Assessment Report

Level 2 Social Studies 2021

Standards 91279  91281

 

Part A: Commentary

Overall, there were many strong responses to both standards in the 2021 examination. These directly answered each part of the task and used specific evidence to support key ideas.

Some candidates gave more information than required rather than focusing on the specific elements that the task asked for, and while this did not hinder their grades, it may have led to avoidable time pressure issues for some.

 

Part B: Report on standards

91279:  Demonstrate understanding of conflict(s) arising from different cultural beliefs and ideas

Examinations

The examination closely aligned with the Assessment Specifications as the conflict over lowering the voting age to 16 is a clear example of a conflict relating to democratic rights in New Zealand. Most candidates were able to demonstrate an understanding of the resource materials when attempting to answer the task.

Observations

Candidates who made good use of the headings and prompts offered in the resource booklet without copying a significant amount of text, typically gave strong responses going beyond the basic workings of a cultural conflict and considering the deeper reasonings behind how a cultural conflict plays out in society.

Grade awarding

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • described perspectives by naming the perspective (sometimes using the terms “ideology” or “world view”) and stated clear values and or beliefs that were consistent with the named perspective
  • completed parts (a) and (b) of the task without continuing to parts (c) and (d)
  • described points of view about the change
  • did not identify social forces or describe the social force without explaining how they contributed to the conflict.

Candidates whose work was assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • provided points of view and/or values without relating them to a Social Studies perspective
  • described only one point of view, value, and perspective
  • summarised the information in the resource booklet without using it to answer the task.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • explained how both social forces had contributed to the conflict, going beyond "telling" what the social forces were, e.g. stating that campaigning raised awareness and created a public debate, therefore increasing the conflict over raising the voting age
  • used evidence from the resource booklet to effectively support main ideas throughout their response
  • provided an opinion on which social force was most likely to resolve the conflict without supporting their assertion with reasoning.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • provided evaluative statements regarding the social forces’ effects on the conflict and supported their statements with examples from the resources
  • provided reasons to support which social force was most likely to resolve the conflict, demonstrating a holistic understanding of the conflict and key Social Studies concepts from beyond the resource material.

 


 

91281:  Describe how cultural conflict(s) can be addressed

Examinations

The task strongly related to the Assessment Specifications and was clearly explained. It was easy to navigate for those candidates who addressed the bullet points.

Observations

Candidates who demonstrated a deeper understanding of how their chosen cultural conflict could be addressed also showed they understood participation in social action or participation in decision-making processes and had really thought about the merits of these ways of addressing a cultural conflict.

Candidates who had a greater understanding of cultural conflicts and how they were addressed in a wider sense tended to show deeper understanding.

The wording of "possible outcomes" in the Achievement Standard meant some candidates did not give evidence/examples to support their description of outcomes.

Grade awarding

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • identified outcomes without providing an in-depth description of them and/or evidence to support them
  • discussed participation in social action or the participation in decision-making processes throughout their response
  • provided relevant points of view, values, and perspectives.

Candidates whose work was assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • described points of view and values but did not include relevant perspectives in their response, e.g. describing someone's point of view and discussing beliefs like human rights, equality, or justice, but using a "left wing" perspective that did not relate to the description, or identifying a perspective without using points of view or values in the description
  • described inaccurate perspectives that did not relate to a higher ideology or school of thought, e.g. "from a company's perspective".

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • provided two well-supported outcomes that related to the participation in social action or the participation in decision-making processes
  • provided recommendations without strong reasoning as to why their chosen type of participation best addressed the cultural conflict.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • provided detailed evidence throughout their response
  • recommended a type of participation that best addressed the cultural conflict and supported this recommendation with reasoning.

Social Studies subject page

Previous years' reports
2020 (PDF, 138KB)

2019 (PDF, 257KB)

2018 (PDF, 108KB)

2017 (PDF, 43KB)

2016 (PDF, 210KB)

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