Paper 2 Mark Discriptors
[0]
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below
1–3
Answers lack understanding of the demands of the question or accurate/relevant historical knowledge.
Answers show little or no evidence of appropriate structure and consist of little more than vague, unsupported assertions.
Answers show little or no evidence of appropriate structure and consist of little more than vague, unsupported assertions.
4–5
Answers reveal little understanding of the question.
While historical details are present, they are largely inaccurate and/or of marginal relevance to the task.
There is little or no understanding of historical context or historical processes.
While there may be a recognizable essay structure, there is minimal focus on the task
While historical details are present, they are largely inaccurate and/or of marginal relevance to the task.
There is little or no understanding of historical context or historical processes.
While there may be a recognizable essay structure, there is minimal focus on the task
6–7
Answers indicate some understanding of the question.
There is some relevant historical knowledge, but it is limited in terms of quantity and quality.
There may be some attempt to place events in their historical context. Understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast may be present but underdeveloped.
While there may be a recognizable essay structure, the question is only partially addressed.
There is some relevant historical knowledge, but it is limited in terms of quantity and quality.
There may be some attempt to place events in their historical context. Understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast may be present but underdeveloped.
While there may be a recognizable essay structure, the question is only partially addressed.
8–9
Answers indicate that the demands of the question are generally understood.
Relevant historical knowledge is present and applied but is not fully or accurately detailed and is presented in a narrative or descriptive manner. Alternatively, there is coherent argument that requires further substantiation. Relevant critical commentary is implicit.
There has been an attempt to place events in their historical context and to show an understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast.
There is evidence of an attempt to follow a structured approach, either chronological or thematic.
Relevant historical knowledge is present and applied but is not fully or accurately detailed and is presented in a narrative or descriptive manner. Alternatively, there is coherent argument that requires further substantiation. Relevant critical commentary is implicit.
There has been an attempt to place events in their historical context and to show an understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast.
There is evidence of an attempt to follow a structured approach, either chronological or thematic.
10–12
Answers indicate that the demands of the question are understood and addressed though not all implications are considered.
Relevant, largely accurate historical knowledge is present and applied as evidence. Answers may attempt some critical commentary.
Events are generally placed in their historical context. There is an understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast.
There may be some awareness of different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical issues and events. However, 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.
There is a clear attempt to structure answers either chronologically or thematically.
Relevant, largely accurate historical knowledge is present and applied as evidence. Answers may attempt some critical commentary.
Events are generally placed in their historical context. There is an understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast.
There may be some awareness of different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical issues and events. However, 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.
There is a clear attempt to structure answers either chronologically or thematically.
13–15
Answers are clearly focused responses to the demands of the question.
Relevant historical knowledge is applied as evidence. Critical commentary using the evidence base is present but not always used consistently.
Events are placed in their historical context. There is a sound understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast.
There may be 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.
Answers are structured (either chronologically or thematically) using relevant evidence to support historical arguments.
Relevant historical knowledge is applied as evidence. Critical commentary using the evidence base is present but not always used consistently.
Events are placed in their historical context. There is a sound understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast.
There may be 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.
Answers are structured (either chronologically or thematically) using relevant evidence to support historical arguments.
16–20
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.
Detailed and accurate historical knowledge is applied as evidence and used consistently and effectively to support critical commentary.
Events are placed in their historical context and there is a perceptive understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast.
There may be evaluation of different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical issues and events. This evaluation is integrated effectively into the answer to support and supplement the argument.
Answers are well structured and clearly expressed, using evidence to support relevant, balanced and focused historical arguments.
Detailed and accurate historical knowledge is applied as evidence and used consistently and effectively to support critical commentary.
Events are placed in their historical context and there is a perceptive understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast.
There may be evaluation of different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical issues and events. This evaluation is integrated effectively into the answer to support and supplement the argument.
Answers are well structured and clearly expressed, using evidence to support relevant, balanced and focused historical arguments.