AS 92024 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, 6.9 MB]

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

For Achieved, the standard requires the student to engage with a variety of primary sources in a historical context. 

This involves selecting different types of primary sources for a focus question, identifying the relevance of the evidence to the focus question through source annotation, and identifying strengths or limitations of the sources where appropriate. 

The student has selected five primary sources – an interview, letter, newspaper articles, artefact, and photograph. An annotation has been provided that establishes how each source addresses the focus question, ‘What was the experience of war like for New Zealanders?’. These annotations make specific reference to the evidence in the source.

Each of the sources has at least one identified strength or limitation that is valid. For example, strength annotations that directly link to the reliability of the source, or limitations that identify the gaps in the evidence or how the source may not be representative of the wider experience.

Some of the bullet point annotations would need further specificity or development to reflect expectations at curriculum level 6, or to be a valid strength. For example, the bullet point “Shows love, homesickness, and tiredness of war” provided for Source D has not identified a strength.

The varied comments of both the strengths and limitations (such as, reliability, representation, gaps, insights, perspective) demonstrate a consistent understanding of the types of aspects a historian considers when assessing the value of a source.  

For Merit, the standard requires that the main ideas of the evidence are identified. This has been done successfully for Sources A, J, and P. However, slightly more development of the comments made, further identification of the main ideas in the remaining sources, and a more explicit link between the main ideas and the focus question would be required for this criterion to be satisfied. 

Additionally, the Merit requirements include an explanation of strengths and limitations within the collection of sources. Greater depth, clarity, and specificity of the comments made could allow for a Merit judgement. For example, when discussing the limitations of the Peter Renshaw’s interview, further explanation of why his “memories may not be fully accurate” with reference to the time that had lapsed from the event, the conditions of war, and the influence of accounts and experiences of others he has interacted with since the war, is the type of extra depth required. 

For Merit, the standard requires the student to interpret a variety of primary sources in a historical context.

This involves selecting different sources that are appropriate to the chosen focus question, annotating these sources to identify the main ideas in the evidence, and explaining the strengths and limitations within the collection of sources, where appropriate. 

A variety of sources have been selected (two photographs, a newspaper article, an FBI document, and a speech transcript). A specific and clear annotation that explains the relevance of the evidence to the focus question is provided, demonstrating the appropriateness of the source selection. These annotations, in addition to the table provided in the final slide, identify some basic main ideas from the evidence. 

The main ideas have been identified in two instances. Firstly, in most of the individual source templates, and later, in the final evaluation section (2nd paragraph). These main ideas centre on the violent responses, passive resistance, and extremism of some segregationists, including law enforcement personnel. 

Within the collection of sources there are sufficient instances where the strengths and limitations of the evidence or source type have been explained to ensure the Merit criterion has been satisfied. For example, the strength of Sources 1, 4, and 5 and the limitations of Sources 1, 3, and 5 clearly go beyond ‘identifying’ to reflect the requirements and provide an explanation. In some cases, the strength annotation needed to more clearly go beyond describing the source or making general comments on the limitation of the source type (i.e. Source 2).

For Excellence, the standard requires connections to be made between the sources with reference to the main ideas. In the final slide, the student offers some basic discussion of the shared ideas. However, these need further development to reflect the expectations for Excellence. 

The Excellence criteria also require a reflection of the strengths and limitations across the collection of sources. While valid comments about the strengths ‘as a whole' have been provided (i.e. the strong corroboration of ideas increases the reliability of the findings), the limitations of the collection of sources have not been addressed. This could have included a discussion of the gaps in the evidence provided, whether the full timeframe of the campaign and the ensuing violence has been captured, or whether all forms of violence that occurred (such as forceful arrests) have been addressed in the collection of sources.

For Excellence, the student needs to examine a variety of sources in a historical context. 

This involves selecting different sources appropriate to the focus question and then annotating these to establish their relevance and make connections between the main ideas identified. In addition, Excellence requires a reflection on the strengths and limitations of the collection of sources as a whole. 

The student has selected a range of appropriate primary sources and clearly and specifically detailed how they answer the focus question: ‘What the different experiences were of New Zealanders in the RNZAF during World War Two’. 

The main ideas are identified (for example, pride in service, survival and escape, bravery, homesickness, danger, and risk). Connections are made between these ideas, as required for Excellence. This is done explicitly in the template provided after the sources.

In this template the student addresses the ways in which ideas are repeated, but also where they differ. For example, both Source 3 and 5 have a theme relating to the connection the servicemen had with those back home, while the differences between Sources 3 and 4 capture both the public and private narratives of the war.  

In addition, there are several instances of explaining strengths and limitations of the sources (as required for Merit). These are specific and varied, showing a convincing grasp of this skill.

In the final paragraph, the student provides a summative reflection of some of the strengths and limitations of the sources as a collection. Strengths include the way in which the sources work together to address the focus question (providing a range of experiences and perspectives), and how the sources have captured the ‘personal’ and ‘private’ aspects of different experiences rather than merely broad accounts. Limitations with the collection relate to representation and the absence of perspectives that could have provided a more balanced account.