2. Understanding Standards
Advanced Higher RMPS
Understanding Standards

3. The Programme Registration, Tea and Coffee 9.30
Welcome and Purpose of the Day 10.00
Document Updates
Introduction to Workshop 1:
Workshop 1: Marking the Question Paper 10.30
Feedback from Workshop 1 and Questions 11.45
12.00
Introduction to Workshop 2: Marking the Assignment
Workshop 2: Marking Exercise
Tea/Coffee
Feedback from Workshop 2 and Questions
Recap on Lessons Learned and Key Messages from the Day

4. Introduction to Workshop 2
Workshop 2: Marking the Dissertation
Feedback from Workshop 2 and Questions 15.00
Recap on Lessons Learned and
Key Messages from the Day

5. Lessons Learned: The Question Paper

6. Knowledge and Understanding
Skills Performance
Strongest performing skill
Generally relevant, accurate and detailed
Knowledge and Understanding
Good performance
Often accompanied good KU
Analysis
Evaluation

7. Technical Performance
Confident writing
Almost no questions omitted
Essay Writing
Evidence of some poor interpretation
Need to break the question down
Question Comprehension
KU+A strong
Evaluation clearly done
Skills

8. Marking the Question Paper

9. RELEVANCE ACCURACY DEPTH
Information and skills must be relevant to the question
ACCURACY
information must be accurate and effectively deployed
DEPTH
information must go beyond the straightforward and detailed

10. Knowledge and Understanding
Relevance
Knowledge and Understanding
Must be necessary to answer the question
No credit given for KU that serves no purpose
Analysis
Must be evidence that the facts are being pulled apart in one way or another
Evaluation
Must be evidence of judgement or measurement

11. Knowledge and Understanding
Accuracy
Knowledge and Understanding
Must be accurate and, where appropriate, avoids generalisations
No credit given for KU that is inaccurate
Analysis
To be accurate the analysis must be credible and valid
No credit given for analytical conclusions that are inaccurate
Evaluation
To be accurate evaluation must be credible and valid
No credit given for rants.

12. Knowledge and Understanding
Depth
Knowledge and Understanding
Descriptions must be more than a simple statement of fact
Analysis
Analyses must be reasoned out in the essay through evidence, argument or examples
Evaluation
Evaluation must be supported by evidence, argument or examples

13. Marking Method

14. Marks Allocation Knowledge and Understanding 6 Analysis 8 Evaluation 8
Synthesis

15. Evaluation
7-8 marks
Candidates will make four relevant evaluative comments on the question and/or arguments/evidence.
Evaluative comments will be supported with reference to sources.
Evaluative points will clearly support the overall judgement and include reasons for discounting or accepting alternatives. These will be used to clearly support the
overall conclusion.
Analysis
7-8 marks
Candidates will make four analytical comments on the question/issue and/or
arguments/evidence. Analysis can be asymmetrical, ie the candidate can make
more analytical points about the question/issue, or about arguments or about evidence. Analytical points can, but do not need to, refer to separate or discrete areas or aspects of the question/issue/arguments/ evidence.
Analysis provides evidence of understanding the question/issue and its implications, by inclusion of sufficient, key or most relevant aspects. The analysis will integrate others’ ideas/arguments/ evidence with the
candidate’s own.

16. The Difficulties Too complex Too technical Too discrete
Too great a demand
Too presumptuous of candidate essay style

17. Amended Marking Method

18. Knowledge and Understanding
Mark Range
9-10
7-8
5-6
3-4
1-2
Knowledge and Understanding
KU is consistently in depth, accurate and relevant.
KU is mainly in depth, accurate and relevant.
KU has inconsistent depth but is mainly accurate and relevant.
KU lacks depth overall but is mainly accurate and relevant.
KU lacks depth overall and has issues with accuracy or relevance.
KU is superficial and is not consistently accurate or relevant.
There is clear evidence that the candidate has drawn together relevant and appropriate information from a range of specific sources or perspectives.
There is clear evidence that the candidate has drawn together mainly relevant and appropriate information from some specific sources or perspectives.
There is some evidence that the candidate has drawn together relevant and/or appropriate information but references to sources and perspectives tend to be more general and limited
There is evidence that the candidate has attempted to draw together relevant and/or appropriate information but references to sources and perspectives are general in nature and limited
There is some evidence that the candidate has attempted to draw together relevant and/or appropriate information but references to sources and perspectives are brief, undeveloped and general in nature
The essay lacks evidence of sources and perspectives and those used lack relevance and accuracy

19. Analysis
The analysis clearly identifies specific issue(s) related to the question.
The analysis identifies specific issue(s) related to the question but the depth is uneven at times.
The analysis identifies a mix of specific and general issue(s) that are related to the question and there is insufficient depth and explanation of them
The analysis identifies some general issue(s) related to the question and there is insufficient depth or explanation
The analysis identifies a few issue(s) but they are not clearly related to the question and coverage is superficial.
Any analysis often fails to identify issues and those that have been identified are not clearly related to the question and superficial.
The explanation of issues takes account of a range of clearly identified perspectives and demonstrates a clear understanding of their relevance to the question
The explanation of issues takes account of some perspectives and demonstrates a good understanding of their relevance to the question.
The issues are explained and there is evidence of some understanding of their relevance to the question which is general in nature at times
The issues are explained and there is evidence of some understanding of their relevance to the question at times but which is generally superficial.
The issues are briefly explained but there is evidence of some understanding of their relevance to the topic but not to the question.
There is evidence of some understanding of the topic but not the question

20. Evaluation The evaluation is insightful, valid and clearly reasoned.
The evaluation is valid, may be insightful and is mainly clearly reasoned.
The evaluation is valid but not consistently and clearly reasoned.
The evaluation is valid but not clearly reasoned and lacks sufficiency
There is limited valid evaluation but it is not clearly reasoned and lacks sufficiency
The evaluation either lacks validity or relevance to the issue/question
It has relevant judgements on the issues and/or perspectives on the issues.
It has mainly relevant judgements on the issues and/or perspectives on the issues.
It has some relevant judgements on the issues and/or perspectives on the issues.
It has relevant judgements on the issues and/or perspectives on the issues however, it is simply a judgement with brief reasoning.
It may have judgements on the issues but there is some brief reasoning behind them.
Conclusions have successfully been woven throughout the essay/drawn at the conclusion of the essay.
Mainly clear conclusions have been drawn.
There has been some attempt to draw conclusions but they lack depth.
There has been some attempt to draw brief conclusions but they lack depth.
Conclusions may be restricted to closing comments.

21. WORKSHOP 1 Read the scripts
Sort them in order of quality without referring to the Marking Instructions
Discuss the order with the group
Individually award the mark for each one using the grid
Discuss with the group

22. Observations: Dissertation

23. Knowledge and Understanding
Skills Performance
Strongest performing skill
Generally relevant, accurate and detailed
Knowledge and Understanding
Good performance
Often accompanied good KU
Analysis
Evaluation

24. Technical Performance
Confident writing
Essay Writing
Disciplined and well chosen
Topic Choice
KU+A strong
Evaluation clearly done
Skills

25. Marking the Dissertations

26. RELEVANCE ACCURACY DEPTH
Information and skills must be relevant to the question
ACCURACY
information must be accurate and effectively deployed
DEPTH
information must go beyond the straightforward and detailed

27. Knowledge and Understanding
Relevance
Knowledge and Understanding
Must be necessary to answer the question chosen
No credit given for KU that serves no purpose
Analysis
Must be evidence that the facts are being pulled apart in one way or another
Evaluation
Must be evidence of judgement or measurement

28. Knowledge and Understanding
Accuracy
Knowledge and Understanding
Must be accurate and, where appropriate, avoids generalisations
No credit given for KU that is inaccurate
Analysis
To be accurate the analysis must be credible and valid
No credit given for analytical conclusions that are inaccurate
Evaluation
To be accurate evaluation must be credible and valid
No credit given for rants.

29. Knowledge and Understanding
Depth
Knowledge and Understanding
Descriptions must be more than a statement of fact
Analysis
Analyses must be reasoned out in the essay through evidence, argument or examples
Evaluation
Evaluation must be supported by evidence, argument or examples

30. Marking Method

31. Marks Allocation
justify an appropriate complex religious, moral or philosophical question or issue for research — 6 marks
use a wide range of sources to research the question or issue — 6 marks
synthesise information to structure and sustain a line of argument to progress towards a conclusion — 8 marks
analyse arguments and evidence — 8 marks
evaluate arguments and evidence — 8 marks
organise, present and reference findings using an appropriate referencing system — 4 marks

32. The Difficulties Too complex Too technical Too discrete
Too great a demand
Too process based
No Knowledge and Understanding assessed
Duplication with unit assessment

33. Amended Marking Method

34. Original Amended 6 8 12 4 Research and Presentation
Justify an appropriate complex religious, moral or philosophical question or issue for research 6 8
Research and Presentation
Use a wide range of sources to research the question or issue
Knowledge and Understanding
Synthesise information to structure and sustain a line of argument to progress towards a conclusion 12
Analysis
Analyse arguments and evidence
Evaluation
Evaluate arguments and evidence
Organise, present and reference findings using an appropriate referencing system 4

35. Research and Presentation Knowledge and Understanding
7-8
5-6
3-4
0-2
Research and Presentation
• A wide range of sources has been used
• A range of sources has been used
• A limited range of sources has been used
• A narrow range of sources has been used
• Sources have been clearly referenced throughout
• Sources have been referenced regularly
• Some referencing of sources
• Inconsistent referencing of sources
• The structure is coherent, clear and logical
• The structure is clear but lacks coherence at times
• Some structure is evident
• The structure lack clear direction
• The aims of the dissertation have been clearly explained and achieved
• The aims of the dissertation have been explained and mainly achieved
• The aims of the dissertation have been explained and partially achieved
• The aims are inadequately expressed
Knowledge and Understanding
• KU is consistently relevant, accurate and in-depth
• KU is mainly relevant, accurate and in-depth
• KU lacks relevance or accuracy or depth
• KU lacks relevance, accuracy and depth
• KU is consistently supported by strong research
• KU is supported by some strong research
• KU is inconsistently supported by research
• KU is under-researched
Analysis
10-12
7-9
4-6
0-3
• Analysis is relevant, accurate and in-depth
• Analysis is mainly relevant, accurate and in-depth
• Analysis is mainly relevant and accurate but lacks depth
• Analysis lacks depth and/or relevance
• Analysis is consistently used to develop KU and evaluation points
• Analysis is regularly used to develop KU or evaluation points
• Analysis is inconsistently used to develop KU or evaluation points
• Analysis is occasionally used to develop KU or evaluation points
• Analysis is consistently supported by strong research
• Analysis is supported by some strong research
• Analysis is inconsistently supported by research
• Analysis is under-researched
Evaluation
• Evaluation consistently includes counter arguments and/or the clear development of a case
• Evaluation includes some counter arguments and/or the development of a case
• Evaluation includes brief counter arguments and/or the development of a case
• Evaluation rarely has any counter arguments and/or the development of a case
• Evaluation is sophisticated, relevant and in-depth
• Evaluation is relevant and detailed
• Evaluation is insufficient but it is relevant although under- developed
• Evaluation is lacking but is relevant although superficial
• Clear, supported and developed conclusions are evident throughout the dissertation
• Clear and supported conclusions are evident at times in the dissertation
• Conclusions are evident but lack support at times
• Conclusions are brief and lack support

36. WORKSHOP 2 Read the scripts
Sort them in order of quality without referring to the Marking Instructions
Discuss the order with the group
Individually award the mark for each one using the grid
Discuss with group