Allocating Marks in a Research-Based External Assessment
In an external research-based assessment, students submit an investigation of up to 2000 words. The marking guide allocates marks across four criteria: (1) formulation of the research question and scope, (2) depth and range of research and use of sources, (3) analysis and argument, (4) conclusion and evaluation of the investigation's limitations. A student submits a 1950-word investigation on the causes of the 1917 Russian Revolution. It has a clear question, extensive research citing twelve sources, a strong narrative of events, and a conclusion that restates the narrative. It evaluates the reliability of two sources in a short paragraph but does not evaluate the limitations of the investigation as a whole. The teacher must predict the mark and explain the reasoning, since the external assessment is marked externally and the teacher's judgement is advisory.
1. Predict where this investigation will lose marks and explain the reasoning against each criterion.
Read the worked answer
The investigation is likely to score well on criteria 1 and 2 but lose marks on 3 and 4.
Criterion 1 (question and scope): strong. A clear question and defined scope on the 1917 revolution meet the descriptor. No major loss.
Criterion 2 (research and sources): strong. Twelve sources indicate range and depth. However, the guide rewards use of sources, not just citation. If sources are listed but not critically deployed in the argument, the marker may award mid-range rather than top marks. The student should ensure each key source does analytical work.
Criterion 3 (analysis and argument): partial loss. A 'strong narrative of events' is not the same as an argument. The criterion rewards analysis - explaining causation, weighing factors, and sustaining a line of reasoning. A narrative that recounts what happened will be marked down relative to one that argues, for example, that structural factors outweighed contingency, or vice versa.
Criterion 4 (conclusion and evaluation of limitations): significant loss. The conclusion restates the narrative rather than answering the question with a reasoned judgement. More importantly, the investigation does not evaluate its own limitations. The short source-reliability paragraph addresses source evaluation but not the investigation's limitations - gaps in evidence, scope constraints, the effect of source selection on the conclusion. This is a distinct requirement and its absence will cap the mark on this criterion.
Predicted pattern: high on 1 and 2, mid on 3, low on 4.
2. Recommend the highest-value revisions the student could make, given the word limit and the marking criteria.
Read the worked answer
Revisions should target the criteria where marks are being lost, while respecting the 2000-word limit.
1. Convert narrative into argument (criterion 3) - highest value.
- Replace passages that recount events with passages that explain them. For example, instead of describing the February events in sequence, argue what they reveal about the fragility of the regime.
- Add explicit causal weighing: 'While the war exacerbated tensions, the underlying structural weaknesses were...'
- This can be done largely by rewriting existing paragraphs, not adding words.
2. Rewrite the conclusion as a judgement (criterion 4).
- Answer the question directly with a reasoned position.
- Add a limitations paragraph: what the investigation could not establish, why (source availability, scope, language), and how that qualifies the conclusion.
3. Make sources work analytically (criterion 2).
- Trim the source list to those actually used and show how two or three key sources shape or constrain the argument. Fewer, better-used sources score higher than a long list.
4. Protect the word budget.
- Cut descriptive filler to fund the limitations paragraph and the analytical additions. The 50-word headroom is not enough on its own; the student must trade narrative for analysis.
5. Check alignment with the question.
- Ensure every section answers the stated question, not a broader topic. Scope creep dilutes analysis.
Priority order: argument (3), then limitations and conclusion (4), then analytical use of sources (2). Criterion 1 needs no work.