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 and b |
AO2a and b |
|
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 |
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse and evaluate a range of appropriate source material with discrimination.
Analyse and evaluate, in relation to the historical context, how aspects of the past have been interpreted and represented in different ways |
LEVEL I |
- Convincing analysis and argument with developed explanation leading to careful , supported and persuasive judgement arising from a consideration of both content and provenance. There may be a little unevenness at the bottom level.
- Sharply focused use and control of a range of reliable evidence to confirm, qualify, extend or question the sources.
- Coherent, organised structure. Accurate and effective communication.
20–22 marks |
- A carefully grouped and comparative evaluation of all the sources with effective levels of discrimination sharply focused on the interpretation.
- Analyses and evaluates the strengths, limitations and utility of the sources in relation to the interpretation. Uses and cross references points in individual or grouped sources to refute an interpretation.
- Integrates sources and contextual knowledge in analysis and evaluation and is convincing in most respects. Has synthesis within the argument through most of the answer.
42–48 marks |
LEVEL II |
- Good attempt at focused analysis, argument and explanation leading to a supported judgement that is based on the use of most of the content and provenance.
- A focused use of relevant evidence to put the sources into context.
- Mostly coherent structure and organisation if uneven in parts. Accurate and effective communication.
17–19 marks |
- Grouped analysis and use of most of the sources with good levels of discrimination and a reasonable focus on the interpretation.
- Analyses and evaluates some of the strengths and limitations of the sources in relation to the interpretation.
- Some, perhaps less balanced, integration of sources and contextual knowledge to evaluate the interpretation. Synthesis of the skills may be less developed. The analysis and evaluation is reasonably convincing.
35–41 marks |
LEVEL III |
- Mainly sound analysis, argument and explanation but there may be some description and unevenness. Judgement may be incomplete or inconsistent with the analysis of content and provenance.
- Some relevant evidence but less effectively used and may not be extensive.
- Fair structure, organisation and communication.
13–16 marks |
- Some grouping although not sustained or developed. Sources are mainly approached discretely with limited cross reference. Their use is less developed and may, in parts, lose focus on the interpretation. There may be some description of content and provenance.
- Is aware of some of the limitations of the sources, individually or as a group, but mostly uses them for reference and to illustrate an argument rather than analysing and evaluating them as evidence.
- There may be unevenness in using knowledge in relation to the sources. Synthesis may be patchy or bolted on. Analysis and evaluation are only partially convincing.
28–34 marks |
LEVEL IV |
- Attempts some analysis, argument and explanation but underdeveloped and not always linked to the question. There is likely to be more assertion , description and narrative. Judgements a are less substantiated and unconvincing.
- Evidence will vary in accuracy, relevance and extent. It may be generalised or tangential.
- Structure is less organised, communication less clear and some inaccuracies of expression.
9–12 marks |
- Sources are discussed discretely and largely sequentially, perhaps within very basic groups. Loses focus on the interpretation. The sources are frequently described.
- May mention some limitations of individual sources but largely uses them for reference and illustration. Cross referencing is unlikely.
- An imbalance and lack of integration between sources and knowledge often with discrete sections. There is little synthesis. Analysis and explanation may be muddled and unconvincing in part.
21–27 marks |
LEVEL V |
- Little argument or explanation, inaccurate understanding of the issues and concepts. The answer lacks judgement.
- Limited use of relevant evidence or context which is largely inaccurate or irrelevant.
- Structure is disorganised, communication basic and the sense not always clear.
5–8 marks |
- A limited attempt to use the sources or discriminate between them. The approach is very sequential and referential, with much description. Points are undeveloped.
- There is little attempt to analyse, explain or use the sources in relation to the question. Comment may be general.
- There is marked imbalance with no synthesis. Analysis and explanation are rare and comments unconvincing.
12–18 marks |
LEVEL VI |
- There is very little explanation or understanding. Largely assertion, description and narrative with no judgement. Extremely limited relevance to the question.
- Evidence is basic, generalised, patchy, inaccurate or irrelevant.
- Little organisation or structure with poor communication.
3–4 marks |
- Very weak and partial use of the sources for the question. No focus on interpretation.
- A very weak, general and paraphrased use of source content.
- No synthesis or balance. Comments are entirely unconvincing.
6–11 marks |
LEVEL VII |
- No argument or explanation. Fragmentary and descriptive with no relevance to the question.
- No understanding underpins what little is made of evidence or context.
- Disorganised and partial with weak communication and expression.
0–2 marks |
- Little application of the sources to the question with inaccuracies and irrelevant comment. Fragmentary and heavily descriptive.
- No attempt to use any aspect of the sources appropriately.
- No contextual knowledge, synthesis or balance. There is no attempt to convince.
0–5 marks |
