FIELD                        SOCIAL SCIENCES

 

Review of History Level 3 achievement standards

 

Subfield                        Social Science Studies

Domain	Id	Subject reference
History	90654-90658	History 3.1-3.5

 

The Ministry of Education and the Secondary Education Group Assessment business unit of NZQA have completed a review of the achievement standards listed above that were registered in October 2003.

 

New Registration date                        November 2005

 

Date new versions published                        November 2005

 

Planned review date                        March 2008

 

Summary of review and consultation process

 

This review is part of the planned cycle of review that takes place after the first year of use of the achievement standards.

·        Initial feedback and comments were collated from teachers/schools, moderators, examiners, markers, material developers, and other stakeholders.

·        This information was reviewed by a subject expert panel and recommendations were made in March 2005.

·        The recommendations were sent out for full consultation to secondary schools, tertiary institutions, and others in the education sector, in April/May 2005.

·        Feedback from this full consultation has informed the changes described below.

 

Main changes resulting from the review

 

AS90654, History 3.1

 

·         Credit value reduced from 5 to 4.

 

Introductory statement

·        The word independently has been inserted in order to reinforce the idea that candidates need to conduct this research on their own.

·        The word identify has been removed as it was felt that identification was covered by the definition.

 

Achievement criteria

·        The word identify has been removed from the first criterion as it was felt that identification was covered by the definition.

·        The word perceptive has replaced discerning in the first criterion in order to bring AS90654, History 3.1 in line with the other Level 3 History achievement standards (where perceptive has proved to be a very useful term) and to provide clarification to assessors making decisions.

·        The criterion for planning has been amended in order to emphasise the importance of detailed planning and to build on the changes made to this criterion in the reviewed AS90465, History 2.1.

·        The word gather has been removed from the third criterion because it was felt that selection, by its very nature, required gathering.

 

Explanatory notes

·        Explanatory note 3 has been added for independent historical research in order to clarify the role of the assessor in the research process.

·        New explanatory notes 5-7 have been added to assist the assessor with making decisions about significant and perceptive questions and to clarify the requirements of detailed planning.

·        Explanatory note 10 has been deleted.

·        A new explanatory note 11 has been added to clarify what is meant by record details of the sources accurately.

 

AS90655, History 3.2

 

·        Credit value increased from 4 to 5.

 

Introductory statement

·        This has been amended to reflect the changes made to the criteria.

 

Achievement criteria

·        The first criterion has been altered to build on the changes at Level 2 and to emphasise the importance of the candidate explicitly communicating historical ideas rather than simply downloading facts or an historical narrative.

·        The word perceptive has been added to the first criterion at achievement with excellence in order to enable the assessor to make decisions about the overall quality of the candidates' historical ideas and evidence in relation to an historical context.

·        The second criterion (presentation) has been altered.  The word flair, which has proved problematic to assessors, has been removed at achievement with excellence, while impact has been retained.

 

Explanatory notes

·        There have been some additions to the explanatory notes in order to bring clarification to the requirements for historical ideas and their communication at this level.

·        A new explanatory note 3 has been added to help assessors make consistent decisions in relation to communicate explicitly.

·        A definition for perceptive understanding of the historical context has been added in explanatory note 5.

·        There have been some relatively minor alterations to some of the other explanatory notes in order to bring about consistency with the changes made in the reviews of the corresponding achievement standards at Levels 1 and 2.

 

AS90656, History 3.3

 

Achievement criteria

·        The word informed has been added to the final criterion at achievement with merit and achievement with excellence to provide an extra level of differentiation and to align it with the other two criteria.

 

Explanatory notes

·        New explanatory notes 5 and 6 have been added to give definitions for informed and perceptive.

 

AS90657, History 3.4

 

Introductory statement

·        This has been amended to reflect the changes made to the criteria.

 

Achievement criteria

·        The requirement that the candidate describe a significant decision (first criterion) has been removed because it was felt that candidates who described/explained the factors had either implicitly or explicitly described the decision.  It was felt that the description of the decision was often tied up in the explanation of the factors.

·        The word accurately has been added to the new first criterion at achievement for greater consistency.

·        Describe has replaced evaluate in the second criterion at achievement, in order to recognise that to meet the standard at this grade candidates must demonstrate an understanding of the decision rather than evaluate consequences of the decision.  Evaluation has been retained for achievement with merit and comprehensive evaluation for achievement with excellence.

·        The fourth criterion that required reference to historical narratives (historiography and contemporary views) has been removed.  It was felt that it was an unnecessary constraint to achievement.  Candidates could still refer to historical narratives when explaining the factors that led to the decision and when evaluating its consequences.

·        The panel felt that argument was a key skill that should be retained in Level 3 essays but felt that this high level skill should start at achievement with merit rather than achievement.  The standard at this grade will be met when candidates competently describe history.

 

Explanatory notes

·        Several of the explanatory notes have been removed or altered in line with alterations to the criteria.

·        Explanatory notes 4 and 5 were inserted to help assessors make consistent decisions about comprehensive evaluation.

 

AS90658, History 3.5

 

Title

·         In the opinion of the panel, the word issue has been unnecessarily constraining to assessors.  Many aspects of the broad survey courses are missed by the focus on issue (which implies conflict).  The social history aspects of both options were marginalised by the focus on issue.  The panel recommended that the focus of this achievement standard shift to a significant historical situation in the context of change.  The title has been adjusted accordingly.

 

Introductory statement

·        This has been amended to reflect the changes made to the criteria.

 

Achievement criteria

·        The panel recommended that the second criterion (the application of terms/concepts/ideas) be removed as it was felt that any candidate who described the situation would automatically have used the appropriate terms/concepts/ideas.

·        The third criterion concerning change, trends and patterns has been merged with the fourth concerning the ways the issue influenced people's lives, in order to eliminate unnecessary repetition for candidates.

·        The sixth criterion has been merged into the reviewed third criterion.

·        The requirements for essay structure and argument have been aligned with those for AS90657, History 3.4.

 

Explanatory notes

·        There have been some minor alterations to the explanatory notes to reflect changes made to the achievement criteria and to clarify what is meant by a situation.

·        Explanatory notes 5 and 6 were inserted to help assessors make consistent decisions about comprehensive evaluation.

 

Impact on Accreditation and Moderation Action Plan (AMAP)

 

None.

 

Impact on existing qualifications

 

None.

 

Impact of changes on NCEA Exclusions List

 

An exclusion between 90656 and 5832 has been added to the List.

 

Summary of main changes to achievement standards' Ids, classification, titles, levels, and credits

 

The following summary shows the changes made to the achievement standards as a result of the review.  All changes are in bold.

 

Key to review category
A	Dates changed, but no other changes are made - the new version of the standard carries the same Id and a new version number
B	Changes made, but the overall outcome remains the same - the new version of the standard carries the same Id and a new version number
C	Major changes that necessitate the registration of a replacement achievement standard with a new Id
D	Achievement standard will expire and not be replaced

 

Subfield            Social Science Studies

Domain            History

Id	Title	Level	Credit	Review Category
90654	Plan and carry out independent historical research	3	5 4	B
90655	Communicate and present historical ideas clearly to show understanding of an historical context	3	4 5	B
90656	Analyse and evaluate evidence in historical sources	3	5	B
90657	Examine a significant decision made by people in history, in an essay	3	5	B
90658	Examine a significant issue in the context of change, in an essay Examine a significant historical situation in the context of change, in an essay	3	5	B