0

1

2

3

4

5

Criterion A:  Knowledge and understanding

How much knowledge and understanding has the student shown of the part 3 works studied in relation to the question answered?

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors.

There is some knowledge but virtually no understanding of the part 3 works in relation to the question answered.

There is mostly adequate knowledge but virtually no understanding of the part 3 works in relation to the question answered.

There is adequate knowledge and understanding of the part 3 works in relation to the question answered.

There is good knowledge and understanding of the part 3 works in relation to the question answered.

There is perceptive knowledge and understanding of the part 3 works in relation to the question answered.

Criterion B:  Response to the question

– How well has the student understood the specific demands of the question?

– To what extent has the student responded to these demands?

– How well have the works been compared and contrasted in relation to the demands of the question?

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors.

The student shows little awareness of the main implications of the question, and ideas are mainly irrelevant and/or insignificant.  There is little meaningful comparison of the works used in relation to the question.

The student responds to some of the main implications of the question with some relevant ideas.  There is a superficial attempt to compare the works used in relation to the question.

The student responds to most of the main implications of the question with consistently relevant ideas.  There is adequate comparison of the works used in relation to the question.

The student responds to the main implications and some subtleties of the question, with relevant and carefully explored ideas.  The comparison makes some evaluation of the works used in relation to the question.

The student responds to all the implications, as well as the subtleties of the question, with convincing and thoughtful ideas.  The comparison includes an effective evaluation of the works in relation to the question.

Criterion C:  Appreciation of the literary conventions of the genre

To what extent does the student identify and appreciate the use of literary conventions in relation to the question and the works used?

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors.

Some literary conventions are identified but there is limited development relevant to the question and/or the works used.

Examples of literary conventions are sometimes correctly identified and developed, with some relevance to the question and the works used.

Examples of literary conventions are satisfactorily identified and developed, with relevance to the question and the works used.

Examples of literary conventions are clearly identified and effectively developed, with relevance to the question and the works used.

Examples of literary conventions are perceptively identified and persuasively developed, with clear relevance to the question and the works used.

Criterion D:  Organisation and development

How well organised, coherent and developed is the presentation of ideas?

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors.

Ideas have little organisation; there may be a superficial structure, but coherence and development are often lacking.

Ideas have some organisation, with a recognisable structure, but coherence and development are often lacking.

Ideas are adequately organised, with a suitable structure, and attention paid to coherence and development.

Ideas are effectively organised, with a very good structure, coherence and development.

Ideas are persuasively organised, with excellent structure, coherence and development.

Criterion E:  Language

-How clear, varied and accurate is the language?

-How appropriate is the choice of register, style and terminology? (“Register” refers, in this context, to the student’s use of elements such as vocabulary, tone, sentence structure and terminology appropriate to the commentary.)

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors.

Language is rarely clear and appropriate; there are many errors in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction, and little sense of register and style.

Language is sometimes clear and carefully chosen; grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction are fairly accurate, although errors and inconsistencies are apparent; the register and style are to some extent appropriate to the commentary.

Language is clear and carefully chosen, with an adequate degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction despite some lapses; register and style are mostly appropriate to the commentary.

Language is clear and carefully chosen, with a good degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction; register and style are consistently appropriate to the commentary.

Language is very clear, effective, carefully chosen and precise, with a high degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction; register and style are effective and appropriate to the commentary.