AS 91597 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, 836 KB]

TKI Social Studies assessment resources (external link)

For Achieved, the student needs to conduct a critical social inquiry.

This involves deciding on a focus for the inquiry, developing research questions, and gathering information and background ideas. There must be a description of people’s points of view, values, and perspectives that underpin actions in society related to the inquiry focus. Additionally, students must reflect on and evaluate their findings and the process of social inquiry, including making suggestions for improvements.

Appropriate focus questions have been developed to ensure that gathering information and background ideas supports the student in discussing people’s viewpoints, perspectives, and values, and how these underpin actions taken in relation to the issue. Listing four possible sources, introducing the topic through an extended paragraph, and footnoting sources throughout the response shows clear evidence that information and background ideas were gathered. 

When answering the focus questions, the student has clearly identified two perspectives (traditionalism and social justice) and articulated the values and viewpoints commonly held by people that align with these perspectives. The described viewpoints are supported by relevant quotations. A clear connection is made between the perspectives, values, and viewpoints and the specific individuals and groups selected.

When reporting on the second focus question, the student has identified two people that align with the perspectives and viewpoints discussed earlier. This has supported them in ensuring that there is alignment between the individuals, their actions, and the perspectives, viewpoints, and values, thereby demonstrating how these have underpinned the actions taken. At times, the depth of response in this section begins to reflect the Merit criteria for ‘explained’.

The final section addresses both evaluation criteria. The evaluation of findings involves the student considering the types of sources and voices they have accessed and how this may influence their final report. The evaluation of the inquiry process includes the student critiquing their sources for bias, accuracy, and relevance. The use of details and examples reflects what is expected for this criterion at curriculum level 8.

To reach Merit, further development of the section comparing the perspectives, values, and viewpoints would be required. Identifying that both perspectives value safety begins to meet the criteria. Building on this by considering where they diverge, why, and how this has shaped the different responses could have allowed for a Merit judgement overall.

For Merit, the student needs to conduct a critical social inquiry in depth. 

In addition to the Achieved criteria, this involves explaining and comparing and contrasting points of view, values, and perspectives that relate to the focus of the inquiry. 

The student has met the Achieved criteria for developing a research question, gathering information and background ideas, reporting on their findings, and evaluating the findings. 

The student has effectively explained the contrasting viewpoints of Steinem and Coney Barrett by discussing, at a depth expected at curriculum level 8, their perspectives, values, and viewpoints – clearly articulating their relationship. The student has explained how the perspectives, values, and viewpoints have underpinned the actions taken by both women, and this has been done using appropriate supporting evidence (such as direct quotes) and citing specific actions taken with detail. 

When comparing the two viewpoints and perspectives, the student examines the different viewpoints by considering their underlying values, influence, and the popularity of each view in society at different times. Towards the end of the section, the discussion is connected back to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which is the focus of the inquiry. Detailed supporting evidence is used throughout, ensuring this section meets the threshold for ‘in-depth’ as required for Merit. 

For Excellence, there must be a critical evaluation of the findings and consideration of their implications in contexts outside the inquiry. The student begins to examine this when they identify same-sex marriage as having potential to be banned within the United States. Further developing this idea to consider how similar perspectives/ideologies are at play, the position of same-sex marriage within the United States judicial system, and why it could or could not be subject to similar treatment in the courts in the coming years would be the type of discussion expected at Excellence.

For Excellence, the student must conduct a critical social inquiry comprehensively. 

This involves evaluating the findings and considering the implications of the findings in contexts outside the inquiry. 

The student has met the Achieved criteria for developing a research question, gathering information and background ideas, reporting on their findings, and evaluating the findings. 

The depth of discussion in relation to the different perspectives, viewpoints, and values on both sides of the debate and how they underpin actions taken on both sides clearly meets the threshold for an explanation, as they can connect how the four different elements relate to each other. The comparison of these perspectives, viewpoints, and values also allows for the Merit criteria to be satisfied, by identifying where there are similarities in their fundamental beliefs and where the two perspectives and viewpoints diverge. 

For Excellence, the student has considered the implications of the findings in contexts beyond their inquiry. They have done this in two ways: first, by examining how these findings fit into the historical context of exclusion within feminism, and second, by exploring how the conservative approach of bioessentialism is also foundational to understanding the current debate on transwomen’s participation in sports. Appropriate supporting evidence has been used in this section.

Additionally, they have also critically evaluated the findings, by offering some critiquing of their sufficiency, inclusiveness, and significance. Further use of specific evidence when discussing sufficiency could have been beneficial in securing the judgement.