AS 91230 Annotated exemplars

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

Download all exemplars and commentary [PDF, 286 KB]

TKI History assessment resources (external link)

Excellence requires students to comprehensively examine an historical event or place that is of significance to New Zealanders. 

This involves communicating key historical ideas through a convincing explanation of the event or place, with comprehensive supporting evidence and an explanation of its significance to New Zealanders.

The student has comprehensively examined the Vietnam War protests that occurred in New Zealand. Their effective use of primary and secondary source evidence, specific case studies and examples, the use of statistics, names, and relevant quotations, easily satisfies the requirement for comprehensive supporting evidence. 

There is consistent communication of clear and well-developed key historical ideas. 

At times these ideas demonstrate critical thinking through links to the wider historical context, such as the ethical and moral questions surrounding the war or the influence of mounting public pressure on government decision-making. This makes the key historical ideas more sophisticated and reflects the type of evidence expected for a ‘convincing explanation’. The discussion that follows the key historical idea at the beginning of each paragraph is succinct, focused, and well evidenced. 

There are several aspects across the response that reflect the nature of evidence expected for a ‘convincing explanation’. Some examples include:

• An understanding of the wider historical context and its influence on the event. For example, the television coverage of the war, the emergence of the counter-culture.
• Identifying complexities such as diverging opinions or experiences. For example, Holyoake’s statement was in contrast with the sentiments of many New Zealanders, and the conflicting historiography of Rabel and McGibbon.
• Processing and interpreting the key historical ideas to offer insights about what is revealed by the event and the responses it generated. 

The student explains the significance to New Zealand with a discussion of the ways in which the Vietnam War protests resonate today, drawing parallels with the Palestinian protests of 2025. Further points are made about New Zealand’s increasingly moral positioning on issues and the connection between the social attitudinal shift and New Zealand’s subsequent change in approach to foreign policy.

For Merit, the student needs to examine, in-depth, an historical event or place that is of significance to New Zealanders.

This involves communicating key historical ideas through a coherent explanation of the event or place, with detailed supporting evidence and an explanation of its significance to New Zealanders.

The student has chosen to focus on a historical event: Kristallnacht. Each paragraph begins with a clear, and at times complex, key historical idea. For example, the cause paragraphs move beyond making a basic statement of causation to make a clear connection between the cause and its influence on the event. These ideas are then developed within the paragraphs using a depth of supporting evidence that reflects expectations for Merit at curriculum level 7.

There is a range of detailed supporting evidence used. The depth of evidence is consistent across the entire response. This is seen through the use of specific names, dates, statistics, short extracts from primary sources, and specific examples.

The response easily meets the threshold for an in-depth ‘coherent explanation’. Each paragraph is discrete (it remains focused on a single key historical idea and does not stray into a narrative), the explanation is logically sequenced, and the evidence consistently provides the ‘how’ and ‘why’ that is associated with the cause or consequence being discussed. These sentences are often found at the end of each paragraph and logically result from the discussion that precedes them. For example, after expanding on each consequence, the student explains how the impacts of these consequences were felt, whether it was short term or long term, and why this is/was significant.

The student explains the significance to New Zealand with a discussion of the 9 refugees New Zealand took in from the Kindertransport system and makes a connection to this event, the humanitarian precedent set, and New Zealand’s ongoing commitment to accepting refugees. As with the remainder of the response, this paragraph is also supported with detailed evidence and specific examples.

For Excellence, a convincing explanation and the use of comprehensive supporting evidence is required. A convincing explanation could be achieved with further synthesis of the descriptive elements of each paragraph, and a greater focus on the depth of explanation. This might include linking to the wider context or bringing attention to the elements of the event or place that show that there is seldom a single agreed to narrative of ‘what’ or ‘why’ events occurred.

For example, in the Aryanization paragraph, a convincing explanation would refer to the wider implications of these policies such as how the legalised theft normalised antisemitism, or how Aryanization also stripped Jewish communities of the businesses, institutions, and professional networks that had sustained them for generations. This loss weakened communal stability and social cohesion, making Jewish populations more vulnerable to later persecution, and more dependent on the Nazi regime for permission to work, relocate, or access resources.

Achieved requires the examination of an historical event or place that is of significance to New Zealanders.

This involves communicating key historical ideas through a coherent explanation of an event or place, with supporting evidence, and describing its significance to New Zealanders. The response must move beyond a narrative or chronological description.

The student has chosen a historical event: the atomic bombing of Japan. The historical context is outlined in an introductory paragraph with use of specific supporting evidence.

There is consistent use of key historical ideas at the beginning of each paragraph. In this sample, the key historical ideas comprise a basic statement about a cause and a consequence or significance of the atomic bombing. Each paragraph addresses and explains the key historical idea identified, without shifting focus.

In most instances the evidence clearly meets the threshold for a coherent explanation, as each paragraph examines the ‘how’ or ‘why’ of the key historical idea. For example, for the first idea the student explains the nature of the battle of Okinawa, how this showed Japan’s unwillingness to surrender, and why this influenced US leaders to see the atomic bomb as a way to avoid the high casualties anticipated in an invasion. The final sentences of each paragraph provide this explanatory ‘how’ and ‘why’ evidence, and, supported by consistent historical detail, meet the overall requirement for examination.

The significance to New Zealand is described with reference to the impact for those who served in the J-Force, and the changing nature of New Zealand’s attitude to the use of nuclear weapons.

An in-depth examination is required to reach Merit. This involves the use of detailed supporting evidence, and there is a step-up from ‘describe’ to ‘explain’ when establishing the significance of the chosen context to New Zealanders.

While the causes paragraphs meet the threshold for ‘detailed’ use of supporting evidence, a more consistent integration of detailed evidence into the remaining three body paragraphs would be required for Merit.

In addition, a more logical sequence of ideas, stronger supporting evidence (such as quotes, statistics, and specific examples), and further development of the points made in the significance paragraph is needed to move this section from description to explanation and meet the Merit criterion. For example:

• Rather than describing what the J‑Force experienced, the response could explain how these experiences changed many veterans’ attitudes, leading them to reconsider earlier beliefs that the bombs were necessary and to question whether such destruction could ever be justified.
• Rather than stating that attitudes changed and led to a nuclear free New Zealand, the response should explain how this shift occurred and show that the resulting legislation demonstrates the bombings’ indirect influence on New Zealand’s foreign policy and national identity.