Report an issue

5. Marking toolkit | RevisionDojo

5. Marking toolkit

Global Politics

Marking toolkit

Criterion and marks	Details
A: 4 marks	Focus: Explanation and justification; Core examiner question: Is the issue focused and are the engagement choices justified?
B: 3 marks	Focus: Process; Core examiner question: Is there evidence of a well-developed research and engagement process?
C: 8 marks	Focus: Analysis and synthesis; Core examiner question: Are the issue and diverse perspectives analysed and synthesised?

Paragraph move	Details
Point	Question to answer: What partial answer will this paragraph defend?; High-value sentence frame: The evidence indicates that [qualified claim] because [political mechanism].
Evidence	Question to answer: Which precise research and engagement details establish it?; High-value sentence frame: [Source] establishes [fact], while [engagement] reveals [position or lived effect].
Explanation	Question to answer: What does the evidence show about politics?; High-value sentence frame: This suggests that power operates through [actor, rule, resource or access mechanism].
Link	Question to answer: How does this change the answer to the inquiry question?; High-value sentence frame: Therefore, this supports or qualifies the argument that [partial answer].
Reflection	Question to answer: What changed, and what limits confidence?; High-value sentence frame: I initially assumed [x], but [encounter] revised this because [reason]; however, [limit] makes the conclusion [calibration].

Criterion	Details
A, 4 marks	Developing performance: The issue, importance or engagement rationale is only partly explained; Secure performance: The political issue and suitability are clear but justification may be uneven; Highest performance: The issue and its importance are clearly explained; engagement is convincingly justified
B, 3 marks	Developing performance: Research and activity are reported with limited development; Secure performance: Preparation and choices show a purposeful process; Highest performance: Research and engagement form a well-developed, responsive process
C, 8 marks	Developing performance: Evidence is mainly descriptive or perspectives remain separate; Secure performance: Relevant analysis and some synthesis answer the inquiry; Highest performance: Sustained context-specific analysis synthesises diverse research and stakeholder perspectives
D, 6 marks	Developing performance: Limits or learning are asserted generically; Secure performance: Relevant evaluation and reflection influence parts of the interpretation; Highest performance: Critical evaluation of positions, bias and method produces specific political learning and calibrated judgment
E, 3 marks	Developing performance: Organization or evidential basis is sometimes unclear; Secure performance: Communication is generally clear and evidence can usually be traced; Highest performance: The report is consistently clear, focused and transparent about the basis of claims
F, 6 marks, HL only	Developing performance: The proposal is broad, weakly evidenced or detached from implementation; Secure performance: The proposal is relevant and supported but implications are uneven; Highest performance: A focused, evidence-based, context-appropriate action addresses implications and challenges

Version	Details
Descriptive	Student writing move: The tenant advocate supported the policy, but the host opposed it. This shows different views.; Why the level changes: Reports positions without explaining power, evidence or significance
Analytical	Student writing move: The disagreement reflects unequal exposure to the policy: tenants gain enforcement protection while small hosts bear direct compliance costs.; Why the level changes: Explains the political mechanism and applies distributional reasoning
Synthetic and evaluative	Student writing move: The tenant account indicates increased perceived protection, while the host identifies unequal compliance capacity; administrative registration data supports stronger oversight but cannot establish housing outcomes. Therefore, legitimacy improved procedurally more than distributively.; Why the level changes: Integrates perspectives, tests them against research, limits the inference and reaches a qualified judgment