Assessment Report

Level 2 Social Studies 2018

Standards 91279  91281

 

Part A: Commentary

Overall, the response of candidates to the 2018 examinations showed strong development of key Social Studies skills. Many candidates demonstrated a good understanding of the requirements of each assessment task and incorporated evidence to support their ideas.

Successful responses showed a further development of the use of points of view, values, and perspectives.

 

Part B: Report on standards

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

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • supported key ideas with relevant specific evidence from the resource booklet
  • gave accurate descriptions of the points of view, values, and perspectives involved
  • demonstrated understanding of the conflict surrounding freedom camping
  • attempted to describe social forces but did not explain how they contributed to the conflict
  • identified a social force incorrectly, e.g. describing a ‘freedom camping app’ as a social force, rather than relating it to the bigger idea of ‘social media’.

Candidates whose work was assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • gave a description of freedom camping in New Zealand without clearly identifying the nature and cause of the conflict
  • identified points of view but lacked description of the relevant values and/or perspectives that underpin the points of view
  • gave inaccurate description of the perspectives of those involved.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • demonstrated understanding of how two social forces contributed to the conflict and supported their ideas with relevant specific evidence
  • lacked evaluative statements required for Achievement with Excellence
  • explained how social forces impacted on freedom campers, rather than on the conflict.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • made judgements about the effect of the social forces on the conflict
  • gave reasoned arguments and evidence to support evaluative statements.

Standard specific comments

Overall, candidates performed well and showed a good understanding of the resources provided. However, some candidates tended to focus on the issue of freedom camping more than the conflict. For example, when describing social forces, some candidates described how social media has made freedom camping easier for tourists without further developing the idea to show how social media has dampened or exaggerated the conflict.


 

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

Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:

  • described accurate points of view, values, and perspectives
  • gave two factors and clearly showed how each factor shaped the way the conflict was addressed
  • supported key ideas with specific evidence throughout their response
  • gave possible outcomes but did not link these outcomes to the ways of addressing the conflict
  • gave possible outcomes that were too general and lacked specific evidence.

Candidates whose work was assessed as Not Achieved commonly:

  • gave vague and unsupported narratives of conflict(s) without directly addressing the examination task
  • described points of view without accurately describing the associated values and perspectives that underpin the points of view
  • gave inaccurate perspectives that did not denote a specific ideology or well-known body of knowledge, e.g. using non-specific terms such as “extremist perspective” or a “current perspective”.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:

  • described two possible outcomes, clearly showing how the outcomes arose from the ways of addressing the conflict
  • supported their description with specific evidence
  • lacked specifics and/or reasoning when giving a recommendation for the best way of addressing the conflict.

Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:

  • recommended the best way of addressing the conflict and gave reasons and examples to support their recommendation
  • gave specific details to support their recommendation, e.g. if a recommendation included a ‘change in legislation’, an Excellence level response would include specifics such as how the law would be changed, why both sides would agree to the law change, and how a law change would achieve the desired outcome for society.

Standard specific comments

The use of Social Studies points of view, values, and perspectives is well developed in many candidates. However, some candidates gave vague, inaccurate labels for perspectives when attempting to unpack a point of view or omit the values completely.  A candidate should include all three aspects when describing the individuals or groups involved in their chosen conflict.

Some candidates based their responses on contemporary topics that are well suited to the examination task, such as gun laws in the USA. However, some candidates have chosen more historical topics that require a large amount of narrative or explanatory background before the examination task can begin to be addressed. In some cases, candidates focus on providing background information to the detriment of the rest of their response addressing the examination task. Whilst historical topics are accepted if they meet the standard, Social Studies offers the opportunity to use current contexts based on local, national, or global issues confronting society today. 

 

Social Studies subject page

 

Previous years' reports (PDF, 43KB)
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