AS 91437 Annotated exemplars

An annotated exemplar is a sample of student evidence, with a commentary, to explain key aspects of the standard. It assists teachers to make assessment judgements at the grade.

Download all exemplars and commentary [PDF, 344 KB]

TKI History assessment resources (external link)

For Achieved, the student needs to analyse different perspectives of a contested event of significance to New Zealanders.

This involves identifying different perspectives and then providing historical evidence that explains why the perspectives were/are held. Explanations need to be ‘as a historian’ (rather than in role-play format), specific, and with a depth that is appropriate for curriculum level 8.
  
The student has chosen a historical event (the Suffrage Movement in the UK) and has analysed perspectives on a contested element of this event: whether the Suffragettes helped or hindered the women’s suffrage movement in the UK and the subsequent passing of the ‘Representation of the People Act 1918.’

This student analyses three different perspectives. The contemporary but opposing perspectives of Emmeline Pankhurst and Viscount Helmsley, and the perspective of historian Fern Riddell. 

The depth of discussion and supporting evidence across the response reflects curriculum level 8. For example, in the discussion provided for Pankhurst’s perspective, the student has referred to historical evidence, such as the lack of change garnered from non-violent methods (the failure of different petitions), that supports the perspective that a militant approach was necessary. 

The response includes some basic analysis, as required by the overall standard descriptor. This is shown in the discussion of the influences and experiences that shaped Pankhurst’s perspective. It is also evident where the student draws similarities between the perspectives of Riddell and Helmsley, highlighting how entrenched gender roles and norms shaped the views of those who believed suffragette action was predominantly a hindrance to the overall cause.

For Merit, the standard requires an in-depth analysis whereby students evaluate, as historians, the validity of different perspectives of the contested event. This involves appraising and presenting an opinion. 

For example, the Pankhurst perspective might be considered valid, as it is supported by several instances in history whereby men also were required to resort to violence or militancy to achieve a change in power dynamics—and therefore women should not be judged differently. 

A greater depth in explanation and of examples or historical evidence provided throughout the response would also be required for the threshold of ‘an in-depth’ analysis to be met for Merit. 

For Merit, the student needs to analyse, in depth, different perspectives of a contested event of significance to New Zealanders.

In addition to the achieved criteria, this involves evaluating, as an historian, the validity of different perspectives of the contested event. Evaluating involves appraising and presenting an opinion. The analysis should be supported by historical evidence and examples that reflect expectations at curriculum level 8.

The student focuses on a clearly contested aspect of the event, whether the U.S. was justified in using atomic bombs on Japan, and explains both the revisionist and post-revisionist perspectives. 

For each perspective the student fully unpacks the varied reasons and ideas that the perspectives are comprised of. Additionally, the varied, consistent, and specific use of evidence to explain the perspectives, in particular, the strong use of primary sources and unpacking of the historical context, helps the overall response to meet the descriptor of ‘in-depth,’ as is required in the achievement standard at Merit.

In addition, clear appraisals are made about the perspectives that have been explained. There is well-supported evaluation, as a historian, of the validity of these perspectives. This includes consideration of the accuracy, bias, and reliability of the primary sources used by each side to support their viewpoint. It also addresses whether the evidence used by revisionist historians was available to Truman and examines how source evidence can be, and has been, used to challenge opposing interpretations. This analysis clearly meets the requirements for Merit.

For Excellence, a conclusion must be drawn as to which perspective is most valid, based on their engagement with the evidence and the ideas it contains. In this sample, the student remains ‘on the fence’ rather than considering which perspective is best supported by historical evidence. 

For example, a point of contest central to each perspective is whether Japan was close and willing to surrender, whether Truman knew this, and whether alternative conditions could have been considered to entice surrender. The student might then conclude that the indisputable evidence, rather than counterfactual commentary or retrospective evidence, best lies on the post-revisionist side, and thus they find this perspective to be most credible and valid.

Excellence requires a comprehensive analysis of different perspectives of a contested event of significance to New Zealanders.

In addition to the Merit criteria, this involves making judgements, as a historian, on the historical validity of different perspectives of the contested event, drawing conclusions that demonstrate thorough engagement with the evidence and the historical ideas it contains.

The student identifies and explains the contemporary perspectives of the Elizabethan government and Catholic supporters, along with the Protestant legal and revisionist Catholic perspectives, on whether the execution of Mary Queen of Scots was justified.

The explanation of these perspectives captures the wider historical context and the complexities in the decision. For example, Elizabeth’s hesitation and later, her distancing from the order, her moral/political reluctance to execute an anointed monarch, and how and why ministers and parliament pressed for action. 

Each perspective has been supported by specific historical examples and evidence. Some examples include references to historical events such as attempted plots on Elizabeth’s life and to primary source material, intercepted ciphered letters, contemporary rhetoric, and historiography. 

The tone of the response is consistently evaluative, with the student frequently assessing the validity of each perspective. They consider the influences, biases, and the supporting or contrasting evidence that strengthens or weakens the credibility of each viewpoint. Some examples of this include:

• Historians’ critiques (Antonia Fraser and John Guy) disputing the reliability of translated cipher letters and highlighting potential edits.
• How Elizabeth’s blame‑shifting to Davison undermines the validity of the perspectives that support Mary’s execution as justified
• Procedural irregularities surrounding the trial and execution
• The complexities of Mary’s agency and reputation, and how this counters the ‘victim narrative’.

After weighing the validity of the various perspectives and the supporting evidence, the student judges that the Protestant perspective is more flawed than the Catholic revisionist perspective. This conclusion follows logically from the student’s discussion of the validity of each viewpoint and the evidence used to support them. The student then makes a final judgement that the execution was “politically understandable but neither legally nor morally correct.”