Mark Scheme, Question 1 (a). US involvement in the Korean War

Examiners use Mark Schemes to determine how best to categorise a candidate’s response and to ensure that the performances of thousands of candidates are marked to a high degree of consistency. Few answers fall neatly into the mark levels indicated below: some answers will provide good comparisons but offer little internal provenance; others may rely heavily on own knowledge. Examiners therefore try to find the ‘best fit’ when applying the scheme. Each answer has a final mark based on three Assessment Objectives (AO1a, AO1b and AO2a) worth 6 + 8 + 16 = 30 marks. As the standard of the two answers lies between Level 1 and Level IV, only the descriptors and marks for these levels are tabulated below.

Answers need to directly compare the two sources and may evaluate matters such as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the sources ‘as evidence for …’. The introductions and attributions for each source should be used to aid comparison. These two sources provide different views on why the USA entered the Korean War. Source A is from the writings of Harry Truman, who was President at the time of the war and who made the final decision to send troops to South Korea. Source B is from the memoirs of Dean Acheson, Secretary of State at the time, who, despite being an important figure in Truman’s government, gave a different slant on why intervention was important. There is much material to help candidates make an effective comparison between the two sources.

 

Marking Grid for Enquiries Question (a)

Assessment Objectives	AO1a - Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge and communicate clearly and effectively	AO1b - Demonstrate understanding of the past through explanation and analysis	AO2a - Analyse and evaluate a range of appropriate source material with discrimination
LEVEL IA	Uses a range of appropriate historical terms; clearly and coherently structured and communicated answer. 6 marks	Consistently relevant and analytical answer; clear and accurate understanding of key concepts and significance of issues. 8 marks	Provides a focused comparison of both content and provenance; evaluates qualities and limitations of sources. 16 marks
LEVEL IB	Uses a range of appropriate historical terms; clearly and coherently structured and communicated answer. 6 marks	Judgements are supported by appropriate references to content and provenance; very good understanding of key concepts and significance of issues. 7 marks	Provides an effective comparison of both content and provenance; evaluates qualities and limitations of sources. 13–15 marks
LEVEL II	Uses historical terms accurately; clearly and mostly coherently structured and clearly communicated answer. 5 marks	Good attempt at explanation/analysis but uneven overall judgements; mostly clear understanding of key concepts and significance of issues. 6 marks	Provides a relevant comparison of both content and provenance; evaluation lacks completeness and may be confined to the conclusion or second half of the answer. 11–12 marks
LEVEL III	Uses relevant historical terms but not always accurately or extensively; mostly structured and clearly communicated answer. 4 marks	Mixture of internal analysis and discussion of similarities and/or differences; uneven understanding of key concepts and significance of issues. 5 marks	Provides a comparison; makes limited links with the sources by focusing too much on content or provenance. 9–10 marks
LEVEL IV	Some evidence that is tangential or irrelevant; some unclear, under-developed or disorganised sections but satisfactorily written. 3 marks	Mostly satisfactory understanding of key concepts and significance of issues; some unlinked though relevant assertions, description/narrative but without a judgement. 4 marks	Attempts a comparison but comments are largely sequential; makes few points of comparative provenance or similarity/difference of content. 7–8 marks