Social Studies (Level 2 achievement standards)
What this domain tests
Level 2 Social Studies tests whether you can think like a social scientist about real conflict and action, not just retell events. Across the standards you must show understanding of conflict arising from different cultural beliefs and ideas (AS91279), conduct a reflective social inquiry (AS91280), explain how cultural conflict can be addressed (AS91281), and analyse action that promotes social justice. Marks come from specific evidence, concept vocabulary and multiple perspectives.
Core rules and concepts
- Anchor answers in concept vocabulary: perspectives, values and beliefs, power, authority, rights and responsibilities, justice, mana, kaitiakitanga, Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnership, migration, globalisation.
- Cultural conflict arises when groups hold incompatible beliefs or values, or when one group's power to decide is contested. Cover cause, responses and consequences.
- Know the verbs: describe = what happened; explain = why and how, using 'because' and 'therefore'; evaluate = judge against criteria such as significance or fairness.
- Name a dated, located case and the groups involved. 'Some people disagreed' earns nothing.
Worked example
Question: explain how differing cultural beliefs can cause conflict.
In 2003 the Court of Appeal let Māori test customary title to the foreshore and seabed. Many Māori held that mana whenua and kaitiakitanga over the takutai moana had never been extinguished; many other New Zealanders held that beaches should stay in public ownership. Because each side's belief about ownership carried a different value - customary guardianship versus equal access - any policy looked like loss to one group. Responses included the 2004 hīkoi and the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. Consequence: lasting strain in Crown–Māori relations and stronger Māori political organisation.
Traps that cost marks
- Retelling the event without cause, response or consequence.
- Giving one perspective and treating it as neutral.
- Using undated or invented examples instead of a named case.
- In the inquiry, listing sources without judging their reliability or reflecting on your own process.