Task Specific Mark Scheme

Learners are expected to compare and assess the effectiveness of different forms of action to help increase biodiversity at global, local and individual levels. A judgement should be made about which types/level(s) of action are the most likely to succeed or work the most. The learners are expected to use and develop the material found in the Sources, but should go beyond simply repeating or recycling without adaptation. Other material may be introduced but it is not necessary to gain full marks.

The arguments used to consider different levels of response are likely to include:

• reference to scale of impact

• how long it takes to make a difference

• the effects of cultural differences and beliefs

• barriers to change

• the power of collective action

• the difficulties of changing individual behaviour

• the influence of individuals and groups acting locally

• the role of vested interests and power differences

• greed and corruption prevent change

• potential conflict

• difficulties in coordinating globally and across different countries with independence

• cost and access to resources to implement change

• governmental responses and action

• the need for campaigns and role models

• other reasonable response.

The following levels of response should be used to award marks.

Marks	Description of Level
9-10	Very effective, well-supported and logical reasoning about the perspectives/ arguments. Coherent, structured argument and with a clear comparison of perspectives/arguments. A range of clearly reasoned arguments and/or evidence to support the views expressed are given, with a sufficient number of developed points, though there may be a slight lack of clarity at times. The response is balanced. A clear assessment or conclusion is reached.
7-8	Good argument and judgements about the perspectives/arguments. Good attempt to compare different perspectives/arguments with some structure, though there may be uneven treatment. The response is likely to contain some arguments and/or evidence to support the views expressed, with at least two or three developed points, and some undeveloped points. A logical assessment or conclusion is reached.
5-6	Reasonable argument about the perspectives/arguments. There is some relevant argument but little structure. Some attempt to make a judgement may be present; however it may be implicit. The response is likely to contain only two or three undeveloped points. An assessment or conclusion is attempted but may not be convincing.
3-4	Only a basic argument about the perspectives/ arguments. Arguments are likely to be very generalised and/or lack relevance. The focus may be on related issues rather than a direct response. A conclusion may be attempted but is not really relevant.
1-2	Very little argument about the perspectives/ arguments. There is very little clarity in the argument. The response is likely to assert a very simple view or describe the issue very generally. The response may not contain any relevant points or may simply recycle or copy elements of the sources.
0	No relevant or creditworthy content.

Further Guidance

Developed points usually have at least two aspects and contain some extension/explanation/ exemplification e.g. Zhang’s argument is not as strong as it could be because it doesn’t have facts to back up the point about declining biodiversity not being a problem; for example scientific research and information about the subject would add strength.

Undeveloped points are usually a simple statement or assertion that is not taken much further and may appear to be ‘list-like’ e.g. Zhang’s argument is not very good because there are no facts to back up the idea that declining biodiversity is not a problem.