Emotional Development & Relationships

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I attempt to name a feeling but use a general word only ('good', 'bad', 'fine') without selecting any of the specific emotion names from the Band A vocabulary set.

I name at least one specific emotion from the Band A set correctly but apply the same label to two clearly different feelings shown in the same scenario.

I can name my feelings using the specific emotion vocabulary — happy, sad, angry, scared, proud, ashamed, excited, surprised — when shown a scenario or picture prompt.

I name the distinct feelings of each character shown in the scenario and note that two characters in the same situation can feel differently — for example, one proud, one embarrassed.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I say I want 'nice friends' or 'good friends' without naming any specific relational behaviour — what I want from a friend is not described in observable terms.

I name a specific treatment preference such as 'I want friends to listen to me' but do not connect it to a situation or to why this matters to me.

I can describe at least one specific way I want to be treated by my friends — such as being listened to, included, or spoken to kindly.

I describe how I want to be treated and also notice that what I need from a friend can shift depending on how I am feeling — for example, needing more space when upset.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

I say a caring friendship means 'being nice' or 'not fighting' without identifying any specific observable and repeatable quality — such as listening, kindness, or fairness.

I identify one or two observable caring friendship qualities but describe them as one-time acts rather than repeating patterns — for example, 'a good friend helps you once when you're sad'.

I can describe what a caring friendship looks like, identifying its observable and repeatable qualities — such as listening, kindness, fairness, and showing up when someone is upset.

I describe caring friendship qualities and contrast them with at least one specific uncaring quality — such as consistently making the other person feel ashamed — naming why the pattern, not the single incident, is what matters.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

I state that friendships feel different at different times but do not explain what causes the shift — I describe the emotional state without linking it to friendship behaviour.

I link my emotional change to a specific incident (a fight, a kind act) rather than to a pattern of how the friendship behaves across multiple situations over time.

I can explain how my feelings in a friendship change over time depending on whether the friendship is going well or not, connecting the emotional shift to specific friendship behaviours rather than single events.

I explain feeling change over time and also note that the same friendship can move between going-well and not-going-well phases, making the overall pattern more informative than any single phase.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I say emotions feel stronger during puberty without naming oestrogen and testosterone as the hormones involved, or without explaining that the intensity is a developmental phase rather than a permanent state.

I name oestrogen and testosterone correctly and link them to stronger emotional reactions, but describe the hormonal effect as permanent rather than as a developmental phase — for example, 'I will always feel this way'.

I can describe how oestrogen and testosterone released during puberty increase the intensity of emotional reactions, and explain that this intensity is a normal developmental phase rather than a permanent trait.

I explain the hormone-emotion connection and also note that puberty's timing and intensity vary between individuals, which means the emotional experience of puberty differs across peer groups and relationships.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I label a relationship as caring or uncaring based on a single incident in the scenario without identifying any repeated tendency across multiple situations.

I identify a repeated tendency — such as 'the friend is often dismissive' — but describe it in vague terms rather than naming the specific repeating behaviour (dismissal, control, deliberate disregard for feelings).

I can identify patterns in a described relationship that distinguish caring from uncaring — where a pattern is a repeating tendency across multiple situations, not a single event.

I identify the relational pattern and explain why it carries more weight than any single incident — including why one very caring act does not cancel a persistent uncaring pattern.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I mention the brain in relation to emotions but cannot name both the PFC and amygdala, or I reverse their roles — describing the amygdala as the part that 'thinks' and the PFC as the part that reacts fast.

I correctly name the PFC and amygdala and their maturational timelines but cannot apply this model to a specific emotional experience — I describe the system without connecting it to attraction, rejection, or loss.

I can explain the PFC/amygdala maturation model and apply at least one of: elevated dopamine/norepinephrine for attraction, pain-overlap neural pathways for rejection, or non-linear grief for loss.

I explain the biological model accurately and flag where the evidence is provisional — noting that 'rejection activates pain pathways' is an interpretive inference, not a certainty equivalent to the PFC maturation timeline.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I label the described relationship as 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' overall but do not identify the specific patterns — such as emotional manipulation or deliberate inconsistency — that support the judgement.

I identify at least one specific healthy or unhealthy pattern in the described relationship but miss another pattern clearly present — for example, I notice control but not the deliberate inconsistency designed to create dependency.

I can identify healthy and unhealthy relational patterns in a described relationship using the Band D criteria: reciprocity, honest communication, boundary respect vs. control, emotional manipulation, and deliberate dependency-creation.

I identify the relational patterns and also explain why certain unhealthy patterns — deliberate inconsistency, intermittent validation — are harder to detect from inside the relationship than from an observer's position.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I name a course framework (dual-process, stress-response window, or habit formation) but do not show how it applies to the specific experience of attraction, rejection, or loss I am analysing.

I apply one course framework to the experience coherently but treat all my claims as equally certain — I do not distinguish between empirical, interpretive, and normative claims in my analysis.

I can apply at least one of dual-process models, the stress-response window, or habit formation to an experience of attraction, rejection, or loss, and correctly identify at least one claim as empirical, interpretive, or normative.

I apply one course framework coherently to the experience and consistently distinguish empirical, interpretive, and normative claims throughout — noting which claims I hold most tentatively and why.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I list biological, psychological, and social factors as separate influences on the relational pattern without showing how they interact — the three factor types appear as parallel causes rather than as an interacting system.

I show how two of the three factor types interact in the relational pattern but treat the third as background context rather than demonstrating how its absence from my account changes the explanation.

I can evaluate how biological, psychological, and social factors interact to shape a relational pattern — explaining how the combination produces outcomes that no single factor alone accounts for.

I evaluate the three-factor interaction and identify which factor type is most explanatory for this specific relational pattern while explaining what the de-emphasised factors would add if foregrounded.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I describe the relational pattern from one person's perspective and acknowledge that the other person sees it differently, but I do not explain what causes the difference in their experiences.

I describe both perspectives in the relational pattern but treat them as equally valid without identifying the relational history, role, or emotional investment that explains why their views diverge.

I can compare the perspectives of the people involved in a relational pattern, explaining what relational history, role, or emotional investment causes the same events to be experienced differently.

I compare perspectives and also identify a dimension of the dynamic where neither person's account is fully accurate — for example, both systematically under- or overestimating how the other is affected.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I note that power is relevant to the relational dynamic without applying any of the six observable power markers — I say 'there is a power imbalance' without identifying what specific behaviour reveals it.

I identify one observable power marker in the dynamic (such as who apologises more often regardless of fault) but do not explain how this marker shapes the relational pattern over time.

I can explain how power or context affects the relational dynamic I am analysing, identifying at least two of the six power markers — such as who sets the emotional tone, who apologises regardless of fault, or who bears the greater cost.

I identify power markers and explain how cultural or contextual norms make those markers feel normal or invisible to the people inside the relationship — accounting for why power is often hardest to see from within.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I name frameworks from the four-framework set but apply them illustratively — using vocabulary (attachment style, dual-process) without showing how the framework changes my reading of the relational dynamic.

I apply one framework from the named set (attachment theory, dual-process models, social learning theory, or power/context analysis) coherently to the dynamic but do not use a second to cross-examine or extend the analysis.

I use at least two frameworks from the named set (attachment theory, dual-process models, social learning theory, power/context analysis) to analyse the dynamic, with each framework illuminating a dimension the other misses.

I use three or more frameworks and, for at least one (e.g. attachment theory), distinguish empirical core from contested interpretations and popularised distortions — explaining what each framework illuminates and obscures in this case.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I name biological, psychological, social, and cultural factors as relevant to the dynamic but treat each layer separately — I do not show where the layers interact or amplify each other's effects.

I show how two or three factor layers interact in the dynamic but treat the cultural layer — cultural scripts for what is normal or appropriate in relationships — as background context rather than as an active analytical category.

I can explain how all four factor layers (biological, psychological, social, cultural) intersect in the dynamic — including how cultural scripts shape what feels natural or expected within the relationship.

I explain the four-factor intersection and evaluate which layers are most explanatory for this specific relational dynamic while acknowledging what the less emphasised layers would reveal if foregrounded.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I offer a recommendation on how the relational dynamic might be navigated but it is not tied to my analysis — evidentiary fit is absent and the position is asserted rather than derived from what I found.

My position has evidentiary fit — it is grounded in my analysis — but I do not acknowledge that a different framework choice or reading could produce a different conclusion (alternatives and framework transparency are missing).

My position is tied to evidence (evidentiary fit), acknowledges at least one alternative reading, names the framework I am primarily relying on and why I chose it, and identifies one thing my framework cannot adequately account for.

My position demonstrates all four dimensions — evidentiary fit, two or more alternatives considered, explicit framework choice with reasoning, and named limits — integrated as a coherent argument rather than as a sequential checklist.