Mark schemes are used by examiners to determine how best to categorise a candidate’s answer and ensure that the performances of thousands of candidates are marked to a high degree of consistency. Few answers fall neatly into the mark bands indicated below. Examiners therefore seek to find the ‘best fit’ when applying the mark bands.
Assessment Objectives |
AO1a
Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately, and communicate knowledge and understanding of history in a clear and effective manner.
Demonstrate understanding of the past through explanation, analysis and arriving at substantiated judgements of:
- key concepts such as causation, consequence, continuity, change and significance within an historical context;
- the relationships between key features and characteristics of the periods studied. |
AO2a
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse and evaluate a range of appropriate source material with discrimination. |
LEVEL I |
- Consistent and developed comparison of the key issue with a balanced and well supported judgement. There may be a little unevenness.
- Focused use of a range of relevant historical concepts and context to address the key issue.
- The answer is clearly structured and organised. Communicates effectively.
14 marks
|
- Focused comparative analysis. Controlled and discriminating evaluation of content and provenance, whether integrated or treated separately.
- Evaluates using range of relevant provenance points in relation to the sources and the question. There is a thorough but not necessarily exhaustive exploration of these.
15–16 marks
|
LEVEL II |
- Largely comparative evaluation of the key issue with a balanced and supported judgement. There may be some unevenness.
- Focused use of some relevant historical context with a good conceptual understanding to address the key issue.
- The answer is well structured and organised. Communicates clearly.
12–13 marks |
- Relevant comparative analysis of content and evaluation of provenance but there may be some unevenness in coverage or control.
- Source evaluation is reasonably full and appropriate but lacks completeness on the issues raised by the sources in the light of the question.
13–14 marks |
LEVEL III |
- Some comparison linked to the key issue. Is aware of some similarity and/or difference. Judgements may be limited and/or inconsistent with the analysis made.
- Some use of relevant historical concepts and contexts but uneven understanding. Inconsistent focus on the key issue.
- The answer has some structure and organisation but there is also some description. Communication may be clear but may not be consistent.
10–11 marks |
- Provides a comparison but there is unevenness, confining the comparison to the second half of the answer or simply to a concluding paragraph. Either the focus is on content or provenance, rarely both.
- Source evaluation is partial and it is likely that the provenance itself is not compared, may be undeveloped or merely commented on discretely.
10–12 marks |
LEVEL IV |
- Some general comparison but undeveloped with some assertion, description and/or narrative. Judgement is unlikely, unconvincing or asserted.
- A general sense of historical concepts and context but understanding is partial or limited, with some tangential and/or irrelevant evidence.
- Structure may be rather disorganised with some unclear sections. Communication is satisfactory but with some inaccuracy of expression.
8–9 marks |
- Attempts a comparison but most of the comment is sequential. Imparts content or provenance rather than using it.
- Comparative comments are few or only partially developed, often asserted and/or ‘stock’ in approach.
8–9 marks |
LEVEL V |
- Very limited comparison with few links to the key issue. Imparts generalised comment and/or a weak understanding of the key points. The answer lacks judgement or makes a basic assertion.
- Basic, often inaccurate or irrelevant historical context and conceptual understanding.
- Structure lacks organisation and coherence with weak or basic expression.
6–7 marks |
- Identifies some comparative points but is very sequential and perhaps implicit.
- Comment on the sources is basic, general, undeveloped or juxtaposed, often through poorly understood quotation.
6–7 marks |
LEVEL VI |
- Comparison is minimal and basic with very limited links to the key issue. Mainly paraphrase and description with very limited understanding. There is no judgement.
- Irrelevant and inaccurate concepts and context.
- Has little organisation or structure with very weak expression.
3–5 marks |
- Little attempt to compare. Weak commentary on one or two undeveloped points, with basic paraphrase. Sequencing is characteristic.
- Comments on individual sources are generalised and confused.
3–5 marks
|
LEVEL VII |
- Fragmentary, descriptive, incomplete and with few or no links to the key issue. There is little or no understanding. Much irrelevance.
- Weak or non existent context with no conceptual understanding.
- No structure with extremely weak expression.
0–2 marks |
- No attempt to compare either content or provenance with fragmentary, brief or inaccurate comment.
- Makes no attempt to use any aspects of the sources.
0–2 marks |
