AS 91280 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, 346 KB]

TKI Social Studies assessment resources (external link)

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

This involves deciding on a clear focus, developing focus questions, and gathering information and background ideas that enable them to describe people’s points of view, values, and perspectives in relation to the inquiry focus. To achieve, the student must also reflect on and evaluate the understandings they develop throughout the inquiry.

The student has identified a clear focus: the Treaty Principles Bill. They have written purposeful focus questions that support exploring differing viewpoints, values, and perspectives. To meet the requirement for gathering information and background ideas, the student lists relevant sources and provides a succinct background paragraph. The depth of specific quotations and detail used in their findings further demonstrates active information gathering.

Two distinct points of view are described: David Seymour’s position in support of the bill and Hana Rawhiti Maipi Clarke’s position in opposition. Each is supported with appropriate evidence, including direct quotations and references to actions taken. The student also identifies the perspectives (libertarian and indigenous) and values underpinning these viewpoints (libertarian and indigenous), as required by the standard.

The student reflects on and evaluates their understandings by addressing the overarching inquiry question: “How do differing perspectives and responses to legislation reflect ideas of rights, responsibilities, and social justice in Aotearoa New Zealand?” Conclusions clearly arise from the evidence they have gathered and considered. They also comment on source reliability. They propose improvements, including adding kaupapa Māori sources and legal experts and broadening their historical understanding. This shows an awareness of how reliability and source selection can affect conclusions. 

For Merit, the student must explain the perspectives, values, and viewpoints by making the relationships between them explicit. In practice, this means showing how a perspective informs values and how those values shape the person’s viewpoint on the issue. For example, Hana Rawhiti Maipi Clarke’s indigenous perspective centres on whakapapa, tikanga, and mana motuhake. These values lead her to see Te Tiriti as a living, relational agreement that protects collective rights and shared authority. This has shaped her viewpoint that the bill threatens Māori self-determination and should be opposed, which in turn influenced her actions. 

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

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

The Achieved criteria are clearly met. Appropriate focus questions that enable exploration of perspectives, viewpoints, and values have been developed. Evidence of the requirements to gather relevant background information is seen through a list of possible sources and collected survey data. Additionally, throughout the response, the use of specific data and quotes reflects curriculum level 7 expectations, providing further evidence for this criterion. The evaluation demonstrates reflection on the understandings developed during the inquiry by addressing the overarching question of whether New Zealand should adopt a four-day working week, assessing the reliability of sources, and providing a specific, evidence-based conclusion.

The student has discussed two key perspectives—economic and health—and the values associated with each as they relate to the four-day working week. These perspectives are clearly connected to the viewpoints of various individuals. This meets the threshold for an explanation, as the student not only identifies perspectives and values but also links them to individuals’ experiences and beliefs, explaining how and why these shape their positions on the issue.

To reach Excellence, the student would need to make justified generalisations that extend beyond the immediate context of their inquiry. This involves moving past a descriptive account of how other countries view the issue and instead explaining the underlying perspectives and values shaping those views, as well as the significance of similarities and differences between contexts. 

For example, they could examine how economic and health perspectives influence values and attitudes in Japan, where cultural expectations around work and productivity differ significantly from those in New Zealand, including the emergence of ‘karōshi’ (death from overwork) as a social issue. This level of analysis would enable them to make justified generalisations about how cultural and historical factors shape a society’s approach to the four-day working week.

For Excellence, the student needs to conduct a reflective social inquiry comprehensively. 
In addition to the Achieved and Merit criteria, this requires them to make justified generalisations that can be applied beyond the immediate context of the inquiry.

The student has clearly met the requirements for Achieved and Merit through accurate explanation of perspectives, points of view, and values. They clearly articulate how progressive and conservative worldviews relate to the selected individuals’ values and, in turn, their viewpoints on crime. They have also reflected on their inquiry process at a depth consistent with the Achieved criterion at curriculum level 7, including commenting on source reliability, limitations, and improvements for future inquiries.

The final focus question, “What can New Zealand learn from how other countries deal with the causes of crime?” has been thoughtfully developed to give the student appropriate scope to form a justified generalisation. In this section, they draw on earlier findings to argue for a balanced approach that pairs accountability with prevention. They use international examples, including attendance enforcement in England, prevention-focused strategies in Scotland, and links between poverty and crime in South Africa, to show how a mix of actions could inform New Zealand’s own response. This constitutes a justified generalisation because it is grounded in the perspectives and evidence established in Questions 1-2 and transfers these insights beyond the original cases to guide action in New Zealand.