Centre Name:
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
UNIT WD2
PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS OF WORLD DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
Individual Candidate Record Sheet
Centre Number:
WDP
Candidate Name: Candidate Number:
Teachers are required to complete this form by giving the marks of the analyses of the three articles, the comparative essay, and the total mark awarded. The marks for the analyses of the three articles must be entered in box A below, together with the total, and the final mean (average) mark (as indicated on page 33). The mark for the comparative essay must be entered in box B below. The two marks from boxes A and B must be entered in the box called 'Total Mark awarded by Centre', a maximum of 50. In order to justify the marks awarded for each piece of work, teachers must also complete the details on the second and third page of this form (as indicated on pages 33 and 34).
A. Analysis of
Articles
Analysis of Article 1
Analysis of Article 2
Analysis of Article 3
Total
Mean (average) Mark
(Nearest Whole Number)
B. Comparative
Essay
Total
Mark awarded by Centre
Mark awarded by Centre
Maximum
Marks
25
25
25
75
25
Maximum
Marks
25
Total Mark awarded by
Centre
(A + B)
50
NOTICE TO CANDIDATE
The work you submit for assessment must be your own.
If you copy from someone else, allow another candidate to copy from you, or if you cheat in any other way, you may be disqualified from at least the subject concerned.
Declaration by Candidate:
I have read and understood the Notice to Candidate (above). I have produced the attached work without assistance other than that which my Teacher has explained is acceptable within the specification.
The essay is words in length. I understand that this should not exceed the limit of 1,000 words.
Candidates's signature:
Date:
Declaration by Teacher:
I confirm that the candidate's work was conducted under the conditions laid out by the specification.
I have authenticated the candidate's work and am satisfied that, to the best of my knowledge, the work produced is solely that of the candidate.
Teacher's signature:
Date:

A Analysis of Article
Title:
Topic and Key idea:
Summary of points raised in each article. Use of appropriate terminology and quality of language.
Mark Teacher's
Mark
3 - 5 Comprehensive, thorough and succinct summary of points raised in each article.
Effective and appropriate use of terminology.
/5
Offers a brief summary of the key points raised in each article. Some of the evidence from each article is identified. There are omissions.
No summary of the points made in the resources.
1 - 2
0
Summary of the views of the writer. Use of appropriate terminology and quality of language.
8 - 10 Objective understanding and summary of views and value judgements of the authors, including aspects of bias. Use of appropriate terminology.
4 - 7 Some appreciation of the views of the authors. Limited appreciation of bias.
Limited understanding and appreciation of the views of the authors.
Makes no reference to bias or value judgements. Basic quality of language.
1 - 3
/10
No summary of authors' views is made. 0
Outline of candidate's own views about the topic discussed in the article.
8 - 10 Clearly states own views about the topic. Views are thoroughly justified with accurate and relevant supporting information.
Makes a brief statement of own views about the topic. There is some justification of own views with some relevant detail.
4 - 7
Vague and imprecise summary of own views, with no clear justification.
No personal views expressed.
1 - 3
0
TOTAL
Comments
/10
/25

B Comparative essay
Title:
Research, Knowledge and understanding of the two contrasting situations.
Mark Teacher's
Mark
8 - 10 Thorough understanding and depth of knowledge of poverty / inequality. Detailed appreciation of contrasts and comparisons appropriate to the title.
Has some knowledge and understanding of poverty / inequality in the context of the chosen title.
4 - 7
/10
Very limited understanding of poverty / inequality in the context of the chosen title.
No understanding of poverty / inequality is evident.
1 - 3
0
Structure / organisation of the essay. Quality of the written comparison. Quality of language. Use of appropriate terminology.
Clearly structured to make an effective comparison. Presents a coherent argument.
8 - 10
4 - 7 Some effective comparison but not comprehensive. More implied rather than explicit comparisons.
Disjointed style. Lacks explicit comparison. Basic quality of language.
1 - 3
/10
No coherence or organisation evident in the essay.
Conclusion to the essay.
Clear and explicit conclusion appropriate to the topic.
Limited attempt to reach a conclusion appropriate to the topic.
There is no conclusion.
0
3 - 5
1 - 2
0
TOTAL
/5
/25
Comments
GCE Coursework Marksheets - World Development
Unit WD2 - WDP form/ED