Further information on Higher Philosophy
Course Assessment
(January 2014)
Key messages
SQA is currently developing Course and Unit assessments. This document outlines our progress in
Course Assessment for the Higher Course in Philosophy
The new Higher Philosophy Course will maintain the standard of the current qualification at Higher,
and will continue to be benchmarked against SCQF level 6 as well as ensuring that the level of
demand for candidates is consistent with other Higher qualifications.
Course assessment will have two components: a question paper and an assignment. Both will be
externally assessed. The question paper is worth 60 marks and the assignment is worth 30 marks.
The new Higher Philosophy Course combines popular and relevant contexts from the current
Course, as well as introducing updated content to ensure appropriate progression from National 5
and to prepare candidates for progression to further study. The Course will provide opportunities to
develop breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding, and to apply skills, through the study
of a range of contexts involving arguments in action, epistemology, and moral philosophy.
Personalisation and choice will be increased through the opportunity for candidates to choose a
philosophical question for research in the assignment.
Across the two components of the course assessment, skills and knowledge/understanding will
have equal importance. Skills will be developed through applying a body of knowledge and
understanding involving arguments in action, epistemology, and moral philosophy. Each component
will assess skills and knowledge and understanding, although the question paper will have a greater
emphasis on knowledge and understanding, while the assignment will have a greater emphasis on
the application of skills.
The question paper will assess the skills and will sample knowledge and understanding from the
Course Specification and the Course Assessment Specification. It will build on the approach taken
at National 5, as well as drawing on styles of questions used previously in this subject.
The assignment will assess the application of research, analysis, evaluation and reasoning skills in
the context of a philosophical question. Learners have an open choice of question to study, to allow
for personalisation and choice.
Course assessment will be worth 90 marks in total.
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014
Points of stability and points of change between the current and new Higher
Points of stability
Points of change
Analysis
Evaluation
Expressing reasoned
views
Applying understanding
Sources used as
question prompts
Extended marking instructions will clarify
combination of skills and knowledge required in
each type of question
Same broad areas of
content covered:
 Nature and
characteristics of
arguments
 Epistemology
 Moral Philosophy
 New Unit and section of the question paper,
Arguments in Action assessing understanding
of philosophical techniques, factors affecting
credibility and errors in reasoning and ability
to analyse and evaluate real-life arguments
using argument diagrams
 In Knowledge and Doubt, assessment of
aspects of both Descartes and Hume. Some
other generic content removed
 In Moral Philosophy, assessment of aspects
of both Kant and utilitarianism (including
applying the theories to given situations)
 Opportunity to study metaphysical content
moved to the assignment
Unit assessment
2 Units covering:
 Knowledge and
Doubt
 Moral Philosophy
 Current 3-credit Unit expanded to include new
content, and re-named Arguments in Action.
 Increased flexibility in assessment conditions,
and approaches to gathering evidence
Course
assessment
Types of question
in the question
paper
Marking
instructions
Question paper
Question paper (2 hours and 15 minutes) and
assignment
Greater use of extended response, reduced
number of small mark questions
Assessment of
skills in the
question paper
Use of sources in
the question
paper
Assessment of
knowledge and
understanding in
the question
paper
Overall level of
demand
Extended responses
Evaluate arguments (including within sources)
Analyse arguments (including within sources)
Will continue to be
available.
Detailed advice and guidance for centres in how
marks are allocated to a range of responses.
Extended marking principles.
Benchmarked against
Improved alignment with other related subjects at
SCQF level 6 and current Higher.
Higher.
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014
Higher specimen question paper
(publication by 28 February 2014)
The purpose of this question paper is to demonstrate application of skills and breadth of knowledge
and understanding by sampling from the mandatory information on Course coverage. It will
demonstrate progression from National 5 as summarised in the table below:
Total marks
Time
Sections
Mark ranges for
each question in
the SQP
Number of
questions in the
SQP
Question paper
format
Mandatory content
National 5
50
1 hour 30 minutes
1 section, 3 questions
1–6
Higher
60
2 hours 15 minutes
3 sections, 20 marks per section
3 – 20
3 questions, each question
divided into 5 sub-parts
Between 1 and 4 questions per
section
3 sections
3 sections
No choice of questions
No choice of questions
Higher progresses from N5 as follows:
 In Arguments in Action, more advanced content specified for Higher
 In Moral Philosophy, Kant is specified at Higher, but not required at
N5
 In Knowledge and Doubt, key texts are specified at Higher, but not
at N5
Depth of treatment
of mandatory
content
Question
stems/command
words
Predominantly factual and
explanatory/descriptive; some
application of theory or
abstract underpinning
concepts
Will include:
 Give
 State
 Describe
 Explain
 Evaluate
Greater emphasis on analysis and
evaluation and application of
theoretical and abstract concepts,
dealing with questions fundamental to
the subject
A range of question stems will be used
to make clear to candidates the focus
and requirements of each question.
These may include, for example:
 Analyse…[e.g. an argument]
 Explain…[e.g. an error in
reasoning]
 To what extent is [e.g. an
idea/claim] justified?
 Discuss…[e.g. an idea/claim]
This question paper will give learners an opportunity to demonstrate the following skills:
 Analysis
 Evaluation
 Expressing reasoned views
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014
This question paper will have three sections. Each section will be made up of questions requiring
candidates to draw on their knowledge and understanding and apply skills.
The knowledge and understanding sampled will be drawn from the Philosophy (Higher) Course
Specification and the Further Mandatory Information on Course Coverage section of the Philosophy
(Higher) Course Assessment Specification.
This question paper will be set and marked by SQA, and will be conducted in centres under
conditions specified for external examinations by SQA. The question paper is worth 60 marks.
The duration of the question paper will be 2 hours 15 minutes. It will be divided into three sections,
each of 20 marks:
 Section 1 – Arguments in Action
 Section 2 – Knowledge and Doubt
 Section 3 – Moral Philosophy
Candidates will answer questions assessing knowledge, understanding and the skills of analysis,
evaluation and expressing reasoned views. Questions may relate to any aspect of the mandatory
content. In Section 1, questions will include the ability to analyse an argument in a given passage
using an argument diagram. The passage used will be at an appropriate level of difficulty and
complexity for SCQF level 6.
There will be a separate question paper and answer booklet.
(For sample questions from the current draft of the Specimen Question Paper, see Appendix 1.)
Higher Assignment
(publication by 31 March 2014)
An assignment is a new method of assessment for this subject.
The assignment will require candidates to apply research, evaluation, analysis and reasoning skills
in the context of a philosophical question. Learners have an open choice of philosophical question,
to allow for personalisation and choice.
This assignment will give learners an opportunity to demonstrate the following skills, knowledge and
understanding:





identify a philosophical question for study
explain the implications of the question (including relevant philosophical principles/ concepts)
analyse and evaluate a philosophical position in relation to the question
synthesise information in a structured manner
express a detailed, reasoned and well-structured conclusion on how successfully the
philosophical position has responded to the question
 provide a detailed explanation of both supporting information and potential challenges or
counter-arguments
At Higher the assignment is worth 30 marks (33% of the total mark). It will have a greater emphasis
on the assessment of skills than the question paper. Up to 20 marks will be awarded for the
assessment of skills; up to 10 marks will be awarded for the assessment of knowledge and
understanding of the philosophical question.
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014
The following table illustrates progression from the National 5 Assignment to the Higher
Assignment:
National 5
Higher
30
30
Marks
Conditions
Some supervision and control
Some supervision and control
Choice of
philosophical
question/claim
Assessment
criteria
Open choice
Open choice






Identify a philosophical
question or claim for study
Describe the issues, reasons
or arguments relating to the
chosen question or claim
Identify and select sources to
address the issues, reasons
or arguments relating to the
question or claim
Use and analyse information
from sources and
philosophers/contributors to
the debate
Evaluate issues, reasons or
arguments relating to the
chosen question or claim
Present an informed
personal view on the
philosophical question or
claim







Identify a philosophical question or
claim for study
Explain the implications of the
question (including relevant
philosophical principles/ concepts)
Analyse a philosophical position in
relation to the question
Evaluate a philosophical position in
relation to the question
Synthesise information in a
structured manner
Express a detailed, reasoned and
well-structured conclusion on how
successfully the philosophical
position has responded to the
question
Explain supporting information and
potential challenges or counterarguments
Evidence will be produced under some supervision and control. Evidence must be submitted to
SQA for external marking.
(Please see Appendix 2)
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014
Appendix 1
The following examples show some of the questions in each section of the current draft of
the Specimen Question Paper.
Section 1: Arguments in Action
Read the following passage:
Some companies offer short-term loans to people who are unable to borrow money from
banks, for example because they are unemployed. The companies charge very high rates
of interest on these loans. These loans are immoral because people that use them end up
taking on yet more debt just to pay back what they borrowed originally. It is wrong to
deliberately lend money to people who you know can’t pay it back quickly.
Analyse an argument in this passage using an argument diagram
4 Marks
Explain how philosophers use thought experiments, with reference to an 4 Marks
example
Section 2: Knowledge and Doubt
To what extent is Hume’s view of causation justified?
20 marks
Section 3: Moral Philosophy
Analyse the ways in which ideal and preference-satisfaction utilitarianism
differ from classical utilitarianism.
10 marks
General Marking Principles for Philosophy (Higher)
The following general marking principles must be applied when marking all candidate
responses to questions in this Paper. These principles must be read in conjunction with the
detailed Marking Instructions for each question. Marks for each candidate response must
always be assigned in line with these general marking principles and the specific Marking
Instructions for the relevant question. If a specific candidate response does not seem to be
covered by either the principles or detailed Marking Instructions, and you are uncertain how
to assess it, you must seek guidance from your Team Leader/Principal Assessor.
 Marking should always be positive, i.e. marks should be awarded for what is correct and
not deducted for errors or omissions.
 For credit to be given, points must relate to the question asked. Where candidates give
points of knowledge without specifying the context, these should be rewarded unless it is
clear that they do not refer to the context of the question.
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014
Marking Principles for each question type
1
Questions that require knowledge and understanding (e.g. Explain …)
One mark should be awarded for each relevant, developed point of knowledge and
understanding which is used to respond to the question. Developed points will involve the
candidate providing, for example:




additional detail
reasons
evidence
drawing out the implications of a question or idea
2
Questions that require analysis (e.g. Analyse, or In what ways …)
Analysis involves identifying parts, the relationship between them, and their relationships
with the whole. It can also involve drawing out and relating implications.
An analysis mark should be awarded where a candidate uses their knowledge and
understanding/a source to identify relevant components (e.g. of an idea, theory, argument,
etc.) and clearly show at least one of the following:
 links between different components
 links between component(s) and the whole
 links between component(s) and related concepts




similarities and contradictions
consistency and inconsistency
different views/interpretations
possible consequences/implications
 the relative importance of components
 understanding of underlying order or structure
Up to a maximum of 4 marks, 1 mark should be awarded for each relevant analytical point
used to respond to the question.
Where a candidate makes more analytical points than are required to gain the maximum
allocation of 4 marks, these can be credited with knowledge and understanding marks
provided they meet the criteria for this (see 1 above).
Argument diagrams
Questions assessing the ability to analyse an argument using an argument diagram will be
worth between 3 and 5 marks, depending on the demands of the argument concerned.
Marks will be awarded as follows:
For a given source, containing at least one argument:
 1 mark for identifying at least one premise in the argument
 1 mark for identifying a conclusion in the argument
 1 mark for identifying an intermediate conclusion in the argument (if relevant)
 1 mark for identifying any relevant hidden premises or dependent premises in the
argument
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014
 1 mark for drawing a diagram in any form which shows the relationship between at least
two premises and a conclusion in the argument
Where candidates provide a different set of premises/conclusions, and/or different argument
diagram to those identified in the Marking Instructions, they should be awarded marks
provided these accurately relate to an argument made in the source.
3 Questions that require evaluation (e.g. Evaluate … [a given argument, criticism or
claim])
Evaluation involves making a judgement based on criteria. Candidates will make reasoned
evaluative comments relating to, for example:




the relevance/importance/usefulness, e.g. of a viewpoint or source
positive and negative aspects
strengths and weaknesses
any other relevant evaluative comment
Where a candidate makes more evaluative points than are required to gain the maximum
allocation of 4 marks, these can be credited with knowledge and understanding marks
provided they meet the criteria for this (see 1 above).
4 Questions that require analysis, knowledge and understanding, evaluation and
reasoned views (e.g. To what extent is… [a given idea, criticism or claim]
convincing?)
(Other question stems/command words to be used, as appropriate)
Questions of this sort will be worth 20 marks. Marks will be available for:




relevant knowledge/understanding
analysis
evaluation
expressing a reasoned view
Knowledge and understanding
Up to a maximum of 10 marks, 1 mark should be awarded for each relevant developed point
of knowledge and understanding used to respond to the question. Developed points will
involve the candidate providing, for example:




additional detail
reasons
evidence
drawing out the implications of a question or idea
Analysis
Analysis involves identifying parts, the relationship between them, and their relationships
with the whole. It can also involve drawing out and relating implications.
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014
An analysis mark should be awarded where a candidate uses their knowledge and
understanding/a source to identify relevant components (e.g. of an idea, theory, argument,
etc.) and clearly show at least one of the following:
 links between different components
 links between component(s) and the whole
 links between component(s) and related concepts




similarities and contradictions
consistency and inconsistency
different views/interpretations
possible consequences/implications
 the relative importance of components
 understanding of underlying order or structure
Up to a maximum of 4 marks, 1 mark should be awarded for each relevant analytical point
used to respond to the question.
Where a candidate makes more analytical points than are required to gain the maximum
allocation of 4 marks, these can be credited with knowledge and understanding marks
provided they meet the criteria for this (see 1. above).
Evaluation
Evaluation involves making a judgement based on criteria. Candidates will make reasoned
evaluative comments relating to, for example:




the relevance/importance/usefulness, e.g. of a viewpoint or source
positive and negative aspects
strengths and weaknesses
any other relevant evaluative comment
Up to a maximum of 4 marks, 1 mark should be awarded for each relevant evaluative point
used to respond to the question.
Where a candidate makes more evaluative points than are required to gain the maximum
allocation of 4 marks, these can be credited with knowledge and understanding marks
provided they meet the criteria for this (see 1 above).
Reasoned views
Marks for a reasoned view should be awarded where a candidate answers the question in a
way that progressively connects throughout their response, the knowledge/understanding,
analytical and evaluative points they have made in their answer.
1 mark should be awarded where the candidate organises their overall response into a
coherent and sustained line of argument in response to the question.
A further 1 mark should be awarded where the candidate also provides at least one of the
following:


a weighing up of the key analytical/evaluative points made in their answer
an explanation or response to an opposing view/different conclusion
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014
Appendix 2
The following information is taken from the current draft of the Assignment document.
General Marking Principles for Higher Philosophy assignment
This information is provided to help you understand the general principles you must apply
when marking candidate responses to this assignment. These principles must be read in
conjunction with the more specific Marking Instructions that follow them.
 Marks for each candidate response must always be assigned in line with these general
marking principles and the specific Marking Instructions.
 If a specific candidate response does not seem to be covered by either the principles or
detailed Marking Instructions, or where a candidate has researched an area in which you
are unable to verify the knowledge which they have presented, and you are uncertain
how to assess it, you must seek guidance from your Team Leader/Principal Assessor.
 Marking should always be positive, i.e. marks should be awarded for what is correct and
not deducted for errors or omissions.
Candidates may demonstrate a range of approaches to how they structure their assignment
evidence.
Candidates may demonstrate their skills, knowledge and understanding in a variety of ways
and at different points in their assignment evidence. In accordance with the Marking
Instructions, markers should credit relevant and appropriate skills, knowledge and
understanding wherever it is demonstrated.
In presenting their evidence, candidates should show the following skills, knowledge and
understanding
 Identify a philosophical question for study
 Explain the implications of the question (including relevant philosophical principles/
concepts)
 Analyse a philosophical position in relation to the question
 Evaluate a philosophical position in relation to the question
 Synthesise information in a structured manner
 Express a detailed, reasoned and well-structured conclusion on how successfully the
philosophical position has responded to the question
 Explain supporting information and potential challenges or counter-arguments
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014
General Marking Principles for Higher Philosophy Assignment
Marks will be awarded for candidates’ ability to:
A. Explain the implications of the question (including explanation of relevant
philosophical principles or concepts)
Candidates can be credited in a number of ways.
B. Analyse a philosophical position in relation to the question
Candidates can be credited in a number of ways.
Analysis involves identifying parts, the relationship between them, and their relationships
with the whole. It can also involve drawing out and relating implications.
An analysis mark should be awarded where a candidate uses their knowledge and
understanding/a source to identify relevant components (e.g. of an idea, theory, argument,
etc.) and clearly show at least one of the following:
 links between different components
 links between component(s) and the whole
 links between component(s) and related concepts




similarities and contradictions
consistency and inconsistency
different views/interpretations
possible consequences/implications
 the relative importance of components
 understanding of underlying order or structure
C. Evaluate a philosophical position in relation to the question
Candidates can be credited in a number of ways.
D. Synthesise information in a structured manner
Candidates can be credited in a number of ways.
E. Express a detailed, reasoned and well-structured conclusion on how successfully the
philosophical position has responded to the question
Candidates can be credited in a number of ways.
F. Explain supporting evidence and potential challenges or counter-arguments
Candidates can be credited in a number of ways.
Candidates can receive guidance from their assessor on the type of resources which would
be appropriate for the assignment at this SCQF level.
Further information will be provided on the allocation of marks for the Philosophy (Higher)
Assignment.
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
January 2014