Assessment Report

Level 2 Home Economics 2021

Standards 91300  91304

 

Part A: Commentary

Given that the examination has only one question, it is essential that candidates answer all parts of the question.

Candidates gained higher grades when they answered all parts of the question in detail giving clear and specific examples to support their explanation.

Candidates who unpacked the requirements of each question before beginning to write tended to be able to write succinct answers without repeating information from previous questions.

While previous papers are useful to consider the ways that questions may be asked and for practice, the assessment specifications change each year. This means that the questions are unlikely to be the same each year. Candidates must be familiar with the requirements of the specifications and read the question carefully, rather than assume what understanding is expected to be demonstrated.

 

Part B: Report on standards

91300:  Analyse the relationship between well-being, food choices and determinants of health

Examination content and assessment specifications

The examination had one question segmented into five parts.

  • Part (a) and (b) focused on how the given determinants of health impact on food choice for the flatmates in the scenario.
  • Part (c) asked for candidates to explain the impact of these food choices on well-being. It was expected that candidates would refer to all four dimensions in their explanation.
  • Part (d) asked for candidates to explain how food choice, well-being, and three determinants of health are interconnected. Candidates were given two and had to select another one from the given list and relevant to the given scenario. In this section candidates could also explain how the selected determinants of health work together to impact on food choice and well-being. The possible determinants of health were identified in the assessment specifications.
  • Part (e) expected candidates to demonstrate knowledge of the flatmates’ situation and how this may have an impact on other people and wider New Zealand society.

All parts of the question had to be answered in detail to ensure they were awarded a higher grade.

Standard-specific observations

Candidates should relate answers to the given scenario. This can include expanding on the information given, e.g. Ari buying a pie and fizzy drink from a dairy when out on a plumbing job.

Candidates should give examples to clarify statements they make, e.g. “healthy foods, foods that are convenient or nutrient dense foods”. This will show a deeper understanding of the impact on food choice.

Candidates are encouraged to think of positive as well as negative impacts of the given scenario. This is relevant when considering the food choices of the people in the scenario as well as the impact on well-being.

To explain spiritual well-being candidates should consider the possible values and beliefs of the people referred to in the scenario and how these relate to food choice.

When candidates are asked about interconnections, it is not expected that they repeat explanations from previous questions, but rather show understanding of how all 3 aspects work together and the complexity of this relationship on individuals, families, and society.

Planning out possible answers before answering the questions may make this task easier.

When explaining the impact on society candidates should consider the implications of the situation given in the scenario and how this can have wider effects on others in New Zealand. These can be both positive and negative.

Grade related bullet points

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • explained how one of the determinants of health affects food choice
  • explained how at least one dimension of well-being is affected by the determinant of health and food choice
  • identified the dimension(s) of well-being they were explaining
  • gave brief examples to support their explanation.

 Candidates who were assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • attempted only some parts of the whole paper
  • wrote brief answers without giving evidence or examples to show understanding of the relationship between determinants of health, food choice, and well-being.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • explained how two or three of the determinants of health affects food choice
  • explained how three dimensions of well-being are affected by the determinant of health and food choice
  • gave detailed explanations using the information in the scenario to support their understanding of food choice, e.g. Ari is likely to buy quick convenience foods from the bakery like sausage rolls or cream buns
  • gave detailed explanations using the information in the scenario to support their understanding of well-being, e.g. impact of nutrients on the body – vitamin C helps absorb iron.

 Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • wrote detailed explanations with specific and clear examples from the scenario to support their answers
  • discussed in depth how the three determinants of health work together to impact on food choice and wellbeing
  • discussed in depth the relationship between the determinants of health, food choice, and well-being
  • showed insight in their analysis of how an individual’s situation can have a compounding impact on other people and society
  • showed comprehensive understanding of how good and poor food choices impact on others in society.

 


 

91304:  Evaluate health promoting strategies designed to address a nutritional need

Examination content and assessment specifications

The examination had one question broken down into three parts

  • Part (a) and (b) asked candidates to explain the benefits and limitations of the given strategies and suggest how effective this strategy would be at increasing fibre rich foods in the community.
  • Part (c) asked candidates to select a strategy and discuss its effectiveness at encouraging people to change their food habits. Candidates were expected to demonstrate their knowledge of the health promotion models by explaining and making valid connections to relevant aspects of the strategy in the scenario. Their discussion should address how the attitudes and values of the people in the community may be considered or affected. Either strategy was acceptable for candidates to write about.
  • All parts of the question should be answered in detail to ensure a higher grade can be awarded.

Standard-specific observations

It is important for candidates to understand key words used in the examination as per the explanatory notes in the Achievement Standard, particularly explanatory note 4. Candidates found it harder to gain higher grades when they had a poorer understanding of the social and environmental determinants of health, e.g. Social – Social support is offered by the nursing students when they ring participant; Environmental – The label-reading sessions are only available at lunchtimes three days a week.

To demonstrate the ability to evaluate a strategy, candidates need to be able to give both a benefit and a limitation for the strategy.

All answers should relate to the given scenario. Candidates are expected to relate their understanding of the health promotion models to the given strategy, rather than provide general rote-type answers.

Candidates are required to ‘challenge the effectiveness of the strategy’ to gain Excellence. This does not necessarily mean they need to compare and contrast strategies. Their answer should be guided by the question.

Grade related bullet points

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • explained at least one benefit and limitation for at least one strategy
  • explained how effective the strategy(ies) would be at increasing consumption of fibre-rich foods in the community
  • showed an understanding of one or more of the social, economic, and environmental determinants of health.

Candidates who were assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • copied large sections of the scenario in their answer without further explanation
  • wrote brief responses that did not fully answer the question
  • gave only a benefit or a limitation for a strategy when the question required them to give both a benefit and a limitation for each strategy.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • explained in detail the benefits and limitations for each strategy
  • showed an understanding of the social, economic, and environmental determinants of health in their explanations of the benefits and limitations
  • explained with supporting detail how effective the strategy would be at increasing consumption of fibre-rich foods in the community.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • comprehensively explained the benefits and limitations of the strategies in relation to the social, economic, and environmental determinants of health
  • discussed the health promotion models related to the strategy in the scenario. They used this knowledge to explain how effective the strategy was likely to be at causing change in food habits by linking the strategies and models
  • explained people’s attitudes and values related to the strategies
  • challenged the effectiveness of the strategy by showing insight into the possible impact of the strategy on the people in the community
  • justified their selection of the most effective strategy by acknowledging the overall impact on changing food habits and improving well-being.

 Home Economics subject page

Previous years' reports
2020 (PDF, 251KB)

2019 (PDF, 236KB)

2018 (PDF, 82KB)

2017 (PDF, 48KB)

2016 (PDF, 215KB)

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