National Qualifications 2019 2019 History Advanced Higher Finalised Marking Instructions © Scottish Qualifications Authority 2019 These marking instructions have been prepared by examination teams for use by SQA appointed markers when marking external course assessments. The information in this document may be reproduced in support of SQA qualifications only on a non- commercial basis. If it is reproduced, SQA must be clearly acknowledged as the source. If it is to be reproduced for any other purpose, written permission must be obtained from [email protected]. © General marking principles for Advanced Higher History This information is provided to help you understand the general principles you must apply when marking candidate responses to questions in this paper. These principles must be read in conjunction with the detailed marking instructions, which identify the key features required in candidate responses. (a) Marks for each candidate response must always be assigned in line with these general marking principles and the detailed marking instructions for this assessment. (b) Marking should always be positive. This means that, for each candidate response, marks are accumulated for the demonstration of relevant skills, knowledge and understanding, they are not deducted from a maximum on the basis of errors or omissions. (c) 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. (d) Marking must be consistent. Never make a hasty judgement on a response based on length, quality of hand writing or a confused start. (e) Use the full range of marks available for each question. (f) The Detailed Marking Instructions give illustrative examples of points that would be relevant within a candidate response. They are neither an exhaustive list nor a model answer. Other relevant points and approaches should be credited. (g) For credit to be given, points must relate to the question asked. However, 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. (h) For points of knowledge/understanding in any response, marks should be awarded for points that are a. relevant to the issue in the question b. developed (by providing additional detail, exemplification, reasons or evidence) c. used to respond to the demands of the question (eg evaluate, analyse, etc). Marking principles 25 mark essay questions To obtain more than 12 marks in a 25 mark essay question, there must be a reference (however minor) to historiography. If the candidate is unable to show that they have referred to or quoted from historians, or considered historical schools of thought, then they are not meeting the basic requirements of the marks scheme for a pass. Full guidance on the intention of each essay, and possible format and relevant content of candidates’ answers, is given in the detailed marking instructions for each question. The grid that follows describes how 25 mark questions will be assessed against the following four criteria structure analysis/evaluation/line of argument thoroughness/relevance of information and approach historical sources/interpretations. page 02 The two key criteria which are used to help determine where an essay is placed within a mark range are analysis/evaluation/line of argument and thoroughness. The descriptions on the grid provide guidance on the features of essays falling within mark ranges which approximately correspond with the grades D, C, B, A, A+ and A++, assuming an even level of performance across all questions in the paper, and in the coursework. Many essays will exhibit some but not all of the features listed, others will be stronger in one area than another. Features described in one column may well appear in a response which overall falls more within another column(s). ‘Historical interpretations’ is the only criteria that should be thought of as a hurdle. The others are not. Markers should reward what the candidate has tried to argue and not penalise what may have been omitted. Remember, a candidate’s arguments and evidence may differ substantially from the marks scheme, but the candidate should still be given whatever credit they deserve. The grid below guides markers in placing responses within an overall likely mark range, and indicates how to avoid individual marks against the four marking criteria. The grid describes the typical or most likely qualities of responses. Individual candidate responses do not follow a set pattern and many responses may fall outside these descriptions, or be close to two or more descriptions. Where this is the case, markers will use their professional expertise in awarding marks appropriately. page 03 25 mark question — mark ranges and individual marking criteria Mark ranges 0−9 10−12 13−14 15−17 18−19 20−22 23−25 No attempt to An attempt to The structure The structure is Clearly structured, Well-defined Structured so that the set out a structure the displays a basic readily apparent perceptive, structure displaying a argument convincingly structure for essay, seen in at organisation but with a competent presentation of very confident grasp builds and develops the essay. least one of the this may be loose. presentation of the issues. This would be of the demands of throughout following This would refer issues. This would included in the question to include No relevant relevant relevant relevant relevant relevant relevant functional functional functional functional introduction with introduction with introduction with introduction. introduction. introduction. introduction with main main main interpretations STRUCTURE main interpretations interpretations prioritised and clear interpretations. prioritised which prioritised which direction of debate looks at the looks at the and a clear line of debate and a debate and a clear argument. suggested line of line of argument. argument. No conclusion Conclusion which Conclusion Conclusion which Conclusion which Conclusion which Conclusion which which makes an makes an overall which makes an makes an overall makes an overall makes an overall makes an overall overall judgement on overall judgement on the judgement on the judgement on the judgement on the judgement on the issue. judgement on issue, bringing issue evaluating issue based on issue based on direct the issue. the issue. together the key the key issues. synthesis and synthesis and Marking criteria Marking issues. evaluation of key evaluation of key issues/points. issues/points. No evidence of Treatment of the Treatment of Treatment of the Treatment of the Treatment of the Treatment of the relevant issue shows little the issue shows issue shows an issue is based on a issue is based on issue is clearly based knowledge of relevant sufficient awareness of the fair quantity of wide research and on a wide range of the issue. knowledge. knowledge width and depth research, demonstrates a serious reading and which reflects of the knowledge demonstrating considerable width demonstrates a a basic required for a width and depth and depth of considerable width understanding study of the issue. of knowledge. knowledge. and depth of of the issue. knowledge. Some elements The factual The factual content Evidence is linked Evidence is linked Evidence is clearly of the factual content links to links to the issue. to points of to points of linked to points of content and the issue. The approach analysis or analysis or analysis or approach relate The approach reflects some evaluation. evaluation. evaluation. only very loosely reflects some analysis and INFORMATION AND APPROACH AND INFORMATION THOROUGHNESS/RELEVANCE OF OF THOROUGHNESS/RELEVANCE to the issue. analysis. evaluation. page 04 Vers Mark ranges 0−9 10−12 13−14 15−17 18−19 20−22 23−25 No evidence of There is much There is an There is a firm There is a firm There is a firm Fluent and analysis. narrative and attempt to answer grasp of the grasp of the grasp of the insightful description rather the evaluative evaluative aims of evaluative aims of evaluative aims of presentation of OR than analysis or aims of the the question and the question and the question and the issues with a evaluation. question and the candidate an assured and a very assured and detailed and Analysis is not analyse the issues tackles it with a consistent control consistent control effective analysis relevant to the involved. This is fairly sustained of the arguments of all the and evaluation question. possibly not deep analysis. and issues. arguments and which advances or sustained. issues. the argument and considers various possible implications of the question, going beyond the most obvious criteria ones. ing k There is a weak Arguments are Arguments are Arguments are Fluent and sense of generally clear clear and clear and directed insightful Mar argument. and accurate but accurate, and throughout the presentation of LINE OF ARGUMENT OF LINE there may be comes to a essay. the issues and ANALYSIS/EVALUATION/ confusions. suitable — largely arguments. summative — Clarity in conclusions. direction of argument linking to evaluation. The conclusions The conclusions The conclusions arise logically give a robust give a robust from the evidence overview/synthesi overview/synthesi and arguments in s and a qualitative s and a qualitative the main body, judgement of judgement of and attempts factors. factors. synthesis. page 05 Vers Mark ranges 0−9 10−12 13−14 15−17 18−19 20−22 23−25 No discernible No discernible There is a basic There is an There is a sound There is a sound There is a sound reference to reference to awareness of awareness of knowledge and knowledge and knowledge and historical works. historical works. historians’ historians’ understanding of understanding of understanding of interpretations in interpretations historians’ historians’ historians’ relation to the and arguments.