Criteria for External Assessment (Essay)
This criterion is concerned
with the extent to which the essay focuses on knowledge issues relevant to the
prescribed title, and with the depth and breadth of the understanding
demonstrated in the essay.
A relevant knowledge issue is one that
directly relates to the prescribed title undertaken, or one that the essay has
shown is important in relation to it.
Depth of
understanding
is often indicated by drawing distinctions within ways of knowing and areas of
knowledge, or by connecting several facets of knowledge issues to these.
Breadth of
understanding
is often indicated by making comparisons between ways of knowing and areas of
knowledge. Since not all prescribed titles
lend themselves to an extensive treatment of an equal range of areas of
knowledge or ways of knowing, this element in the descriptors should be applied
with concern for the particularity of the title.
·
Does
the essay demonstrate understanding of knowledge issues that are relevant to
the prescribed title?
·
Does
the essay demonstrate an awareness of the connections between knowledge issues,
areas of knowledge and ways of knowing?
|
Achievement level |
Descriptor |
|
0 |
Level 1
is not achieved. |
|
1–2 |
The essay
includes very little treatment of knowledge issues that are relevant to the
prescribed title and demonstrates little understanding of them. If present,
areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing are merely mentioned. |
|
3–4 |
The essay
includes some treatment of knowledge issues that are relevant to the
prescribed title and demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of them. Some
links to areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing have been attempted but
they are largely ineffective. |
|
5–6 |
For the
most part the essay treats knowledge issues that are relevant to the
prescribed title, and demonstrates some understanding of them. Some effective
links are drawn between areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. |
|
7–8 |
The essay
consistently maintains as its focus knowledge issues that are relevant to the
prescribed title. Effective links and some comparisons between areas of
knowledge and/or ways of knowing are drawn, so that the essay demonstrates a
good understanding of the knowledge issues under consideration. |
|
9–10 |
The essay
consistently maintains as its focus knowledge issues that are relevant to the
prescribed title. Effective links and comparisons between areas of knowledge
and/or ways of knowing are elaborated, so that the essay demonstrates a
sophisticated understanding of the knowledge issues under consideration. |
·
To
what extent have the knowledge issues relevant to the prescribed title been
connected to the student’s own experience as a learner?
·
Does
the student show an awareness of his or her own perspective as a knower in
relation to other perspectives, such as those that may arise, for example, from
academic and philosophical traditions, culture or position in society (gender,
age, and so on)?
·
Do
the examples chosen show an individual approach consciously taken by the
student, rather than mere repetition of standard commonplace cases or the
impersonal recounting of sources?
|
Achievement level |
Descriptor |
|
0 |
Level 1
is not achieved. |
|
1–2 |
The essay
shows no evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues related
to the prescribed title. There is limited personal engagement with the
knowledge issues and no attempt to acknowledge or explore different perspectives.
There are no appropriate examples. |
|
3–4 |
The essay
shows very little evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues
related to the prescribed title. There is some personal engagement with the
knowledge issues. Different perspectives may be mentioned but there is no
attempt to explore them. Examples chosen are sometimes appropriate. |
|
5–6 |
The essay
shows some evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues
related to the prescribed title. The student has shaped the essay in a way
that shows personal engagement with the knowledge issues. There is an
awareness that different perspectives may exist, although there may be little
attempt to explore these. Examples chosen are appropriate, although there may
be little variety in their sources. |
|
7–8 |
The essay
shows adequate evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues
related to the prescribed title. The student has shaped the essay in a way
that shows thoughtful, personal engagement with the knowledge issues and some
self-awareness as a knower. There is an acknowledgment of different
perspectives and some attempt to explore these. Examples chosen are
effective, with some variety. |
|
9–10 |
The essay
shows much evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues
related to the prescribed title. The student has shaped the essay in a way
that shows both a personal, reflective exploration of the knowledge issues
and significant self-awareness as a knower. There is serious consideration of
different perspectives. Examples chosen are varied and effectively used. |
·
What
is the quality of the inquiry into knowledge issues?
·
Are
the main points in the essay justified? Are the arguments coherent and
compelling?
·
Have
counterclaims been considered?
·
Are
the implications and underlying assumptions of the essay’s argument identified?
This criterion is
concerned only with knowledge issues that are relevant to the prescribed title.
Analysis of knowledge issues that are not relevant to the prescribed title is
not assessed.
|
Achievement level |
Descriptor |
|
0 |
Level 1
is not achieved. |
|
1–2 |
There is
no inquiry into knowledge issues, only description. There are very few
attempts at justifying the main points of the essay. There is very little
evidence of any awareness of counterclaims. |
|
3–4 |
The
inquiry partly explores, but largely describes, knowledge issues. There is
some justification of main points and some coherent argument. Counterclaims
are implicitly identified. |
|
5–6 |
The
inquiry explores knowledge issues. Most points are justified; most arguments
are coherent. Some counterclaims are considered. |
|
7–8 |
The
inquiry explores with some insight, in some depth and/or detail, knowledge
issues. All, or nearly all, main points are justified and arguments are
coherent. Counterclaims are explored. Implications of the essay’s argument are
identified. |
|
9–10 |
The
inquiry explores with a high degree of insight, in considerable depth and/or
detail, knowledge issues. All main points are justified and arguments are coherent
and compelling. Counterclaims are explored and evaluated. Implications and
underlying assumptions of the essay’s argument are identified. |
·
Is
the essay well organized and relevant to the prescribed title?
·
Does
the use of language assist the reader's understanding and avoid confusion? Are
central terms explained or developed clearly in a way that assists
comprehension?
Note: This task is not a test of “first language” linguistic
skills. No account should be taken of minor errors unless they significantly
impede communication.
·
When
factual information is used or presented, is it accurate and, when necessary,
referenced? “Factual information” includes generalizations.
·
If
sources have been used, have they been properly referenced in a way that allows
them to be traced (Internet references must include the date on which they were
accessed)?
Note: Not all essays require sources or references (see
guidance in “Assessment details”).
An essay that fails to
meet the word limit of 1,200–1,600 words will not score above level 4 on this
criterion.
An essay that has no
relevance to the prescribed title will score 0 on this criterion.
|
Achievement level |
Descriptor |
|
0 |
Level 1
is not achieved. |
|
1–2 |
The essay
on the prescribed title is very poorly structured, with little overall
organization. It is difficult to understand what the writer intends. Factual
information used to support arguments may contain significant inaccuracies.
Sources of information and ideas may not be acknowledged and there is no
attempt at referencing. |
|
3–4 |
The essay
on the prescribed title is poorly structured, with limited overall
organization. It is sometimes difficult to understand what the writer
intends. There may be some attempt to explain or explore the meaning of terms
but this contributes little to conceptual clarity. Factual information used
to support arguments is not always reliable (there may be minor inaccuracies;
sources of more important information may be missing or unreliable). Some
sources of information and ideas are acknowledged; there is some attempt at
referencing but it is not complete, nor sufficiently precise to permit
tracing of sources. |
|
5–6 |
The essay
on the prescribed title is satisfactorily structured, with adequate overall
organization. In general, concepts are used clearly: if concepts are
explained, explanations are generally adequate. Factual information used to
support arguments is mostly correct. Most sources of information and ideas are
acknowledged; most referencing permits tracing of sources, although some
precision may be lacking. The word limit has been met. |
|
7–8 |
The essay
on the prescribed title is well structured, with a clear overall
organization. Concepts are used or developed clearly: some explanations are
included, where appropriate. Factual information used to support arguments is
correct. Sources of information and ideas are acknowledged; most referencing
permits tracing of sources. The word limit has been met. |
|
9–10 |
The essay
on the prescribed title is very well structured, with an effective overall
organization. Concepts are used clearly and, where appropriate, refined by
helpful explanations. Factual information used to support arguments is
correct. Sources of information and ideas are acknowledged; all referencing
permits tracing of sources. The word limit has been met. |
Note
In cases where an essay
deserves a high mark for its quality of organization and clarity, but a low
mark because of factual inaccuracy or lack of sourcing (or vice versa),
examiners will make a judgment about which level to award. In general, more
emphasis should be placed on the larger issues (organization and clarity) and
less on the more minor ones (factual accuracy and sourcing). An important
consideration is the status of the error or unsourced
fact in the overall argument. If it is of marginal significance, little or no
account should be taken of it. If it is central to the whole argument and
undermines the value of the entire essay, then it can be argued that the
quality of organization is itself much reduced. Conversely, meticulous
acknowledgment of sources cannot improve the organization of a poorly
structured essay.