Cambridge Professional Development

0457 Marking Feedback

Component 1
Script A
Feedback already supplied separately in the workshop.

Script B

Total mark for the script 58/70

Mark
Question Commentary
awarded
1a Increasing trend identified 1/1
1b Two benefits identified 2/2
1c Candidate selects the benefit they think is the most important (builds students’ 3/3
confidence) and explains why. The answer is clearly reasoned and explicit
about the benefit.
1d Nearly there but we have to read between the lines a little to draw out the 5/6
importance. 2 developed arguments linked to the issue and impact on the nation
is very clear.
2a Clearly reasoned, credible and structured evaluation. 6/6
Two developed points clearly linked to the issue, with some other undeveloped
points. Evaluation is clearly focused on the evidence and arguments, their
strengths and weaknesses and the way they are used to support the claim.
There is clear reference to the evidence and arguments in the source.
2b Reasoned and mainly credible explanation of ways to test the claim. The 5/8
response contains two developed points. The response is explicitly related to
testing the claim.
3a One opinion correctly identified 1/1
3b One prediction correctly identified 1/1
3c A clear and full explanation of why the statement may be biased supported with 3/3
evidence from the statement. Gives two reasons.
3d Clear, supported points/explanation about which argument is more convincing. 12/15
Evaluation of both arguments, with comparison. The response contains one
developed evaluative points and three undeveloped but clearly appropriate
points. Material from the sources is used as evidence to support the evaluation;
some reference to the evidence and/or arguments in the source /quotation
summary of ideas. Some points are descriptive rather than evaluative. To
improve this answer the candidate should ensure that the evaluative points are
explained, to take them beyond comments.
 Mark
Question Commentary
awarded
4 Different arguments and perspectives are considered. The response contains a 19/24
range of reasoned points and evidence to support the views expressed, with
four developed points. A judgement is reached.
The lack of clarity and difficulty of following the candidate’s argument has
impacted the mark. To improve this response, the candidate should take care
to organise their answer so that it is clearly structured and easy to follow.
Script C

Total mark for the script 31/70

Question Commentary Mark
awarded
1a Increasing trend identified Benefit of the Doubt given for ‘going up’ 1/1
1b Two benefits identified 2/2
1c Candidate selects the benefit they think is the most important (better 3/3
understanding of other cultures) and explains why. The answer is clearly
reasoned and explicit about the benefits.
1d Some reasoned explanation of importance; there are two undeveloped 3/6
arguments. The national dimension is not explained – though it can be inferred
from the second point made.
2a Reasonable evaluation mainly focused on the evidence and arguments, their 4/6
strengths and weaknesses, and the way they are used to support the claim;
there is some lack of clarity at times. The response contains one developed
point, with three undeveloped points. To improve this response, the relevant
undeveloped points should be explained.
2b The candidate has not answered the question. Perhaps misunderstood what 0/6
was meant by ‘test the claim’?
3a Correct identification of an opinion 1/1
3b Correct identification of a prediction 1/1
3c The response is unclear – see the note on the script. The candidate has not 0/3
answered the question on bias.
3d Basic points about which argument is more convincing. There is some 5/15
comparison, however this is more about the content of the arguments than
whether they are convincing. The judgement is implicit but not stated. The
response contains several undeveloped points.
To improve this response, the candidate should evaluate the arguments and
state explicitly which is more convincing and why.
4 Some supported reasoning about the issue. Different arguments and 11/24
perspectives are considered.
The response contains some points and evidence to support the views
expressed, with a range of partially developed points.
The response is structured but at times difficult to follow. The candidate gives
their judgement.
To improve this response, the candidate should develop four or more points with
more detail and explanation.
Component 2
Script D
Feedback already supplied separately in the workshop.

Script E

Total mark for the script 30/60

AO Commentary Mark
Presentation of L4 Provides own view and a global perspective with some support.
Perspectives/issue/ To improve this, the candidate should include a clear National
supporting information perspective on the issue. The section labelled National Perspective 8/10
actually provides information, case and consequences rather than
anyone’s perspective.
Analysis of causes and L5 Analyses in depth the causes and consequences of the issue,
consequences of issue explains both in detail.
Comparison of L3 Some explicit but undeveloped comparison. 8/10
causes/consequences
of issue
Course of action L2 A list of possible solutions, with little or no detail. 3/10
Evaluation of sources No evaluation attempted 0/10
Reflection L3 Provides own view but does not mention how this has changed or
3/5
developed.
Structure L3 Generally easy to follow with occasional lapses in clarity. 3/5
Clarity of argument L3 Little attempt to provide perspectives, no real course of action
elements and no evaluation of sources, some headings do not reflect what 3/5
follows.
Citation and L2 Very little in-text citation. The United Nations is mentioned in text
referencing but does not appear in the bibliography. To improve this criterion, all
2/5
sourced material should be clearly cited in text and the reference
provided in a reference list at the end.
General comments Generally easy to follow but with no attempt at evaluation 30/60
Script F

Total mark for the script 40/60

AO Commentary Mark
Presentation of L4 Researches and analyses an appropriate range of relevant 8/10
Perspectives/issue/ information from different perspectives. Does not present a global
supporting information perspective.
Analysis of causes and L4 Analyses in some depth the causes and consequences of the 8/10
consequences of the issue of the impact of social media on mental health
issue
Comparison of L4 Makes appropriate and well-thought-out comparisons of the
causes/consequences impacts on different people.
of issue
Course of action L3 Presents a range of solutions, none are developed or detailed. 6/10
Evaluation of sources L2 Makes a basic point of evaluation about how sources were 4/10
helpful. More detail and evaluation of the various sources used
would improve this work.
Reflection L3 Provides own perspective without considering any change or 3/5
development. To improve this, the candidate should consider how
their perspective has been affected by the research findings and
others’ perspectives.
Structure L3 Generally well-structured and easy to follow – some headings do 3/5
not reflect what follows accurately.
Clarity of argument L3 Presents some required elements clearly – some elements such 3/5
elements as evaluation and a global perspective are limited or missing.
Citation and L5 Referencing complete and consistent. 5/5
referencing
General comments Generally easy to follow, with more detail and development needed 40/60
in most areas.
Component 3
Script G
Feedback already supplied separately in the workshop.

Script H

Total mark for the script 50

Table Commentary Mark
A Team Element Communication AO3:
Table A Communication AO3: The Outcomes are twofold. The video explains the 4
views of both doctor and dentist. The posters translate learning into advice.
B Table B Collaboration AO3:
This mark is awarded by the Centre and members of a team should have the 6
same mark. It is not often that Centres justify the mark on the ICRC. Nor is this
this a requirement.
C Personal Element: The Reflective Paper
Table C Research, Analysis and Evaluation AO1:
The candidate does not keep a consistent focus on the needs of the team’s aims
when evaluating The Outcome and their own work processes, so balanced, as
both show strengths and weaknesses / limitations, but not fully in-depth.
Strengths and weaknesses / limitations of both are clear. The suggested
14
improvement to Work Processes comes out of a weakness, making them well-
reasoned and developed, but not the improvement suggested for the Outcome,
so L3. The use of examples is scant. So, all level 3.

To improve, the candidate would need to: justify their evaluation of the Outcome,
and make reference to impact on the project when evaluating aspects of the work.
D Table D Reflection AO2:
The candidate does not keep clear the aim/ Outcome when reflecting on
Teamwork, so balanced but not fully clear and insightful, so L3. The candidate’s
reflection on their role in the team is very weak, little more than barely hinting at
one, so L1. The reflection demonstrates clear learning about the issue and
personal skills learning from the project, so L3. The Level 1 brings the mark
allocated within Level 3 down, as though we were looking at 1 Level 3 and 2 15
Level 2s, so 15 marks at best.

To improve, the candidate would need to: make reference to impact on the project
when reflecting on aspects of the work; reflect fully on the effectiveness of their
role within the project; reflect on learning from and about perspectives on the
issue.
 Table Commentary Mark
E Table E Communication AO3
The Reflective paper is well structured and quite comprehensive. Headlines of
research findings are reported, so L3. There is clarity in reflections of the
candidate about own work processes, and role in the team is separate, if weak.
So, level 3 overall.
11

To improve, the candidate would need to report more fully on personal research
findings, and reflect on their role in the team, keeping the aims of the team at the
forefront of reflections and evaluations. Supporting evaluations and reflections
with evidence or data / examples would also strengthen it.
General This is a good piece of work seeing balanced evaluation / reflection almost
50
comments throughout. It lacks a focus on the purpose of the team’s efforts.
Script I

Total mark for the script 59

Table Commentary Mark
A Team Element Communication AO3:
Table A Communication AO3: The Outcomes are twofold. The video explains the 4
views of both doctor and dentist. The posters translate learning into advice.
B Table B Collaboration AO3:
This mark is awarded by the Centre and members of a team should have the 6
same mark. It is not often that Centres justify the mark on the ICRC. Nor is this
this a requirement.
C Personal Element: The Reflective Paper
Table C Research, Analysis and Evaluation AO1:
The candidate keeps a consistent focus on the needs of the team’s aims (i.e. full
and in-depth) when evaluating the Outcome and their own work processes.
Strengths and limitations of both are clear. The suggested improvement to the
Outcome comes out of a weakness, making it well- reasoned and developed, but
there is no suggested improvement to work processes, so L2 only. The words 16
about doing more work after doing little can’t be used twice, so we don’t even
have an actioned suggested improvement. The use of examples makes it clear
that the evaluation is valid.

To improve, the candidate would need to: suggest improvements to work

processes and be clearer about the impact on the project’s aims / the Outcome.
D Table D Reflection AO2:
The candidate did not keep clear the aim / Outcome when reflecting on
Teamwork, making it balanced rather than clear and insightful, so L3. The
candidate’s reflection on their role in the team touched on the needs of the 20
project, and balanced strengths and weaknesses, so L4. The reflection
demonstrates clear learning about the issue and personal skills learning from the
project, so L3. The awarded mark is at the bottom of Level 4.
E Table E Communication AO3
The Reflective paper is very well structured and comprehensive. As the
annotations show, evaluation and reflection of the different parts of the paper
flow, showing cohesion. Too brief research headlines are reported, so L3. There
is clarity in reflections of the candidate about own work processes and role in the
team. The purpose of the project is kept high in the reader’s awareness. So, 13
almost full marks.

To improve, the candidate would need to report more fully on personal research
findings.
General This is a strong piece of work. It lacks a consistent focus on the criteria to patch
59
comments up a few of the gaps.

Copyright © UCLES 2022