This week you wrote an analytical piece comparing two views of how history works. Now you’ll read another student’s piece and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate analytical writing sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Analytical – Analytical piece
Analytical writing asks readers to weigh ideas against each other with fairness and rigour. Strong pieces build a clear structure, use precise language, and present claims accurately.
Ideas & Content
Analytical writing lives or dies on the quality of ideas.
Responses that simply list each position are weaker than those that test each one against real-world complexity.
The strongest pieces uncover the assumptions behind competing views and grapple with tensions between them.
-
Analytical depth: tests each position rather than only restating its claims.
Structure & Cohesion
Readers need a clear path through your analysis.
Responses that jump between positions without signposting leave readers confused.
Strong ones group related points, build from simpler observations to deeper insights, and use comparison language to make structure visible.
-
Clear path: guides the reader through each stage of comparison and reasoning.
Audience & Purpose
An analytical piece is written for readers who want to understand — not to be persuaded.
Weak responses defend one side or dismiss the other.
Strong analytical writing maintains genuine enquiry: ‘What does each view assume?’ rather than ‘Which view is right?’
-
Fair enquiry: examines both views without turning analysis into persuasion.
Language Choices
Analytical language is precise and measured.
Words like ‘assumes’, ‘implies’, ‘reveals’ and ‘depends on’ expose the thinking beneath surface claims.
Comparison language — ‘whereas’, ‘by contrast’ — makes distinctions visible.
Vague or emotionally charged words blur analysis into argument.
-
Analytical verbs: reveal assumptions, implications and contrasts with precision.
Conventions
Accuracy in spelling, punctuation and sentence construction matters because errors distract from ideas.
Stronger pieces keep control so readers focus on the analysis itself.
Conventions also cover consistent tense and accurate paraphrase or quotation of source material.
-
Controlled accuracy: keeps the focus on ideas by avoiding errors and misrepresentation.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write an analytical piece examining what each passage assumes about how history works, identifying the strength and difficulty of each position and what their disagreement reveals.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Structure & Cohesion, Language Choices and Conventions. Structure decides whether the reader can follow your line of reasoning. Language decides whether your words signal analysis rather than argument. Conventions decide whether your representation of each passage is accurate enough to trust.
Structure & Cohesion
Assessors reward responses that build a visible structure for analysis. You might organise by position, then move to deeper insights, or examine one dimension of the disagreement, then another. What matters is that your reader can see the shape of your thinking. Responses that signal comparisons between positions are stronger than those treating them in isolation.
What markers scan for
- A clear organisation that helps readers follow the comparison, position by position or dimension by dimension.
- Signposting language — ‘whereas’, ‘by contrast’, ‘the first assumes … the second assumes’ — that guides readers between ideas.
- A visible build from observation toward deeper insight.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Ideas are present but the response jumps between positions without signposting; the line of reasoning is hard to follow.
-
Strong
The response is organised logically and uses some signposting; the structure supports the analysis.
-
Excellent
Structure is purposeful and transparent; clear signposting and grouping show readers how ideas connect.
Language Choices
Analytical language is precise and signals thinking, not emotion. Verbs like ‘assumes’, ‘implies’, ‘relies on’ and ‘reveals’ invite readers into the analysis. Qualification — ‘tends to’, ‘in this view’ — signals complexity. Confusing what a passage ‘says’ with what it ‘assumes’ or ‘reveals’ loses analytical depth.
What markers scan for
- Precise analytical verbs — ‘assumes’, ‘reveals’, ‘implies’, ‘depends on’ — that signal thinking, not emotion.
- Comparison and qualification — ‘whereas’, ‘by contrast’, ‘tends to’, ‘in this view’ — that distinguish positions.
- Language that separates what each passage says from what it assumes.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Language is sometimes vague or emotionally charged; the writer may confuse ‘says’ with ‘assumes’.
-
Strong
Language is mostly precise; comparison words and some qualification strengthen the analysis.
-
Excellent
Language is consistently analytical and precise; comparison and qualification signal sophisticated thinking throughout.
Conventions
Conventions matter because errors interrupt the reader and undermine careful thinking. Assessors look for accurate spelling, punctuation, sentence construction and paragraph boundaries. They also expect fair, precise representation of each passage — paraphrased accurately or quoted exactly. Misrepresenting a passage damages the foundation of your analysis.
What markers scan for
- Accurate spelling, punctuation and sentence construction that maintains clarity.
- Fair and precise representation of the source passages, whether paraphrased or quoted.
- Consistent tense and clear paragraph boundaries throughout.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Frequent errors in spelling, punctuation or sentence structure, or inaccurate paraphrase of the source.
-
Strong
Conventions are mostly accurate; spelling and punctuation are secure; source material is represented fairly.
-
Excellent
Conventions are secure; spelling, punctuation and structure are consistently accurate; source material is represented precisely.
Now read · Student sample
Two Views of How History Works
Year 9 sample · \~350 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Footscray, Victoria, Australia.
These two passages present radically different ideas about what history is for. Passage A says history should be accurate, while Passage B says history is always written from a perspective. Both of these views make sense in different ways. Passage A's view is that history records what actually happened. The purpose is accuracy and it is not supposed to be changed based on what people in the present want it to have been. The passage warns that if every generation rewrites history, then the past becomes less reliable. This is a strong point because if historians kept changing the story based on current values, people would not know what actually happened anymore. It would make history useless as a guide to anything. However, this view has a problem. It assumes that there is a clear, unchanging version of 'what happened' that everybody can access. But history is written by people, and people choose which parts of the past to focus on. Passage A does not explain how historians decide what to record when there is so much that could be recorded. This is where it becomes difficult to defend. Passage B argues that all history comes from a perspective and that the question is really about whose perspective is included. It says a neutral history is usually just the history of powerful people, and that includes suppressed voices is correction, not distortion. This is also a strong point because it is true that history books often left out women and Indigenous people and other groups. Including them is important. But this view also has difficulties. If history is always perspective, then what makes one perspective better than another? The passage does not really explain how we judge whether a revision is a correction or just another distortion. Is every rewriting just as valid as every other one? These views reveal something important about history. Passage A emphasises the need for a reliable record, while Passage B emphasises that reliability itself is shaped by whose stories get told. Neither view is completely right or wrong, but they are focused on different problems. The real issue is that history needs both things at once—accuracy in how we represent what we include, and fairness in choosing what to include in the first place.
