The following guide for using the markbands suggests certain features that may be offered in responses. The five headings coincide with the criteria in each of the markbands (although ESS terminology has been conflated with "understanding concepts"). This guide simply provides some possible inclusions and should not be seen as requisite or comprehensive. It outlines the kind of elements to look for when deciding on the appropriate markband and the specific mark within that band.
Section B, part (c) markbands
0: The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below and is not relevant to the question.
1–3: The response contains:
• minimal evidence of knowledge and understanding of ESS issues or concepts
• fragmented knowledge statements poorly linked to the context of the question
• some appropriate use of ESS terminology
• no examples where required, or examples with insufficient explanation/relevance
• superficial analysis that amounts to no more than a list of facts/ideas
• judgments/conclusions that are vague or not supported by evidence/argument.
4–6: The response contains:
• some evidence of sound knowledge and understanding of ESS issues and concepts
• knowledge statements effectively linked to the context of the question
• largely appropriate use of ESS terminology
• some use of relevant examples where required, but with limited explanation
• clear analysis that shows a degree of balance
• some clear judgments/conclusions, supported by limited evidence/arguments.
7–9: The response contains:
• substantial evidence of sound knowledge and understanding of ESS issues and concepts
• a wide breadth of knowledge statements effectively linked with each other, and to the context of the question
• consistently appropriate and precise use of ESS terminology
• effective use of pertinent, well-explained examples, where required, showing some originality
• thorough, well-balanced, insightful analysis
• explicit judgments/conclusions that are well-supported by evidence/arguments and that include some critical reflection.