NCEA Level 2 Health (90327) 2011 — page 1 of 6
Assessment Schedule – 2011
Health: Describe aspects of mental health (90327)
Evidence Statement
Note: The Achievement Criteria and Question One specifically state that it is the influences on mental health that are the focus, not the consequences for mental health. While the discussion may include some consideration of consequences, the answer must contain clear descriptions or explanations of the factors that are influencing a person’s mental health and their ability to cope.
Question
/Evidence
/Achievement
/Achievement with Merit
/Achievement with Excellence
ONE / Personal, interpersonal, and societal factors that have a positive or negative influence on the mental health of the adolescents in the scenarios are described or explained.These factors influencing mental health should link to the protective and risk factors related to the concept of resilience, as relevant to the situations presented in the scenarios. / A1
Factors influencing mental health, in relation to the change scenario, are validly described for EACH of:
· personal
· interpersonal
· societal factors. / M1
Factors influencing mental health, in relation to the change scenario, are validly explained for EACH of:
· personal
· interpersonal
· societal factors. / E1
Some aspects of the descriptions, while valid, may be lacking conceptual integrity,
eg the factor in common across the scenarios for personal and interpersonal should be a reasonable interpretation of factors influencing the situations presented (whether specifically stated, implied, or assumed, and based on other knowledge of similar scenarios), but it may not include well evidenced, insightful, or critical examples.
Influencing factors may focus on the positive AND / OR the negative, as relevant to the scenario.
A valid description as to how the influencing factors are either protective or risk factors shows understanding, which is relevant to the concept of resilience. / Explanations should clearly link the factor with the influence it has on mental health. The factor in common across the situations for personal and interpersonal should be a well-evidenced example (whether the factor is specifically stated, implied, or assumed, and based on other knowledge of similar situations), and show insightful understanding of factors that influence mental health.
Influencing factors may focus on the positive AND / OR the negative as relevant to the scenario.
A valid explanation as to how the influencing factors are either protective or risk factors shows clear understanding of these ideas highly relevant to the concept of resilience. / Overall, the candidate transfers deeper and more critical understandings from other contexts to the change scenarios. This may be evident from the candidate using ideas from their own understanding of mental health, in addition to the resource material provided, or through conceptually insightful explanations and critical use of evidence from the scenarios.
Notes:
For the purpose of the examination and as indicated in paper, the protective and risk factors are the same as the factors that influence mental health in positive and negative ways, respectively. These lists do not distinguish between personal, interpersonal and societal factors. Consequently, it is up to candidates to validly identify which risk and protective factors are also personal and interpersonal or societal factors – see examples below. The lists are not exhaustive, and candidates can draw on ideas that extend beyond these.
The placement of the protective and risk factors in these lists is NOT definitive and may vary depending on where the emphasis is placed, eg transience might be a personal factor because that is the reality for an individual, but it could also be a societal factor because of the factors that influence transience like unemployment, etc. Assessor judgement of the candidate’s application of ideas about what are personal, interpersonal, and societal influences will need to be made in context of their response to questions. Also, the personal and interpersonal factor that the three adolescents have in common required in Question One (a) (i), and what the two adolescents have in common for (b) (i) (a common factor that they either have or don’t have), will vary in interpretation and will need to be viewed in context of the candidates’ reasoning.
The candidate who thinks more abstractly (eg makes links or draws parallels with examples and change contexts they explored in their learning programmes), may discuss factors not specifically mentioned in the scenarios, on the assumption these are factors the young people lack, but knowledge of similar situations tells them these factors are likely to operate. This is a valid interpretation and response.
Examples may include:
Personal
Protective
· Faith that life has meaning, optimism, aspirations, hopes and plans for the future.
· Thinking skills, including problem solving and seeing things from others’ perspectives.
· Involved in extracurricular activities and having many interests and hobbies.
· Staying longer at school and achieving well.
· Attachment to the community and one’s culture. / Interpersonal
Protective
· Parenting that combines warmth with clear limits and firm consequences.
· At least one close friend.
· Positive social interactions with other people.
· Mainly law-abiding friends with positive interests.
· Large net of social support from wider family, teachers, school, workplace, church, youth organisations and leaders. / Societal
Protective
· Safe, supportive neighbourhoods.
· Meaningful employment.
Risk
· Low self-esteem, poor social or coping skills.
· Heavy use of alcohol and other drugs, especially where this is self-medication.
· Chronic illness, mental health or behaviour or learning problems.
· Truancy, academic failure and dropping out of school.
· Transience, high mobility. / Risk
· Parenting that is: overly harsh; sets insufficient boundaries; inflexible with regard to changing needs with age; and neglectful.
· Lack of social support from family.
· Sexual abuse, as well as emotional, physical and verbal abuse, bullying or neglect.
· Multiple problems or disadvantages in the family, including poor accommodation, mental health problems, unemployment, violence, addiction, crime and poverty.
· Low income in the family.
· Chronic marital conflict, particularly where it is in front of the children, destructive and / or involves violence. / Risk
· Lack of social support from, neighbourhood and wider community.
· [The opposite of the protective factors and the more societal considerations of some of the personal and interpersonal factors].
Note: Question Two provides a description of a ‘strategy’ as a combination of knowing what action to take and why, in a particular scenario, and having the skills and resources to carry out the action. The question asks the candidates for strategies that were already in place for the young person in their selected scenario and strategies that needed to be developed.
Question
/Evidence
/Achievement
/Achievement with Merit
/Achievement with Excellence
TWO(a), (b) / Appropriate strategies for maintaining an aspect of mental health (and building resilience) are described or explained at a personal, interpersonal, and societal level. / A2
Strategies for EACH of the personal, interpersonal, and societal perspectives are described.
Descriptions may lack depth and insight, and include the less essential or less critical strategies, or be little more than actions, but they should be relevant to the chosen scenario. / M2
Strategies for EACH of the personal, interpersonal, and societal perspectives are explained.
Explanations should include the more essential strategies and be clearly relevant to the chosen scenario.
/ E2
Strategies for EACH of the personal, interpersonal, and societal perspectives are explained in depth.
As for Merit, plus identifies and explains critical strategies.
(c) / Reasons why the adolescent selected will have the most positive outcome, are justified. / The candidate should make some attempt to justify why they think the adolescent they selected will have the most positive outcome, compared with the others, but the reasoning may not link well to the appropriateness of the strategies already in place or yet to be developed, or to the risk and protective factors. / The candidate’s justification as to why they think the adolescent selected will have the most positive outcomes shows some links to the ‘appropriateness’ of the strategies already in place or yet to be developed, and how these link to the risk and protective factors.
The more essential strategies show clear links with the protective factors and the enhancement of these, and have obvious relevance to the situation presented in the scenario.
Note that there is no single correct answer as to who will have the best outcome – the emphasis is on the candidate’s ability to recognise which protective factors the person already has access to for (a), and which still need to be developed (or risk factors reduced / eliminated) for (b), eg:
For (a), Jordan has a supportive family environment, he has a personal interest in the form of sport, but for (b), his school does not understand his situation, so instead of, or as a part of his suspension, they could help him with his drinking and planning for his future.
The candidate may argue Jordan has the most positive mental health outcomes because his issues don’t seem insurmountable, he lives with a family, he has a school and community where it appears he can get help and be supported with personal and interpersonal issues, whereas for Nila and Jian, the community situation with Jian’s language and cultural difficulties, or the state of the country where Nila lives, seem so huge it’s hard to see they will have good outcomes.
[Overall the response alludes to ideas raised in (a) and (b), but may not link explicitly.] / The candidate’s justification as to why they think the adolescent selected will have the most positive outcomes is clearly demonstrated, ie the young person, who (they reason), already has access to the most sustainable protective factors (personal, interpersonal, and / or societal), and has the greatest realistic opportunity to achieve / develop or access those strategies not yet available to them, will have the most positive outcomes.
These strategies are strongly linked to understandings of risk and protective factors.
Critical strategies are those that, given the individual and combination of factors influencing the person’s mental health, target particular behaviours or aspects of the situation – either to develop or enhance specific knowledge and skills that relate to the protective factors, and, where relevant, reduce / eliminate risk factors. There are many ways to respond to each scenario. The candidate’s responses will need to be considered holistically, eg:
For (a), Jordan has a warm supportive family environment and he lives with caring adults, he has a personal interest in the form of sport, and he continues to go to school, all of which contribute to being able to cope with change and manage stressful situations, but for (b), communication and the way support is shown within the family needs to be developed in a way that Jordan’s negative feelings that he is only tolerated, and he feels left out, are addressed (eg the opportunity for interpersonal communication skills to share feelings and be listened to). In addition, guidance support within the school to develop more positive and healthy ways of thinking about himself (his disability), and his achievements in his schoolwork and sport, and to plan for the future, should be made available to him. The school could require him to seek help from a drug rehab programme to manage his drinking.
[When justifying which person will have the best outcomes, the candidate achieving Excellence can argue a case specific to the way they responded to (a) and (b).]
Notes:
· Strategies include approaches and actions that seek to develop the protective factors and reduce the risk factors listed with the examples for Question One, or as relevant to the factors identified by the candidate. The protective factors are ideal outcomes; therefore, candidates need to show they know what strategies are needed to achieve these outcomes. These will be context-specific.
· ‘Appropriate’ strategies noted in the criteria were framed in the examination in relation to which adolescent (selected from the three scenarios presented), would have the most positive mental health outcomes in future. There is no single right answer to this, and candidates are required to justify their decision. It is expected that candidates will argue a case whereby the adolescent who, to their thinking and reasoning, already has access to the most protective factors (personal, interpersonal and / or societal), and has the greatest opportunity to develop or access those strategies not yet available to them, will have the most positive outcomes, ie ‘appropriate’ strategies are realistic, achievable and sustainable. At the same time ‘appropriate’ strategies are also essential strategies that need to happen given the nature of the situation (eg respond to the relevant risk and protective factors), and in addition, they are critical strategies (eg they address the factors influencing the situation). Consequently, candidates’ responses will need to be considered in the context of the scenario chosen.
· The strategies should be specific to the change scenarios. Very generic strategies (eg helping and support), with no stated application to the scenario, if validly described, will at best reach only the level of Achievement.
· Building resilience at community or societal level by its very nature requires having effective community support services and structures. Societal strategies therefore must consider advocacy, values promotion, etc – actions that have the potential to include the whole community.