and explain the basis |
| Compare | Similarities and differences | Discuss BOTH, organise by criteria |
| Construct | Build or assemble | Create something with logical structure |
| Contrast | Show differences only | Focus on what sets things apart |
| Critically analyse | Deep analysis and judgement | Question assumptions, consider angles |
| Critically evaluate | Rigorous evaluation | Nuanced judgement, multiple perspectives |
| Deduce | Draw conclusions | Evidence → logical conclusion |
| Define | State meaning | Precise, essential qualities only |
| Demonstrate | Show by example | Prove it with a specific instance |
| Describe | Provide features | What is it? What does it look like? |
| Discuss | Points for and against | Balanced, multiple perspectives |
| Distinguish | Note differences | What makes them distinct? |
| Evaluate | Judge based on criteria | Take a position with evidence |
| Examine | Inquire in detail | Thorough, deep investigation |
| Explain | Show how or why | Cause and effect, relationships |
| Extract | Select relevant details | Choose what matters, leave the rest |
| Extrapolate | Infer beyond data | Extend patterns with reasoning |
| Identify | Recognise and name | Be direct and precise |
| Interpret | Draw meaning | What does it signify? |
| Investigate | Plan, inquire and conclude | Systematic exploration |
| Justify | Support with evidence | Prove your position is valid |
| Outline | Main features only | Big picture, not deep detail |
| Predict | Suggest a likely outcome | Based on evidence, not guessing |
| Propose | Put forward an idea | Specific, reasoned suggestion |
| Recall | Remember and present | Accurate retrieval of facts |
| Recommend | Argue in favour | Suggest and give reasons why |
| Recount | Retell events | Chronological narrative |
| Summarise | Condense to essentials | Key points only, concise |
| Synthesise | Combine into a new whole | Integrate sources → new insight |