Assessment Report

New Zealand Scholarship
Sāmoan 2016

Standard 93010


Part A: Commentary

Successful candidates demonstrated the ability to think laterally and organise their thoughts in a clear, concise manner. In the speaking section, many candidates were unable to think on their feet. There was a lack of linking, explanation and expansion of concepts. Candidates must be able to select information from the two questions and build on this in their speech. 

Part B: Report on Performance

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:

  • demonstrated aspects of high-level analysis and critical thinking
  • interpreted the stimulus material intelligently, logically, and coherently
  • developed and integrated sophisticated personal opinions, beliefs, viewpoints, or ideas that were perceptive, observant, intuitive, and insightful
  • interpreted and evaluated the stimulus material, creating constructive links with his / her own thoughts that went beyond the given material and demonstrated independent, unbiased reflection and hypothesis
  • expressed ideas with precision and clarity in a convincing way
  • spoke clearly and concisely with correct intonation; accent had no effect on communication; self-corrected as required.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

  • demonstrated aspects of high-level analysis and critical thinking
  • elaborated and incorporated subjective views, standpoints, perspectives, or concepts
  • interpreted the stimulus material, creating constructive links with his / her own thoughts that progressed beyond the given material
  • constructed ideas precisely and clearly, within a synthesised response to the question / statement
  • supported arguments with examples that were evaluated
  • utilised language suitably, such as idiomatic expressions, fillers, pauses, and nuances built-in, relevant to the social context
  • expressed ideas with precision and clarity. 

Other candidates commonly:

  • expressed some personal opinions, viewpoints or ideas, demonstrated some independent thinking
  • presented a descriptive rather than an analytical response
  • offered arguments that were unclear and / or were not supported by effective examples
  • produced Sāmoan that was at times unclear, ambiguous, or misleading
  • communicated with limited confidence in a manner that was hesitant
  • spoke with incorrect intonation; accent affected communication
  • failed to self-correct.


Subject page

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