AS 91232 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, 321 KB]

TKI History assessment resources (external link)

Achieved requires the interpretation of different perspectives of people in an historical event that is of significance to New Zealanders.

This involves investigating and explaining perspectives in an historically accurate manner either from the perspective of named people or people in an identified historical context, or from the point of view of historians, with supporting evidence. The perspectives should consider a person’s point of view, attitudes, beliefs, and include reasons for the perspectives and the related actions/responses.

The student has presented diary entries for Olaf Nelson and Colonel Sir Stephen Allen that explain their perspective on the Mau movement. These are largely historically accurate.

The points of view that each person has in relation to the Mau movement are identified, and reasons are given to explain why these perspectives are held. For example, Nelson’s perspective in support of the Mau is shaped by the oppressive decisions of the New Zealand administration, his desire for Samoan independence and his belief in peaceful resistance. The related actions for each person are identified and discussed. While greater specificity and detail is desirable, there is sufficient evidence to satisfy this aspect of the standard.

While the diary entries do contain several generalised sentiments (with some repetition), there is sufficient use of supporting evidence to meet expectations for Achieved at curriculum level 7. This includes reference to legislation, historical people and events, short quotes, and dates.

For Merit, the standard requires an in-depth interpretation which shows depth of understanding, with relevant supporting evidence. For the use of evidence to have reflected expectations at Merit, more frequent inclusion of specific named examples and detail is needed. For example, elements such as named examples of ordinances made or of culturally oppressive actions (such as banishment of chiefs).

To show depth of understanding, the above example might also include an accompanying explanation of how these actions were felt by Mau members, and why they were significant. It may also involve more explicitly articulating the paternalistic attitude that influenced many of the actions taken by the administration. 

For Merit, students must interpret in-depth different perspectives of people in an historical event that is of significance to New Zealanders.

This involves interpreting perspectives which show depth of understanding, with relevant supporting evidence.

The student has interpreted the perspectives of both Gandhi and General Dyer on the Rowlatt Act and the passive resistance of Indians against Colonial rule. These are written from the point of view of historians (i.e in third person), rather than in role-play. They have explained the perspectives in light of the values, attitudes, and experiences of each person. The perspectives are interpreted with consideration of the cultural and political historical context that has shaped them and the related actions.

There are several instances within the response that allow the threshold for an in-depth interpretation of the perspectives to be met. Some examples include:

• Identifying the broader historical context, e.g. “with growing Indian nationalism” or “Indians were increasingly working together.”
• Tensions being briefly identified, such as the post-war expectations of Indians being at odds with the imperialist/colonial attitudes of the British (further development of this idea may have demonstrated discernment).
• Showing multiple factors that shaped the perspective, e.g. “Added to this, was the result of the Rowlatt Committee.”

There is a range of relevant supporting evidence used that helps the response to be ‘in-depth’, as is required by the overall Merit descriptor for the standard. 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.  

For Excellence, a comprehensive interpretation of the perspectives requires students to show depth of understanding and discernment, with significant relevant supporting evidence. Discernment might involve:

• making developed links to the wider context
• explanations that show a broader or deeper understanding of the factors that shaped the person’s perspective, including why they held those beliefs and how these beliefs influenced their responses
• recognising the tensions, contradictions, or evolution of the perspectives. 

For example, the student could explain the British response in relation to other international unrest the British Empire faced after World War I (e.g. in Egypt, Ireland, Kenya, and Iraq).

Excellence requires students to comprehensively interpret different perspectives of people in an historical event that is of significance to New Zealanders.

This involves interpreting perspectives which show depth of understanding and discernment, with significant relevant supporting evidence.

The student has comprehensively interpreted the perspectives of John Minto and Robert Muldoon in relation to the Springbok Tour. The perspectives are examined from the point of view of a historian. Depth of understanding is demonstrated through the thorough explanation of why each perspective is held, the actions and responses taken by each person, how these actions relate to their underlying viewpoints, and the reasons given for the specific actions taken.

The evidence chosen is varied, well-selected, and consistently applied across the response, ensuring that all points made have been fully supported with specific historical evidence.

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

• An understanding of the wider historical context and its influence on the perspectives. For example, recognition of the era of activism that the protest occurred within, and the use of significant relevant evidence to support this.
• Nuanced understandings of social, political, and cultural influences on the perspectives. For example, consideration of ‘identity’ in shaping the perspectives and responses, supported by comprehensive evidence and discussion.
• The sophisticated use of historical evidence throughout.