Exemplar for Internal Assessment Resource History Level 1 Resource title: Amritsar Massacre, 1919

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Exemplar for Internal Assessment Resource History Level 1 Resource title: Amritsar Massacre, 1919"

Dina Hensley
5 years ago
Views:

Exemplar for Internal Assessment Resource History Level 1 Resource title: Amritsar Massacre, 1919 This exemplar supports assessment against: Achievement Standard 91004 Demonstrate Understanding of

1 Exemplar for Internal Assessment Resource History Level 1 Resource title: Amritsar Massacre, 1919 This exemplar supports assessment against: Achievement Standard Demonstrate Understanding of Different Perspectives of People in an Historical Event of Significance to New Zealanders Expected responses The moderators have developed expected student response from a wide variety of sources. Date version published by Ministry of Education December 2010 To support internal assessment from 2011

2 Grade Boundary: Low Excellence 1. Perspective identified. 2. Perspective identified. 3. Reason for the perspective concerning Gandhi. Really needs a little more explanation for clear Excellence. 4. Relevant supporting evidence. A higher level of Excellence would have included a little detail/explanation for the likes of the Defence of India Act, what was happening on the Western Front, Rowlatt Satyagraha. 5. An action in response to perspectives Chelmsford, as Viceroy, presumably had a hand in the wartime and post-war restrictions, but this is not clearly demonstrated by the student. 6. Not quite the detail needed for Excellence. More explanation and backgrounding to the hartal would have helped. 7. Signs of perceptiveness about Dyer s argument about the need for the massacre. 8. Reason for the perspective concerning Dyer. 9. Sustaining the argument against Dyer s actions somewhat insightful. 10. More detailed supporting evidence here would help to secure Excellence: the Crawling Orders, the nature and outcome of the Hunter Commission, details about the Rowlatt Satyagraha, details about the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. 11. An action in response to perspectives though Chelmsford s support for the inquiry is not made clear by the student. 12. An action in response to perspectives but badly lacking details. 13. An action in response to perspectives a clear relationship between perspectives and actions is established here. A somewhat perceptive comment, possibly accurate, about Gandhi s motives. 14. Two perspectives briefly outlined. 15. An action in response to perspectives but details are clearly lacking, especially for the Rowlatt (Punjab) satyagraha. 16. Somewhat perceptive, though these are well-known views of Gandhi. 17. An action in response to perspectives some detail provided, but more would help to secure Excellence. 18. Gandhi s perspective concerning the Hindu-Muslim relationship. 19. Explanation of the situation regarding Indian Muslims, the Khilafat Issue and the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms would help to secure Excellence.

3 20. Insightful understanding the student understands the fact that the Montagu- Chelmsford Reforms were simply an attempt to placate Indians, rather than providing self-government to India. Overall there are signs of insightful and perceptive understanding shown here, and the most of the important issues are raised by the student. Although the depth of supporting evidence is an issue, understanding is just sufficiently comprehensive for Excellence at level one. Slightly more explanation again would help to secure Excellence. The nature of the context can be given consideration by the assessor. Since the situation in India, especially the politics, is reasonably demanding for level one students, that consideration helps to allow an overall Low Excellence judgement for this student.

7 Grade Boundary: High Merit 21. Perspective identified Chelmsford s view of Gandhi. 22. Perspective identified Chelmsford s view of Dyer and Gandhi perspectives are only very briefly stated at this point. 23. Explanation of a perspective, but not clearly linked to the perspective and little detail provided. 24. Some supporting evidence concerning the Rowlatt Bills problem. 25. Perspective identified some more detail now being provided concerning Chelmsford s view of Dyer. 26. Some supporting evidence concerning Dyer s actions in Amritsar understanding seems clear but there is not a great depth in this supporting evidence. 27. An action by Chelmsford this makes it possible that the Excellence standard could be reached. 28. Supporting evidence concerning the action Chelmsford is taking, though not a great depth to this evidence. 29. Perspective identified Gandhi s view on British rule. Little explanation so far. 30. Action related to perspective use of satyagraha. 31. Perspective identified failure of satyagraha though not a lot of detail provided. 32. Action related to perspective suspending the satyagraha only a little explanation. 33. Perceptive understanding of how satyagraha worked concisely explained. 34. Perspective identified. 35. Extremely brief supporting evidence concerning the Hunter Report. 36. A somewhat perceptive observation. 37. An implied action, but no details. 38. A somewhat perceptive observation about the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. Overall there is convincing understanding of perspectives and events, very succinctly stated. The level of explanation and supporting evidence is a problem. There is some Excellence-level evidence (perceptiveness), but at only a low level. Greater depth of supporting evidence would help to confirm understanding and move the judgement to the Excellence standard.

11 Grade Boundary: Low Merit 39. Perspective identified Chelmsford s view of Gandhi. 40. Perspective identified Chelmsford s view of Dyer and Gandhi perspectives are only very briefly stated at this point. 41. A long section containing supporting evidence, in some detail, concerning the Amritsar Massacre and what followed. Note that this depth of evidence is absent elsewhere in the evidence. 42. Perspective identified Chelmsford s view of his own role with the Hunter Commission. 43. Evidence supporting the last perspective (43), but insufficient depth to be useful. 44. Perspective identified Chelmsford s view of the role of the British in India supporting evidence lacking, however. 45. Perspective identified Chelmsford s view of the role of Gandhi s role in Indian society and politics. 46. Very brief supporting evidence, but there is a sign here of perceptive thinking (that Gandhi was not as big a threat to the British raj as history sometimes makes him out to be). 47. Perspective identified Gandhi s view of the Amritsar Massacre but without any detail at this point. 48. Perspective identified Gandhi s view of the British raj. 49. Perspective identified Gandhi s view of the Hindu-Muslim problem. 50. A reasonably perceptive realisation of the likely impact of diarchy on the Hindu- Muslim relationship. 51. An action taken to improve the Hindu-Muslim relationship. 52. Some supporting evidence for the action concerning the khilafat issue was really needed here. Overall, a wide variety of perspectives is presented but in only one instance is there any depth of supporting evidence that one instance is reasonably thorough, however. The problem when making a judgement is to decide how great is the impact of mostly insufficient supporting evidence on the overall requirement of the Standard which is to demonstrate understanding. A few signs of insight and perceptiveness also need to be taken into account. Since in-depth (Merit) or comprehensive (Excellence) understanding is required for the higher performance judgements, this evidence barely makes the grade. The extra depth provided concerning the Amritsar Massacre just allows a Low Merit judgement. Merit requires convincing understanding and it is the depth of supporting evidence that generally signals this.

15 Grade Boundary: High Achieved 53. Perspective established Chelmsford s view of the role of the raj but no supporting evidence for this. 54. Perspective established Chelmsford s view of Gandhi and satyagraha. 55. Supporting evidence concerning the satyagraha perspective rather brief, though. 56. Awareness of the consequences of the Amritsar Massacre slight evidence of insight and perceptiveness. 57. The argument does not quite follow, here. 58. An action that Chelmsford will take but with little supporting evidence. 59. Perspective established Gandhi s view of the raj. 60. Good supporting evidence for the perspective. 61. Perspective established Gandhi s view of the Hunter Report very little supporting evidence. 62. An action by Gandhi little supporting evidence. 63. An action by Gandhi little supporting evidence. Overall, the writing and understanding is sensible, and there is quite a wide variety of matters raised. With one exception supporting evidence is very brief. This is a concise summary of important aspects that needed to be addressed but more depth was needed to raise the judgement to Merit Merit requires convincing understanding with relevant supporting evidence.

18 Grade Boundary: Low Achieved 64. One perspective is established Chelmsford s view of Dyer. 65. Supporting evidence for the perspective. 66. An action taken by Chelmsford the Hunter Commission (though it was not entirely an initiative by Chelmsford). 67. Supporting evidence for the last action, but not really adequate. 68. Another action taken by Chelmsford Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. 69. Slight supporting evidence supporting the last action. 70. Perspective is established Gandhi s view of British rule. 71. Some unconvincing evidence for the last perspective. 72. Another perspective is established Gandhi s view of the Amritsar massacre. 73. Brief, unconvincing evidence for the second perspective. 74. An action by Gandhi. 75. Very brief supporting evidence for the last action. Overall, this student shows signs of understanding but the depth of supporting evidence is such that there is doubt about the understanding. Since most of what is written is correct this student can just scrape through with Low Achievement.

21 Grade Boundary: High Not Achieved 76. A perspective is established Chelmsford s view of Gandhi s satyagraha. 77. Supporting evidence for the last perspective. Ideas are sweeping and vague but appear to have some relevance. 78. A perspective is established Gandhi s view of British rule. 79. Supporting evidence for the perspective. Though the evidence could be relevant clearer explanation is needed. 80. An action by Gandhi beginning the Rowlatt Satyagraha. 81. Inadequate supporting evidence concerning the Rowlatt Satyagraha. 82. An action by Gandhi opposing the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. 83. Inadequate supporting evidence. 84. Evidence unrelated to the rest of the text understanding is definitely in doubt. Overall this student appears to know the sorts of things that need to be presented but ideas are very sweeping and supporting evidence is not sufficient to reach the Achievement standard. Note that this (and other) student s inclusion of actions that resulted from perspectives can be relevant to the understanding of perspectives without necessarily meaning that this is Excellence-standard evidence. Explanatory Note 2 of the Achievement Standard states that Perspective is a person s point of view, attitudes, beliefs and may include reasons for the perspectives, and the related actions/responses. Students may, therefore include that evidence to demonstrate understanding, but for Excellence they MUST include the actions evidence.

Exemplar for Internal Assessment Resource History Level 1. Resource title: The Desegregation of Little Rock High School

Exemplar for internal assessment resource History 1.4B for Achievement Standard 91004! Exemplar for Internal Assessment Resource History Level 1 Resource title: The Desegregation of Little Rock High School