AS 91434 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, 3.8 MB]

TKI History assessment resources (external link)

For Achieved, the standard requires students to research an historical event or place of significance to New Zealanders, using primary and secondary sources.

This involves preparing a research proposal that explains the importance of the topic proposed, developing a focusing question, identifying specific possible sources through preliminary readings, and selecting sufficient relevant historical evidence from both primary and secondary sources to enable comprehensive analysis of an historical place or event. This evidence needs to be fully referenced, annotated (covering aspects mentioned in EN4), and organised. Finally, an evaluation of the research process is required. 

This student has provided a short and somewhat general extract on the importance of the Cambodian Genocide to New Zealand. Following preliminary reading, in which they have specifically identified possible sources and how they might be useful, the student has formulated a question looking at the extent to which Pol Pot’s actions and methods impacted on Cambodian society. 

The student has selected evidence from primary and secondary sources. In total, the student used 6 sources, 2 of which were primary sources, while several of the secondary sources also contained primary evidence that was engaged with by the student. These were adequately referenced. Most of the selected sources were rich, quality sources of appropriate complexity for curriculum level 8.

Across the evidence, annotations assess the source as a historian. This includes considering relevance to the focus question, perspectives, bias and potential limitations, and corroboration of the ideas in the sources.

The evaluation explains the strengths and weaknesses of the research, and basic links are made between these and the reliability and validity of the findings. Comments regarding the range of perspectives captured, the corroboration of evidence, the use of primary evidence, and changes made to the focusing question, all demonstrate the student’s ability to evaluate the research process and findings at the depth expected at level 8 of the curriculum. 

For Merit, the standard requires analytical and critical annotations that assess the reliability of the evidence. While the student provided some comments that began to reflect the depth of critical assessment required (for example, acknowledging the limitation of a single person’s experiences, or how the continued trauma from the genocide may prevent the free sharing of experiences with journalists or ‘outsiders’), further instances are required where the comments go beyond being explanatory or evaluative in nature.

For Merit, the standard requires students to research, in depth, an historical event or place of significance to New Zealanders, using primary and secondary sources. 
 
In addition to the Achieved requirements, this involves making analytical and critical annotations that include assessment of the reliability of selected evidence. 

This student has provided a detailed and insightful extract about the significance and importance of the topic. The extract indicates that quality preliminary reading has occurred, which has also been evidenced by the explanation of how the possible sources identified are useful to the research. Following this, they have formulated a specific and manageable focus question. The depth of the research proposal helps contribute to the overall Merit requirement of ‘in-depth’ research. 

The student has selected evidence from primary and secondary sources. In total, the student used 6 sources, 1 of which was a primary source. However, many of the secondary sources contained rich and detailed primary accounts that were also engaged with by the student. The student has intentionally selected sources that offer a depth, complexity, and diversity of evidence.

There are instances where the annotations are critical and analytical. 
For example, where the student analyses the impact of, and reasons for, Walker’s bias when assessing the reliability of the source. Several of the relevance comments also move beyond an explanation to become analytical. This is particularly seen in source 2, where the comments discuss the destruction of Rangatiratanga and the unique perspective of women in this context. However, most the annotations pertaining to reliability are limited to a discussion of the authors’ credentials. 

The evaluation considers the strengths and weaknesses of the research, and there is some consideration of the validity of the findings. Some insightful comments are made regarding the diverse range of sources, as well as the maturity and quality of the sources selected and their own impartiality. 

For Excellence, the evaluation needs to be more consistently analytical. In some instances, this could be achieved by developing the points further, more explicitly linking them to the validity of the findings, and/or providing more specificity in the examples given. For example, in the first paragraph where the student considers the value of the books she used, she could expand on how the nature of these texts meant that indigenous experiences and perspectives have been well captured, and that the production of texts such as these relies on high level archivists, historians and often translators, which improves the validity of the findings.  

In addition, a deeper understanding of how a historian assesses the reliability of the source (beyond bias and authorship) could have been beneficial in allowing an Excellence judgement. This might include gaps in the evidence, corroboration between sources, how representative the sources are, and the agenda or motive behind their production.

For Excellence, the standard requires students to comprehensively research an historical event or place of significance to New Zealanders, using primary and secondary sources.

This involves following a research process, making analytical and critical annotations that include assessment of the reliability of selected evidence, showing initiative in the gathering and selecting of relevant evidence, and evaluating the research process by making analytical comments about the process or findings. 

This student has provided a detailed paragraph discussing the importance of Russia’s 1917 October revolution. A single focus question has been developed from preliminary reading. They have recorded the details of all sources used, organised the evidence logically using a template, and selected comprehensive evidence from primary and secondary sources. The depth and nature of the evidence provided for the research proposal helps to contribute to the overall Excellence requirement of ‘comprehensive research.’

The student provided 10 sources, 4 of which are primary sources and 2 of which are chapters from academic texts. These are engaged with fully, as exemplified by the three sources in this partial exemplar. 

Annotations, while longer than what is required, are often critical and analytical, with frequent assessment of the source reliability. These include; consideration of perspectives, bias, the agenda of the source, author expertise, experience and credentials, the gaps in the evidence, consideration of the comparative usefulness of the sources, and corroboration of source material.

Across the full research, the student showed initiative when persevering with difficult sources such as the several items of primary evidence, Trotsky’s “The history of the Russian revolution”, and other academically challenging texts.

The evaluation makes several analytical comments about the strengths and weaknesses of the research process, with direct consideration of the impact these had on the validity of the findings. The evaluative comments show an awareness of what contributes to valid and balanced research outcomes. This includes discussion of how primary and secondary sources worked in collaboration to allow for depth and breadth in the research findings, how the research methodology may have created an unintentional narrowing of the findings, and the impact of personal bias on the selection of sources.