2

Knowledge and understanding/ Application and Analysis Synthesis and Evaluation Skills and Techniques

1–2 • Very brief or descriptive, ​listing ​a series of unconnected comments or largely • No evidence of evaluation or conclusion • Information presented is not grouped logically (in
irrelevant information. Very general with large gaps or errors in interpretation. paragraphs or sections).
The response is too brief, lists Examples or case studies are not included or only ​listed​.
unconnected information, is not • Maps, graphs or diagrams are not included, are
focused on the question and • Terminology is missing, not defined, irrelevant or used incorrectly. irrelevant or difficult to decipher
lacks structure.

3–4 The response is very general. The knowledge and understanding presented • The conclusion is irrelevant. • Most of the information is not grouped logically (in
outlines ​examples, statistics, and facts that are both relevant and irrelevant. Links paragraphs or sections).
The response is too general, to the question are ​listed​. • There is no evidence of critical evaluation of
evidence (examples, statistics and case
lacks detail, is not focused on • Maps, graphs or diagrams included lack detail, are
studies).
the question and is largely • The argument or analysis presented is not relevant to the question. incorrectly or only partially interpreted without explicit
unstructured. connections to the question
• Basic terminology is defined and used but with errors in understanding or used
inconsistently.

5-6 The response ​describes ​relevant supporting evidence (information, examples, case The conclusions are general, not aligned with • Logically related information is grouped together (in
studies et cetera), ​outlining ​appropriate link(s) to the question. the evidence presented and/or based on an sections or paragraphs) but not consistently.
The response partially incorrect interpretation of the evidence.
• Maps, graphs or diagrams included do not follow
addresses the question, but with • The argument or analysis partially addresses the question or elaborates one point
• Other perspectives on evidence (examples, conventions
a narrow argument, an repeatedly. statistics and case studies) and/or strengths
unsubstantiated conclusion, and and weaknesses of evidence are listed.
limited evaluation. • Relevant terminology is defined and used with only minor errors in understanding
or is used inconsistently.

7-8 • The response ​describes​ relevant supporting evidence correctly (information, • If appropriate to the question, the conclusion • Logically related information is grouped together (in
examples and case studies) that covers all the main points of the question, is relevant to the question, aligned with the sections) consistently.
The response addresses the describing​ appropriate links to the question. evidence but unbalanced.
• Maps, graphs or diagrams included contribute
whole question, the analysis is
• Other perspectives on evidence (examples, to/support the argument or analysis
evaluated and the conclusion is • The argument or analysis is clear and relevant to the question but one-sided or statistics and case studies) and/or strengths
relevant but lacks balance. unbalanced. and weaknesses of evidence are ​described​.

• Complex terminology is defined and used correctly but not consistently.

9-10 • The response ​explains​ correct and relevant examples, statistics and details that • If appropriate to the question, the conclusion • Response is logically structured with discussion, a
are integrated in the response, ​explaining​ the appropriate link to the question. is relevant to the question, balanced and conclusion, focusing on the argument or points
The response is in-depth and aligned with the evidence. made, easy to follow.
question-specific (topic and • The argument or analysis is balanced, presenting evidence that is ​discussed​,
• Evaluation includes a systematic and detailed • Maps, graphs or diagrams are annotated following
command term); analysis and explaining​ complexity, exceptions and comparisons. presentation of ideas, cause and effect conventions and their relevance is explained and
conclusion are justified through relations, other perspectives; strengths and support the argument or analysis
well-developed evaluation of • Complex and relevant terminology is used correctly throughout the response. weaknesses of evidence are discussed;
evidence and perspectives. includes justification of the argument and
conclusion.