MARKBANDS PAPER 3
Markband
Percent
Grade
0
0
1
1-19
2
20-29
3
30-39
4
40-49
5
50-59
6
60-62
7
63-66
8
67-69
9
70-72
10
73-75
11
76-77
12
78-79
13
80-82
14
83-85
Addressing Question
Structure
Evidence
Analysis
Historiography
If the answer does not achieve the standard described in markband 1-2, 0 should be recorded.
There is very little
understanding of the question.
Appropriate skills and
organizational structure are
lacking.
There is little accurate knowledge of the
region. The answer is no more than a
collection of generalizations or a
paragraph or two of facts bearing little
relation to the question.
Little understanding is shown
of the question, which is not
addressed effectively.
There is no clear and coherent
argument. There is also very
little evidence of appropriate
skills, such as selection and
effective use of knowledge,
and the structure is basic.
Although some historical facts and
comments are present they are limited,
often inaccurate and of marginal
relevance.
There is no reference to different approaches
to, and interpretations of, historical events and
topics.
There is little evidence of events
being placed in their historical
context.
There is some indication that
the question is understood.
The question is partially
addressed.
There is a limited
demonstration of skills, focus
(including placing events in
their historical context) and
structure.
There is a limited degree of accurate and
relevant knowledge of the region.
References to different approaches to
historical developments are, at best, implicit.
Reference to interpretations of
historical developments, such as
causes and effects of historical
change, are at best implicit. Events
may be placed in their historical
context to a limited degree.
The demands of the question
are generally understood.
Some attempt has been made
to structure the essay
chronologically or
thematically.
The argument may be supported by
relevant in-depth historical knowledge,
but is applied unevenly.
The question may be answered with a
limited argument that requires further
substantiation
The answer is mainly descriptive or
narrative in form.
The answer is supported by accurate,
relevant and largely in-depth knowledge
of the history of region.
The argument may contain limited reference to
different approaches to historical events and/or
topics.
There has been some attempt to place
events in their historical context and
to show an understanding of
historical processes and (where
appropriate) comparison or contrast.
The demands of the question
are understood and addressed,
but not all the implications
are considered.
Answers are clearly focused
responses to the demands of
the question.
The approach is either
thematic or analytical.
Synthesis is present but
underdeveloped.
There is usually a structured
framework.
Synthesis is present but not
always effectively or
consistently integrated.
Some attempt at analysis may be present but is
limited.
There may be some explicit awareness and
explanation of different approaches to, and
interpretations of, historical events and topics.
Critical commentary indicates some
understanding.
The answer is clearly supported by the
effective use of appropriate, in-depth
factual knowledge of the history of the
region.
Critical commentary indicates some in-depth
understanding but is not consistent throughout.
There is awareness and some evaluation of
different approaches to, and interpretations of,
historical issues and events. These are used to
supplement, in a relevant manner, the
arguments presented.
Events are generally placed in their
historical context.
Responses that mainly summarize the
views of historians and use these as a
substitute for, rather than a
supplement to, the deployment of
relevant historical knowledge cannot
reach the top of this band.
Events are placed in their historical
context.
There is a sound understanding of
historical processes and (where
appropriate) comparison and
contrast.
15
86-87
16
88-90
17
91-93
18
94-96
19
97-99
20
100
Answers are clearly focused
responses, showing a high
degree of awareness of the
demands of the question.
Where appropriate, answers
may challenge the question
successfully.
Answers are clearly focused
responses, showing a high
degree of awareness of the
demands of the question.
Where appropriate, answers
may challenge the question
successfully.
The question is addressed in a
clearly structured, balanced
and focused essay.
Synthesis is well developed,
with knowledge and critical
commentary fully and
effectively integrated.
The question is addressed in a
clearly structured, balanced
and focused essay.
In addition, synthesis is
highly developed, with
knowledge and critical
commentary fully and
effectively integrated.
The answer demonstrates an in-depth
understanding of the history of the region
through the selection and effective use of
historical knowledge.
Different approaches to, and interpretations of,
historical events and topics are explained and
integrated effectively into the answer.
In-depth and accurate historical knowledge is
applied consistently and convincingly to
support critical commentary.
Events are placed in their historical
context.
There is a clear understanding of
historical processes and (where
appropriate) comparison and
contrast.
The answer may demonstrate a critical
examination of a wide range of historical
evidence.
Evidence is used to support relevant,
balanced, and focused arguments.
In-depth and accurate historical knowledge is
applied consistently and convincingly to
support critical commentary. In addition,
answers may reveal a high level of conceptual
ability.
Different approaches to, and interpretations of,
historical events and topics are explained and
integrated effectively into the answer to
support and supplement the argument.
Events are placed in their historical
context. There is a clear
understanding of historical processes
and (where appropriate) comparison
and contrast.
In addition, an awareness of the
reasons for circumstances that
produced differing and often
conflicting historical interpretations
is present.
[0 to 8 marks] maximum that can be achieved for vague generalizations.
[9 to 11 marks] could be awarded for narrative accounts with implicit analysis that fully addresses key items of prompt.
[12 to 14 marks] for more explicit analysis of key items of prompt, but may not consider all significant implications.
[15 to 17 marks] for answers that are focused, well-structured, consistently analytical and supported by accurate knowledge.
[18+ marks] could be reached for answers that fully address the implications of the prompt in a direct, focused manner, with detailed analysis of
specific situations. The strongest answers may offer comparisons/analysis showing depth and insight.
2 Part Question
Compare & Contrast: If only one part of what is supposed to be compared is addressed (one leader, one country, etc.), maximum mark is out
of [7 marks].
Analytical response possible w/ only one part addressed: If the question would be a regular question if it only dealt with one part (one
country, one leader, one aspect, etc.), but it asks for two and yet only one part is addressed in the response, the maximum mark is out of [12
marks].