Grading+Chart+and+Markbands

IB Curved/Letter grade for Tests Explanating =<The Only Grading Rubric You need= the oly

IB European essay questions, or DBQ papers, will be used for tests. The rational for this is to give students 2 years of practicing the skills needed to do well on the IB Exams in May of their senior year. Students will also get feedback on how they are doing relative to IB criteria.

IB Grading for Tests First Semester of IB History 1


 * Total Points on test || Grade entered in Grade book || IB ||
 * 20-15 || A (97%) || 7 ||
 * 14-12 || A- (92%) || 6 ||
 * 11-10 || B+ (88%) || 5 ||
 * 9-8 || B (85%) || 4 ||
 * 7 || B- (82%) || 4 ||
 * 6 || C+ (78%) || 3 ||
 * 5 || C (75%) || 3 ||
 * 4 || C- (72%) || 2 ||
 * 3 || D (65%) || 2 ||
 * 2 || D- (62%) || 1 ||
 * 1-0 || F (55%) || 1 ||


 * || [[image:file:///C:/Users/asw/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif width="NaN" height="NaN"]] ||
 * || [[image:file:///C:/Users/asw/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif width="NaN" height="NaN"]] ||

IB Grading for IB History 1 Second Semester Tests and IB History 2


 * Total Points on test || Grade entered in Grade book || IB ||
 * 20-17 || A (97%) || 7 ||
 * 16-15 || A- (92%) || 6 ||
 * 14-13 || B+ (88%) || 5 ||
 * 12 || B (85%) || 4 ||
 * 11 || B- (82%) || 4 ||
 * 10 || C+ (78%) || 3 ||
 * 9-8 || C (75%) || 3 ||
 * 7 || C- (72%) || 2 ||
 * 6-5 || D (65%) || 2 ||
 * 4-3 || D- (62%) || 1 ||
 * 2-0 || F (55%) || 1====== ====== ||

Markbands for Paper 2 and Paper 3

Below are the grading criteria for marking Paper 2 and Paper 3 exams. They are the same for HL and SL. The markbands concentrate on positive achievement, although for lower levels failure to achieve may be included in the description.


 * Markband || Description ||
 * 0 || If the answer does not achieve the standard described in markband 1–3, 0 should be recorded. ||
 * 1–3 || There is very little understanding of the question or relevant knowledge. Appropriate skills and organizational structure are lacking. The candidate's answer is no more than a collection of generalizations or a paragraph or two of facts, bearing little relation to the question. ||
 * 4–5 || Little understanding is shown of the question, which is not addressed effectively. Although some historical facts and comments are present they are limited, often inaccurate and of marginal relevance. There is also very little evidence of appropriate skills and the structure is basic. ||
 * 6–7 || There is some indication that the question is understood. The question is partially addressed, and there is a limited amount of accurate and relevant knowledge. There is a limited demonstration of skills, focus and structure. ||
 * 8–10 || The demands of the question are generally understood. The question may be answered with a relevant coherent argument which is supported by limited material. Alternatively, the answer contains accurate knowledge but is mainly descriptive or narrative with implicit analysis or explanatory comments, or it is made relevant by its conclusion. Some attempt to structure an answer (chronologically or analytically) is evident. ||
 * 11–13 || The demands of the question are understood and addressed, although not all the implications are considered. The answer is supported by accurate, relevant and adequate knowledge and has either an analytical structure or a soundly focused combination of narrative and analysis. ||
 * 14–16 || The demands of the question are effectively and relevantly addressed, usually in a structured framework. The answer is clearly supported by appropriate factual knowledge and demonstrates a consistent level of analytical ability, although all aspects may not have been addressed. ||
 * 17–20 || The demands of the question are effectively and relevantly addressed in a clearly structured and focused essay. Arguments are detailed and well developed. At the upper end of this markband the answer will, in addition, demonstrate one of the following: a well developed awareness of historiographical issues; a good conceptual ability; or a successful challenge to the assumptions implied in the question. ||

Mark bands

0 If the answer does not achieve the standard described in markband 1–3, 0 should be recorded.

1 – 3 There is very little understanding of the question or accurate knowledge of the history of the region. Appropriate skills and organizational structure are lacking. The answer is no more than a collection of generalizations or a paragraph or two of facts, bearing little relation to the question.

4 – 5 Little understanding is shown of the question, which is not addressed effectively. Although some historical facts and comments are present they are limited, often inaccurate and of marginal relevance. There is no clear and coherent argument and little evidence of events being placed in their historical context. There is no reference to different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical events and topics. There is also very little evidence of appropriate skills, such as selection and effective use of knowledge, and the structure is basic.

6 – 7 There is some indication that the question is understood. The question is partially addressed, and there is a limited degree of accurate and relevant knowledge of the history of the region. Reference to different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical developments, such as causes and effects of historical change, are at best implicit. There is a limited demonstration of skills, focus (including placing events in their historical context) and structure.

8 – 10 The demands of the question are generally understood. The question may be answered with a relevant, coherent argument that is supported by limited material and/or contains limited reference to different approaches to historical events and/or topics. Alternatively, the answer contains accurate knowledge of the history of the region but is mainly descriptive or narrative in form, with implicit analysis or explanatory comments, or is made relevant by its conclusion. There is some attempt to place events in their historical context and to structure an answer chronologically or analytically.

11 – 13 The demands of the question are understood and addressed, but not all the implications are considered. The answer places events in their historical context and is supported by accurate, relevant and adequate knowledge of the history of the region. The approach is either thematic and analytical or a soundly focused combination of narrative and analysis. There may be some explicit awareness and explanation of different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical events and topics. Where appropriate there is a sounds grasp of historical continuity and change, at least in general terms.

14 – 16 The demands of the question are effectively and relevantly addressed, usually in a structured framework. Arguments are generally well developed, clear and coherent. The answer is clearly supported by the effective use of appropriate factual knowledge of the history of the region. It also demonstrates a consistent level of analytical ability and/or a critical approach to historical evidence, although all aspects may not have been included. Where relevant, different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical events and topics are explained and placed in their historical context. An awareness of issues of causation, historical continuity and change is ably demonstrated.

17 – 20 The question is addressed in a clearly structured and focused essay that indicates a high level of awareness of the demands of the question. Arguments are clear, coherent, relevant and well substantiated. The answer demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the history of the region through the selection and effective use of historical knowledge. Different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical events and topics are explained and placed in their historical context. The causes and effects of historical continuity and change are explained, and historical explanations are presented. At the upper end of this markband the answer will in addition display at least one of the following features: a highly developed awareness of historiographical issues; a critical examination of a wide range of historical evidence; a high level of conceptual ability; a successful challenge to the assumptions implied in the question.