Assessment Report

Level 2 Health 2021

Standards 91235  91238


Part A: Commentary

Overall, the examination was clear and concise. The resources connected well with topic / issue and candidates were able to refer to the resources effectively within the examination.

The examination allowed candidates to apply the underlying concepts taught in class to an unfamiliar text which was outlined in the assessment specifications.

The questions covered the requirements of the 2021 assessment specification which detailed the candidates would need to draw on their own learning, as well as respond to resources provided for each achievement standard. The assessment specifications were broader in their explanation rather than providing specific topics.


Part B: Report on standards

91235:  Analyse an adolescent health issue


'The scenario in the examination (Resource A) provided candidates with a straightforward situation to use to answer the questions which followed. Most candidates were able to identify with the scenario and explain it according to the question. Some candidates misread parts of the question and answered generically. Candidates frequently referred to the resources which were simple and easy to follow. Candidates could have made more use of the planning page to aid their response.


Understanding was demonstrated across the paper; however, candidates did not always make links between the questions they answered and the resource material. Some candidates copied text straight from the resources and did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate their knowledge of the standard. There appeared to be a knowledge gap when it came to the impact of teenage stress and anxiety on wider NZ society despite it being in the resource material. Candidates who gained high grades were able to describe and link their responses together, e.g., address the factors identified in part (a) to the strategies identified in part (c).

Grade awarding

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • described personal, interpersonal and/or societal factors influencing Vivian.
  • provided some detail on why the actions they identified were health enhancing, making at times brief, general, or superficial links between parts (a), (b) and (c).
  • made personal, interpersonal, and societal explanations were provided throughout the response
  • provided some ideas when writing about a range of influences, strategies, or actions.

Candidates whose work was assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • listed actions without explaining why they were health-enhancing
  • provided strategies that were not strategies or were weak, for example 'Vivian should practice mindfulness'
  • provided strategies for Vivian or in general but did not provide an explanation of how it would be health enhancing.
  • did not complete all parts of the paper
  • copied text straight from the scenario without addressing the questions
  • did not refer to the scenario.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • explained personal, interpersonal, and / or societal factors influencing Vivian.
  • explained short term and long-term consequences for well-being and the link between them
  • explained actions and strategies and how they promoted well-being at a personal, interpersonal and / or societal level
  • related the strategies to the influences in part (a) and consequences in part (b)
  • supported their written answers with relevant evidence from the scenario and/or resources.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • explained in detail personal, interpersonal, and societal factors influencing Vivian.
  • explained in detail the personal, interpersonal, and societal consequences at a more critical level and provided links within the consequences to answers provided in part (a)
  • provided a range of relevant evidence to strongly support arguments throughout the response
  • chose actions/strategies which were the most critical and justified why the strategies were health-enhancing and addressed the influences and consequences.
  • showed thoughtful understanding of the underlying concepts of health.



91238:  Analyse an interpersonal issue(s) that places personal safety at risk


Many students understood and answered all questions with good detail to meet the criteria of the achievement standard. The resources were relevant and enabled understanding within the examination.

The examination was one question with five parts to respond to. All parts needed to be completed to achieve the standard.

The issue chosen had relevance to the candidate involved.

The concept gave candidates a choice on which strategy they might explain or allowed them to create their own strategy. Most candidates explained strategies well, however often with slightly less detail with how this could promote or impact wellbeing.


Overall, candidates provided appropriate details to support the standard. Many candidates explained each question within the examination with sufficient to good detail.

Responses in the digital examination often provided more detail than those in the written paper examinations.

Allowing candidates to have a choice in the strategies section potentially meant that more candidates had the opportunity to describe the existing strategy rather than inventing one themselves. The topic was relevant to students, and they understood the underlying concepts for the standard.

Grade awarding

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • answered all questions but did not explain links between questions as required.
  • provided some explanations for how discrimination based on ethnicity could be influenced by interpersonal factors in the school.
  • gave weak explanations of society factors contributing towards the discrimination issue.
  • provided some detail on how discrimination could affect short-term well-being however had limited responses for long-term well-being factors.
  • chose and explained a strategy within the context of the issue with no or some connections to consequences and influences.

Candidates whose work was assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the standard
  • partially answered questions or not answering many questions within the examination
  • provided little evidence or left some questions unanswered.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • provided detailed explanations to describe how discrimination based on ethnicity could be influenced by interpersonal and societal factors contributing towards the discrimination.
  • explained how well-being directly affected the person or others in the situation, society / school.
  • provided explanations about short- and long-term well-being with many factors identified for each area of Hauora
  • chose a strategy and explained it in detail with some clear links to connections to consequences and influences.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • clearly identified and explained how interpersonal influences surrounding a person could influence them to discriminate others with unconscious awareness
  • explained society factors in detail, sometimes including culture / media and other sources of influence
  • explained how discrimination impacts total well-being, and how short-term effects can develop long-term
  • explained how society could be impacted
  • chose strategies and explained with an in-depth analysis of how the strategy could achieve a great understanding for others involved, and potentially change people’s views to become more inclusive in society and school.

Health subject page

Previous years' reports
2020 (PDF, 155KB)

2019 (PDF, 234KB)

2018 (PDF, 112KB)

2017 (PDF, 46KB)

2016 (PDF, 213KB)

Skip to main page content Accessibility page with list of access keys Home Page Site Map Contact Us