AS 92028 Annotated exemplars

This annotated exemplar is intended for teacher use only. Annotated exemplars consist of student evidence, with commentary, to explain key parts of a standard. These help teachers make assessment judgements at the grade boundaries.

Download all exemplars and commentary [PDF, 1.2 MB]

Level 1 Commerce assessment resources (external link) - NCEA.education

To achieve the standard, the student needs to demonstrate understanding of an organisation’s financial decision-making.

This involves:

• describing options available for the organisation to address a need, issue, or opportunity
• describing a decision, supported by information from a financial tool
• describing how the decision addresses the need, issue, or opportunity.

The student has described possible options for using a donation to improve an aspect of the school. Fitting out a weights room, buying smartboards, or buying new laptops have been considered and compared using two financial tools (one detailed financial tool would be sufficient). Stakeholder perspectives on the three options have been explained.

The decision to fit out a weights room was supported by information, including financial data from the tools. The student has explained why the weights room option was selected over the two alternatives.

Explanatory Note 2 of the standard requires the student to discuss the organisation’s pūtake in the context of the financial decision-making – i.e. the decision to equip a weights room. The student has effectively explained how a focus on physical activity can contribute to students’ mental health and motivation, ultimately helping ZHS deliver a well-rounded education.

For Merit, the student would go beyond identifying the stakeholders’ perspectives to explain how they informed the decision to use the donation for a weights room, particularly as the four stakeholders had reservations about the option. The explanation could acknowledge the stakeholders’ concerns, and focus on how the facility could be promoted to all students as a way to improve their mental health and well-being.

Merit also requires the student to explain at least two positive or negative consequences of the financial decision for ZHS. One consequence for a stakeholder has been provided (students having access to a cheap gym), and a second consequence is needed for Merit.

For Merit, the student needs to examine an organisation’s decision-making.

This involves:

• explaining how stakeholder perspectives informed the decision-making
• explaining possible consequences of the decision for the organisation and its stakeholders.

The student has identified that the school has a $180,000 grant to improve their pool facilities. Two options are considered by the student – repairing the existing pool or building a new one. The school expects the financial decision to be cost effective and sustainable.

The needs/interests of stakeholders have been explained for each of the two options. It is apparent that these explanations and perspectives, and the Excellence evidence, informed the financial decision.

The decision to build a new pool was supported by information from a cost-benefit analysis, including financial data.

The standard also requires the student to discuss the school’s pūtake in the context of the financial decision made. The student has justified their decision to build a new pool instead of repair, citing long-term cost effectiveness. The decision to build a new pool also meets the school’s commitment to kaitiakitanga more than the repair option.

The student has explained how various stakeholder perspectives informed the decision to build a new pool.

Possible consequences of the financial decision are explained. For example, the teachers can plan lessons ahead because they don’t have to worry about issues such as a leaking pool. The pool is available summer and winter, but teachers will now have to compete for spots during school time. The school can host events because they can show off the new pool, and will also have lower maintenance costs because the pool is new.

For Excellence, the student needs to evaluate an organisation’s decision-making. Although the student explained the extent to which stakeholders’ perspectives were met/not met, Excellence also requires an explanation of how possible negative consequences would be mitigated. This needs to be specific to the new pool. A booking system to mitigate the issue of more teachers competing for the spots, with sponsorships to pay for maintenance, could apply to both the new and the repaired pool.

For Excellence, the student needs to evaluate an organisation’s decision-making.

This involves analysing how the decision integrates stakeholder perspectives and responds to possible consequences.

The student has described options to address the organisation’s need for a delivery vehicle to transport furniture and other household items. Two possible vehicles were evaluated, and a decision made to purchase an LDV van. The decision is supported by information from two financial tools: a comparison of positive and negative features (including the purchase price) and a comparison on finance costs based on a loan calculator.

Having explained stakeholders’ general interests in purchasing a new delivery van, the decision description refers to specific stakeholder needs that informed the decision to purchase the LDV. For example, the lower cost of the selected option meets management’s responsibility for financial stability.

The standard also requires the student to discuss the organisation’s pūtake in the context of the financial decision-making. Their pūtake emphasises waste reduction, financial viability, and the well-being of its stakeholders. The student has argued that the LDV vehicle better meets the organisation’s pūtake than the Volkswagen alternative.

The student has integrated perspectives of its three stakeholders, and acknowledged that while management’s wish for financial constraint has been met, some personnel and community interests have been compromised by the financial decision.

The student has considered mitigations to the potential negative consequences of the LDV’s environmental impact, due to it being a manual transmission vehicle. A response to the positive consequence of the van’s low cost has also been suggested.