Assessment Report

Level 1 Home Economics 2021

Standards 90960  90961

Part A: Commentary

Well prepared candidates focussed on the wording of the questions and were able to provide structured responses, ensuring all the question aspects were covered. Successful candidates showed a clear understanding of the underlying concepts, particularly hauora, attitudes and values, and the socio-ecological perspective. Candidates applied their learning of these concepts to the given scenario, providing specific examples with reference to the resource with both positive and negative outcomes. Candidates demonstrated this through clear, detailed, and extensive understanding of ways in which the participants within the scenario could have well-being enhanced.

Successful candidates also provided connections to a range of food and nutrition guidelines, demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of nutrients and were able to apply their knowledge consistently to the scenario.

Part B: Report on standards

90960:  Demonstrate understanding of how an individual, the family and society enhance each other’s well-being

Examination content and assessment specifications.

This paper consisted of a single exam question broken down into parts (a), (b), and (c). Definitions were given for interdependence and social enterprises which were key concepts covered in this exam.

Parts (a), (b), and (c) covered themes specified in the 2021 assessment specifications which were around all four dimensions of well-being requiring the candidates to show understanding of how organisations in society work to enhance well-being of not only the individuals directly (in this case refugee families), but also the well-being of the organisations themselves (thus demonstrating interdependence). Exam content also required candidates to refer closely to the scenario, so candidates had the opportunity to show application of their knowledge to possible real-life situations (as shown in the resource.)

Standard-specific observations

Most candidates covered all aspects of well-being adequately. Spiritual well-being was discussed but not quite as well as the other three aspects. A reasonable number of candidates used physical exercise (walking around the kitchen) as their sole or primary example for physical well-being, rather than nutritionally based examples. In question (b) (ii) successful candidates exemplified their answers by providing examples as to how long-term benefits might look. Most candidates did not tend to extend responses to this question, and therefore did not provide a complete answer.

In part (c), quite a few candidates did not read the word ‘withdraw’ in the question and hence did not answer the question correctly.

This year’s exam was more accessible to candidates with changes to the question format and an ideal amount of reading material contained in the resource booklet. This enabled many candidates to access and convey key points across all entities. This was reflected in the high degree of pass rate for candidates this year compared to the past few years.

Grade related bullet points

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • described at least one example of hauora with a supported example that linked to the resource. The example also linked to an appropriate dimension of health
  • identified a minimum of two participants involved and provided one or more examples of how these participants worked together
  • described consequences of one or more of the resource participants withdrawing from the enterprise.

Candidates who were assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • attempted only one of the three questions
  • provided insufficient evidence to show adequate demonstration of knowledge, which resulted in them not meeting the standard
  • provided brief bullet point responses rather than reasoned descriptions in paragraph format. This resulted in missing out key information pertinent to the question
  • quoted or simply paraphrased the resource without contributing their own ideas. For example, the candidate addressed only refugees (recipients) and not the others when describing hauora benefits and relationships, or the candidates described generic well-being benefits without a connection to the resource context.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • demonstrated clear understanding of the scenario and the various participant relationships within the scenario context
  • provided explanations of hauora that were clearly linked to the resource and were reinforced with sound reasoning and justification
  • described a range of participant relationships that included sponsors, volunteers, and wider community, and reinforced these with specific examples
  • often made some use of planning pages to list key points and then use them in well-structured sentences.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • showed clear, detailed, and extensive understanding of ways in which participants within the scenario could have their well-being enhanced
  • made use of planning pages to structure key points and resource references
  • demonstrated insights that were not stated in the resource material (e.g. stress associated with life as a refugee) and provided a range of examples from the resource to illustrate positive aspects of well-being
  • explained how well-being would be affected over time for refugees, their families, and some of the other participant entities such as volunteers and society
  • gave detailed explanations and justifications using resource examples, a variety of ways in which individuals, families, volunteers and sponsor organisations, and society mutually benefit through participation in the Dates and Figs enterprise
  • in general, were able to bring their answers together by integrating how all three components, namely the individuals, family, and society interacted together to enhance well-being.

 


90961:  Demonstrate understanding of how packaging information influences an individual’s food choices and well-being

Examination content and assessment specifications

The exam was based around a scenario in which candidates were required to show understanding of nutritional knowledge with reference to the specific reading of packaging labels and promotional factors that influence a person’s choice of product. It is expected that candidates would have a good understanding of health promotion models and nutrition guidelines as outlined in the assessment specifications.

This exam was one question, broken down into parts (a) ,(b), (c), and (d).

Each of these parts allowed candidates to focus on different areas that were examined.

  • Part (a) – reading labels and identifying promotional and nutritional factors.
  • Part (b) – specific knowledge on product choices for allergies (in this exam, soy allergy) and A2 milk.
  • Part (c) – application of knowledge to nutritional guidelines, and physical well-being.
  • Part (d) – additional foods to be added to a smoothie to show candidates own knowledge of how this food would enhance a product to balance it nutritionally. Additional information required on well-being that related to the people in the scenario. Having several parts to the question allowed it to be scaffolded to gain higher quality responses.
Standard-specific observations

Candidates are expected to read and understand the questions to ensure that the knowledge they are trying to apply is appropriate and directed to the scenario. They should be able to connect detailed information (nutrition knowledge) in a way that answers the question in reference to the given context. For example, many candidates used the word ‘healthy’, with no supporting evidence to show their understanding of what ‘healthy’ may be.

While the context of the exam was challenging for the candidates given the sports context, candidates did very well in transferring their skills and applying it to the nutritional needs of a sports person. Many candidates concentrated more on the first few questions with limited completion of the rest of the paper. Many candidates repeated themselves a lot for the two parts required at (d) and this should be avoided.

Grade related bullet points

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • understood and answered the questions
  • accurately describing the promotional and nutritional features of various products
  • were able to provide some accurate nutrition knowledge relevant to the scenario, linking to wellbeing
  • correctly identified foods that could be added to improve the nutrition of the protein drink
  • were successful in reading labels accurately.

Candidates who were assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • did not answer the questions completely
  • were unable to provide enough specific nutrition knowledge to match the scenario
  • were unable to make appropriate food suggestions to add to the milk and drink powder
  • showed little knowledge of nutrition and the Food and Nutrition Guidelines (FNGs).

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • understood and included connections to the food and nutrition guidelines as directed in the question
  • demonstrated some in-depth knowledge of nutrients and were able to apply some of their knowledge to the scenario
  • explained how their food product choices were appropriate.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • provided connections to a range of food and nutrition guidelines
  • demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of nutrients and were able to apply their knowledge consistently to the scenario
  • were able to justify their choice of product(s) based on packaging information and the benefits to the individuals in the context provided.

Home Economics subject page

Previous years' reports
2020 (PDF, 229KB)

2019 (PDF, 219KB)

2018 (PDF, 82KB)

2017 (PDF, 42KB)

2016 (PDF, 210KB)

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