Ancient History SEE marking guide and response

(1)



Ancient History SEE

marking guide and response

External assessment 2021

SEE 1: Section 1 — short response (26 marks) SEE 1: Section 2 — extended response (37 marks) SEE 2 Paper 1: Combination response (28 marks) SEE 2 Paper 2: Short response (55 marks)

SEE 1: Section 1 — short response (26 marks)

Assessment objectives

This assessment instrument is used to determine student achievement in the following objectives:

2. devise historical questions and conduct research in relation to a topic focused on a historical period in the Ancient World

3. analyse evidence from historical sources to show understanding in relation to a topic focused on a specific historical period in the Ancient World

5. evaluate evidence from historical sources to make judgments in relation to a topic focused on a historical period in the Ancient World

6. create responses that communicate meaning to suit purpose in relation to a topic focused on a historical period in the Ancient World.

Note: Unit objectives 1 and 4 are not assessed in this section.

(2)

Ancient History SEE marking guide and response

External assessment 2021 Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

SEE 1: Section 2 — extended response (37 marks)

Assessment objectives

1. comprehend terms, concepts and issues in relation to topics focused on the reconstruction of a historical period in the Ancient World

3. analyse evidence from historical sources to show understanding in relation to a topic focused on a specific historical period in the Ancient World

4. synthesise evidence from historical sources to form a historical argument in relation to a topic focused on a historical period in the Ancient World

5. evaluate evidence from historical sources to make judgments in relation to a topic focused on a historical period in the Ancient World

6. create an essay in response to historical sources that communicates meaning to suit purpose in relation to topics focused on historical periods in the Ancient World.

Note: Unit objective 2 is not assessed in this section.

SEE 2 Paper 1: Combination response (28 marks)

Assessment objectives

This section is used to determine student achievement in the following objectives:

2. devise historical questions and conduct research in relation to a topic focused on people, power and authority in a particular period in the Ancient World

4. synthesise evidence from historical sources to form a historical argument in relation to a topic focused on a powerful individual, group or society in the Ancient World

5. evaluate evidence from historical sources to make judgments in relation to a topic focused on people, power and authority in the Ancient World

6. create responses that communicate meaning to suit purpose in relation to a topic focused on people, power and authority in the Ancient World.

Note: Unit objectives 1 and 3 are not assessed in this section.

(3)

Ancient History SEE marking guide and response

External assessment 2021 Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

SEE 2 Paper 2: Short response (55 marks)

Assessment objectives

1. comprehend terms, concepts and issues in relation to a topic focused on people, power and authority in the Ancient World

3. analyse evidence from historical sources to show understanding in relation to a topic focused on the nature of power and how it was exercised in the Ancient World

4. synthesise evidence from historical sources to form a historical argument in relation to a topic focused on a powerful individual, group or society in the Ancient World

5. evaluate evidence from historical sources to make judgments in relation to a topic focused on people, power and authority in the Ancient World

6. create responses that communicate meaning to suit purpose in relation to a topic focused on people, power and authority in the Ancient World.

Note: Unit objective 2 is not assessed in this instrument

(4)

Ancient History SEE marking guide and response External assessment 2021

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority

Purpose

This document consists of a marking guide and a sample response.

The marking guide:

• provides a tool for calibrating external assessment markers to ensure reliability of results

• indicates the correlation, for each question, between mark allocation and qualities at each level of the mark range

• informs schools and students about how marks are matched to qualities in student responses.

The sample response:

• demonstrates the qualities of a high-level response

• has been annotated using the marking guide.

Mark allocation

Where a response does not meet any of the descriptors for a question or a criterion, a mark of ‘0’

will be recorded.

Where no response to a question has been made, a mark of ‘N’ will be recorded.

(5)

SEE 1 Section 1: Marking guide

Criterion: Analysing

Q The response: M

1 • provides an informed explanation of 2 limitations of Athenian democracy, using evidence from Source 1

4

• provides an informed explanation of 1 limitation of Athenian democracy, using evidence from Source 1

• provides an explanation of a second limitation of Athenian democracy, referring to evidence from Source 1

3

• provides an explanation of 2 limitations of Athenian democracy, referring to evidence from Source 1

2

• makes a statement about Athenian democracy relevant to Source 1 1

• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. 0

(6)

Criterion: Analysing

2 • explains the author’s opinion that Athenian democracy was flawed, using well- chosen evidence from Source 2

3

• identifies the author’s opinion that Athenian democracy was flawed, referring to relevant evidence from Source 2

2

• makes a statement about Athenian democracy related to the evidence in Source 2

1

(7)

Criterion: Evaluating

Q The response: M The response: M

3 Source 3 — reliability Source 4 — reliability

• makes a judgment about reliability for understanding the nature of Athenian democracy, explaining 1 consideration

2 • makes a judgment about reliability for

understanding the nature of Athenian democracy, explaining 1 consideration

2

• makes a relevant statement about reliability of evidence

1 • makes a relevant statement about reliability of evidence

1

• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. 0 • does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. 0

Source 3 — usefulness Source 4 — usefulness

• makes a judgment about usefulness for understanding the nature of Athenian democracy, explaining 1 consideration

2 • makes a judgment about usefulness for

understanding the nature of Athenian democracy, explaining 1 consideration

2

• makes a relevant statement about usefulness of evidence

1 • makes a relevant statement about usefulness of evidence

1

(8)

Criterion: Devising and conducting

4 Key inquiry question

• devises a nuanced key inquiry question that relates to Athenian democracy 2

• devises a basic key inquiry question that relates to Athenian democracy 1

Sub-questions

• devises 2 sub-questions relevant to the key inquiry question 2

• devises 1 sub-question relevant to the key inquiry question 1

(9)

Criterion: Analysing

5 • provides a detailed explanation of how evidence from 2 sources contributes to answering the key inquiry question devised in Question 4

• cites well-chosen evidence from the 2 sources relevant to the key inquiry question from Question 4

4

• provides an explanation of how the evidence from 2 sources contributes to answering the key inquiry question devised in Question 4

• cites evidence from the 2 sources relevant to the key inquiry question from Question 4

3

• cites evidence from 2 sources that is connected to the key inquiry question from Question 4

2

• selects evidence from 1 source about Athenian democracy 1

(10)

Criterion: Creating and communicating

5 • organises paragraph/s purposefully to succinctly and fluently convey ideas relating to the key inquiry question, acknowledging sources used

3

• organises paragraph/s to convey ideas relating to the key inquiry question, acknowledging sources used

2

• conveys ideas related to the key inquiry question 1

(11)

SEE 1: Section 2 — extended response Marking guide

Criterion: Comprehending

The response: M

Use of terms

• demonstrates accurate and apt use of relevant terms, placed in historical context 3

• demonstrates accurate use of relevant terms, placed in historical context 2

• uses relevant terms 1

Concepts and issues

• demonstrates an informed understanding of issues of power and issues of evidence 4

• demonstrates an understanding of issues of power and issues of evidence 3

• demonstrates an understanding of issues of power or issues of evidence 2

• refers to ideas about power 1

(12)

Criterion: Analysing

The response: M

• provides detailed and discerning analysis of relevant features of evidence from a range of sources

5

• provides detailed analysis of relevant features of evidence from a range of sources 4

• describes relevant features of evidence from sources 3

• identifies features of evidence from sources 2

• identifies a feature of evidence from a source 1

(13)

Criterion: Evaluating

The response: M

Reliability

• makes discerning judgments about the extent to which evidence from sources is reliable 4

• makes judgments about the extent to which evidence from sources is reliable 3

• makes a judgment about the extent to which evidence from a source is reliable 2

• makes statements about the extent to which evidence from sources is reliable 1

Usefulness

• makes discerning judgments about the extent to which evidence from sources is useful 4

• makes judgments about the extent to which evidence from sources is useful 3

• makes a judgment about the extent to which evidence from a source is useful 2

• makes statements about the extent to which evidence from sources is useful 1

Corroborating

• explains how evidence from sources corroborates 2

• identifies a point of corroboration 1

(14)

Criterion: Synthesising

The response: M

Historical argument

• develops a sophisticated historical argument that responds directly to the question 5

• develops a reasoned historical argument that responds directly to the question 4

• develops a basic historical argument that responds to the question 3

• presents a superficial argument about Akhenaten and Theban priests/temple 2

• makes statements about Akhenaten or the priests of Egypt during the 18th dynasty 1

Combination of evidence

• skilfully combines well-chosen evidence from a range of sources to develop the historical argument

5

• combines relevant evidence from a range of sources to develop the historical argument 4

• combines relevant evidence from the sources to develop the historical argument 3

• refers to relevant evidence from the sources to respond to the question 2

• refers to evidence from 1 of the sources 1

(15)

Criterion: Creating and communicating

The response: M

• conveys ideas relating to the hypothesis succinctly, purposefully and fluently, using the features of an essay in response to historical sources

5

• conveys ideas relating to the hypothesis purposefully, using most features of an essay in response to historical sources

4

• conveys ideas relating to the hypothesis in paragraphs, using some features of an essay in response to historical sources

3

• conveys ideas related to the question, in a paragraph 2

• conveys ideas related to the question, in sentences 1

(16)

Ancient History SEE marking guide and response

SEE 2 Paper 1: Combination response Marking guide

Short response

Criterion: Devising and conducting

Q Sample response The response: M

1a) Key inquiry question: To what extent was the First Punic War a proxy war between Carthage and Rome for control of Sicily and subsequently the

Mediterranean region?

• provides a nuanced key inquiry question that relates to the origins of the First Punic War and evidence available in Sources 1–7

3

• provides a suitable key inquiry question that relates to the origins of the First Punic War and evidence available in Sources 1–7

2

• provides a basic key inquiry question that relates to the origins of the First Punic War

1

1b) Sub-question 1: What was the nature of the relationship between Syracuse and Carthage?

Sub-question 2: What motivated Rome to intervene in Sicily?

• provides 2 sub-questions relevant to the key inquiry question

3

• provides 1 sub-question relevant to the key inquiry question

2

• provides 1 sub-question about the First Punic War not directly related to the key inquiry question

1

(17)

Q Sample response The response: M

2 The First Punic War began as a small conflict between Syracuse and the Mamertines over the city of Messana, before escalating into a war between Carthage and Rome, with both superpowers vying for control of Sicily and the Mediterranean region more broadly.

• presents a sophisticated hypothesis that responds directly to the key inquiry question and is plausible given the evidence in the sources

4

• presents a reasoned hypothesis that responds directly to the key inquiry question and is plausible given the evidence in the sources

3

• presents a basic hypothesis that relates to the key inquiry question

2

• presents a basic hypothesis about the First Punic War

1

(18)

Criterion: Synthesising

Q The response M

Historical argument

3 •presents a sophisticated historical argument that develops the stated hypothesis 4

•presents a reasoned historical argument that develops the stated hypothesis 3

•presents a basic historical argument about the First Punic War 2

•makes statements about the First Punic War 1

•does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. 0

Combination of evidence

3 •skilfully combines well-chosen evidence from 4 sources to justify historical decisions 5

•combines relevant evidence from 4 sources to justify historical decisions 4

•refers to evidence from 2 sources 1

(19)

Criterion: Evaluating

Evaluation

3 •explains discerning judgments about the reliability or usefulness of 4 sources 4

•explains discerning judgments about the reliability or usefulness of 2 sources

•makes judgments about the reliability or usefulness of 2 other sources

3

•makes judgments about the reliability or usefulness of 2 sources 2

•makes a statement about the reliability or usefulness of 1 source 1

Corroboration

3 •explains 2 ways that evidence from 2 or more sources corroborate 2

•explains 1 way evidence from 2 or more sources corroborates 1

(20)

Criterion: Creating and communicating

3 •organises paragraph/s purposefully to succinctly and fluently convey ideas relating to the hypothesis, acknowledging sources used

3

•organises paragraph/s to convey ideas relating to the hypothesis, acknowledging sources used 2

•conveys ideas related to the topic 1

(21)

SEE 2 Paper 2: Short response Marking guide

Criterion: Analysing

Q The response: M

1 • explains a plausible implicit meaning about Augustus and the constitution, using well-

chosen evidence from Source 1 4

• describes a plausible implicit meaning about Augustus and the constitution, referring to

evidence from Source 1 3

• describes evidence from Source 1 about Augustus and the constitution 2

• describes aspects of Augustus’s powers 1

(22)

Criterion: Comprehending

1 Tribunicia potestas

• explains the power/s associated with tribunicia potestas accurately to develop the

response, using relevant evidence from Source 1 2

• uses the term tribunicia potestas accurately, referring to evidence from Source 1 1

Imperium proconsulare maius

• explains the power/s associated with imperium proconsulare maius accurately to

develop the response, using relevant evidence from Source 1 2

• uses the term imperium proconsulare maius accurately, referring to evidence from

Source 1 1

(23)

Criterion: Analysing

Q The response: M The response: M

2 Similarity 1 Similarity 2

• identifies a valid similarity related to the way Augustus’s rule is characterised in Sources 2 and 3

• explains the similarity using well-chosen evidence from both sources

2 • identifies a second valid similarity related to the way Augustus’s rule is characterised in Sources 2 and 3

• explains the similarity using well-chosen evidence from both sources

2

• identifies a valid similarity related to the way Augustus’s rule is characterised in Sources 2 and 3

• explains the similarity using evidence from Source 2 or 3

1 • identifies a second valid similarity related to the way Augustus’s rule is characterised in Sources 2 and 3

• explains the similarity using evidence from Source 2 or 3

1

Difference 1 Difference 2

• identifies a valid difference related to the way Augustus’s rule is characterised in Sources 2 and 3

• explains the difference using well-chosen evidence from both sources

2 • identifies a second valid difference related to the way Augustus’s rule is characterised in Sources 2 and 3

• explains the difference using well-chosen evidence from both sources

2

• identifies a valid difference related to the way Augustus’s rule is characterised in Sources 2 and 3

• explains the difference using evidence from Source 2 or 3

1 • identifies a second valid difference related to the way Augustus’s rule is characterised in Sources 2 and 3

• explains the difference using evidence from Source 2 or 3

1

(24)

Criterion: Comprehending

2 • aptly uses relevant terms from the sources placed in historical context 2

• uses relevant terms from the sources 1

(25)

Criterion: Evaluating

Q The response: M The response: M The response: M

3 Horace (Source 4) — reliability Pliny (Source 5) — reliability Coin (Source 6) — reliability

• explains a discerning judgment about reliability, using well-chosen evidence from the source

2 • explains a discerning judgment about reliability, using well-chosen evidence from the source

2

• makes a judgment about reliability, referring to relevant evidence from the source

1 • makes a judgment about reliability, referring to relevant evidence from the source

1

• does not satisfy any of the descriptors

above. 0 • does not satisfy any of the descriptors

above. 0

(26)

Q The response: M The response: M The response: M

3 Horace (Source 4) — usefulness Pliny (Source 5) — usefulness Coin (Source 6) — usefulness

• explains a discerning judgment about usefulness, using well-chosen evidence from the source

2 • explains a discerning judgment about usefulness, using well-chosen evidence from the source

2

• makes a judgment about usefulness, referring to relevant evidence from the source

1 • makes a judgment about usefulness, referring to relevant evidence from the source

1

• does not satisfy any of the descriptors

above. 0 • does not satisfy any of the descriptors

above. 0

(27)

Criterion: Evaluating

3 • explains how evidence from 2 sources corroborates 2

• states that evidence from 2 sources corroborates 1

Criterion: Comprehending

3 • demonstrates an informed understanding of the relationship between

concepts of religion and power in the context of the question and sources 2

• demonstrates a basic understanding of the relationship between concepts of religion and power in the context of the question and sources 1

Criterion: Creating and communicating

3 • organises paragraph/s purposefully to succinctly and fluently convey ideas relating to the question, acknowledging sources used 3

• organises paragraph/s to convey ideas relating to the question,

acknowledging sources used 2

• conveys ideas related to the question 1

(28)

Criterion: Synthesising

4 For the overall historical argument

• presents a sophisticated historical argument that responds directly to the

question 5

• presents a reasoned historical argument that responds directly to the question 4

• presents a basic historical argument that relates to the question 3

• presents a superficial argument about the Roman army under Augustus 2

• makes statements about the Roman army 1

When synthesising evidence from sources

• skilfully combines relevant evidence from all 4 sources to develop the historical

argument 6

• skilfully combines relevant evidence from 3 sources to develop the historical argument

• includes relevant evidence from a fourth source

5

• combines relevant evidence from all 4 sources to develop the historical

argument 4

• combines relevant evidence from 3 sources to develop the historical argument 3

• combines evidence about Augustus and the Roman army from 2 sources 2

• refers to evidence about Augustus or the Roman army from 1 source 1

(29)

Criterion: Comprehending

4 • demonstrates an informed understanding of concept/s or issue/s related to the question

• aptly uses relevant terms from the sources placed in historical context

4

• demonstrates a basic understanding of concept/s or issue/s related to the question

• uses relevant terms from the sources

3

• demonstrates a superficial understanding of concept/s or issue/s related to the question

• uses relevant terms from the sources

2

• uses relevant terms from the sources 1

Criterion: Creating and communicating

4 • organises paragraph/s purposefully to succinctly and fluently convey ideas

relating to the question, acknowledging sources used 3

• organises paragraph/s to convey ideas relating to the question, acknowledging

sources used 2

• conveys ideas related to the question 1

(30)

References

Stimulus 1

Galinsky, K 2012, Augustus: Introduction to the life of an emperor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Stimulus 7

A 2015, Augustus: From revolutionary to Emperor, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, pp. 245–246.

Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | Copyright notice: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/copyright — lists the full terms and conditions, which specify certain exceptions to the licence. Third-party materials referenced above are excluded from this licence. | Attribution: © State of Queensland (QCAA) 2021