5. Marking toolkit | RevisionDojo

5. Marking toolkit

History

The History IA is 25 marks in total, split as follows.

Section	Criterion	Marks	Why it matters
Section 1	A: Identification and evaluation of sources	6	Sets up the investigation’s credibility and relevance
Section 2	B: Investigation

Marks	Level descriptor (what the work must show)
5–6	Appropriate question is clearly stated; relevant sources are selected; relevance is clearly explained; there is detailed analysis and evaluation of two sources with explicit discussion of their value and limitations, referencing origin, purpose, and content.
3–4	Question is stated and sources are identified and used; relevance is explained but may be less developed; evaluation of two sources is present but tends to be more general or less explicitly connected to usefulness for the investigation.
1–2	Question is stated; sources may be identified but selection/relevance is weak or unclear; evaluation is simplistic (often generic “biased” statements) and not clearly tied to the investigation.
0	Does not reach the standard described.

Audit question	If the answer is “no”
Does each source’s relevance mention a key factor/theme in the question?	Relevance is generic (“useful background”)
Does each limitation change what conclusion you can draw?	Limitation is just “biased/unreliable”
Is origin used analytically (access, proximity, constraints)?	Origin is only date/author
Is content treated as evidence categories (what it proves / cannot prove)?	Content is summarised

Do	Don't
Explain relevance as “how this helps answer my specific question”	Describe relevance as “it is about the topic”
State limitation as an impact (“this restricts my ability to judge X because…”)	Use vague labels (“biased”, “one-sided”) without consequence
Use origin/purpose to infer access and incentives	Treat origin/purpose like a form to fill
Use content to identify what it evidences and what it omits	Retell what the source says without linking to the question

Marks	Level descriptor (what the work must show)
13-15	Clear, coherent, effectively organised; well-developed critical analysis focused on the stated question; evidence from a range of sources is used effectively; different perspectives are evaluated; argues to a reasoned conclusion consistent with evidence/argument.
10-12	Mostly clear and organised; analysis is present but may be uneven or intermittently descriptive; uses a range of sources with some effectiveness; perspectives may be acknowledged but evaluation is less consistent; conclusion is reasonable but may not be tightly argued.
7-9	Organisation may be weak; tends towards narrative; evidence is used but often as description or quotation-dumping; perspectives are limited or listed; conclusion may summarise rather than judge.
4-6	Mostly descriptive; limited relevance to the question; weak use of evidence; little/no perspective evaluation; conclusion is weak or unsupported.
1-3	Very limited investigation; minimal evidence/analysis; little focus on the question.
0	Does not reach the standard described.

Trap	What it looks like on the page	Typical mark consequence
“Narrative with citations”	Chronological story + footnotes	Often 7–9
Evidence dumping	Several quotes/facts in a row with no analysis	Caps around 10–12
Perspective listing	“Historian A says…, Historian B says…” with no judgement	Caps around 10–12
Imbalanced depth	One factor deeply analysed, others sketched	Often 10–12 not 13–15
Conclusion as summary	Repeats points without weighing	Caps around 10–12

Marks	Level descriptor (what the work must show)
3–4	Clearly focused on what the investigation highlighted about methods used by historians; shows clear awareness of challenges and/or limitations of those methods; makes a clear, explicit connection to the student’s investigation.
1–2	Some discussion of what the investigation highlighted about methods; little awareness of challenges/limitations; connection to the investigation is implied rather than explicit.
0	Does not reach the standard described.