Assessment Report

New Zealand Scholarship
Agricultural & Horticultural Science 2018

Standard 93105


Part A: Commentary

The overall quality of the candidates’ responses was pleasing with most completing all three questions in the allocated time. The published assessment specifications had been well utilised, allowing candidates to develop a thorough knowledge of the focus issues. The questions examined their deeper understanding and the ability to critically analyse and evaluate various aspects of those issues.

In the Scholarship performance standard, the primary production system extends from the production stage right through to the consumer. However, some candidates focused on the production stage only. This was of particular significance in questions 1 and 3. 

Part B: Report on performance standard

Candidates who were awarded Outstanding Performance commonly:

  • showed evidence of careful planning that resulted in an answer that was well-structured, well-articulated, and contained evidence of a highly developed level of knowledge of the chosen primary production system or contemporary issue
  • clearly demonstrated critical understanding in their responses to the questions
  • provided evidence of sophisticated insight and perception within their responses.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

  • discussed the questions effectively with perception and understanding
  • applied their knowledge and understanding of the issues in questions 1 and 2 (alternative proteins and the value of water)
  • planned their response for each question to assist the construction of an answer that contained accurate, relevant and appropriate information
  • analysed the potential for innovation across the whole primary production system – not just at the farm or production level
  • provided a well-structured series of paragraphs or sections within their answer – not just a dump of information and facts
  • used clear, correct statements and appropriate data to back up their statements or discussion.s

Other candidates

Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly:

  • provided vague, shallow answers that lacked detail in either the information provided or the discussion of that information
  • appeared not to have taken the guidance given in the Assessment Specifications when preparing for the examination
  • did not fully apply knowledge and understanding that would be expected from a candidate who had fully engaged in the Level 3 Ag Hort Science course – especially in terms of the marketing of primary products and the difference between niche and commodity products
  • relied on rote-learnt answers that were out of date, incorrect or not relevant to the question
  • wrote answers that indicated a limited awareness of the entire production systems that were chosen and the issues, implications, challenges and opportunities relevant to that production system.


Subject page


Previous years' reports
2016 (PDF, 42KB)

2017 (PDF, 42KB)

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