GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
HISTORY - HY1
AS/Advanced
SUMMER 2015
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at:
https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en
Online results analysis
WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is
restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer
at the centre.
Annual Statistical Report
The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall
outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Although these reports tend to be dominated by a focus on areas to improve it is fair to
acknowledge the good to very high quality responses seen from the majority of candidates.
However, this year all the Principal Examiners reported that there was evidence that more
able candidates had been held back in their engagement with the question set by applying a
type of formula in their answers that their centres had seemingly prepared and advised for
use in the examination.
UNIT HY1
In general the responses to HY1 were of considerable credit to the more able candidates
who were able to show a mastery of the historical data, offer meaningful explanations in Part
(a) and valid evaluations and judgement on the wider period issue set in Part (b) questions.
It is fair to say that many candidates tended to offer very generalised explanations by simply
stating relevant factors in Part (a) while a small minority appeared unable to focus on the
issue set. In Part (a) candidates are expected to be able to provide a coherent and linked
explanation to gain Level 3 marks. In Part (b) the majority of candidates tended to offer an
evaluation by setting out a series of factors and then coming to a judgement but the
examiners require an evaluative judgement based on consideration of the significance of the
various influences affecting developments across the period set.
1
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
PERIOD STUDY 1
ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF WALES AND ENGLAND, c.1483-1603
1.
Politics, Government and the Crown, c.1483-1543
Question 1(a)
This question proved accessible to the majority of candidates though a number didn't
appreciate that it required a response focusing on why Henry was able to control the nobility
rather than how he controlled them. Some of the less aware candidates tried to explain why
he needed to control them. Candidates were invited to explore and discuss factors such as
the shared or common interest in maintaining peace and stability in the kingdom; the
benefits of loyalty with material and monetary reward; the political, financial and military
power wielded by the crown. A significant number of the better informed candidates met the
requirements of the question with aplomb. They realised that questions that use the
command word 'how' invite a descriptive response as opposed to 'why' which demands a
more thoughtful and structured explanation.
Question 1(b)
A sizeable number of candidates did not know enough about the significance of the Acts of
Union to offer a meaningful discussion, despite the fact that this is a major part of the
specification. These candidates tended to sidestep the main factor in favour of a discussion
of the other political factors. The range and depth of knowledge displayed was generally
impressive but by virtually ignoring the main factor they were unable to reach the higher
levels. The more aware candidates were able to put the Acts of Union into context arguing
that they formed part of what has been called Cromwell’s ‘revolution in government’. This
enabled the candidates to move seamlessly from the main factor into discussing the
significance of the other changes in politics and government. The majority of candidates
knew enough about the contribution of the crown under Richard III, Henry VII and Henry VIII,
and of Parliament to engage with the question and provide the balanced answer sought for.
However, greater attention should be paid to the constitutional change in politics and
government regarding the relationship between Church and State – the political reformation
under the early Tudors.
2.
Religious Reformation and Change, c.1529-1570
Question 2(a)
The majority of candidates were able to answer this question with confidence. The divorce
and the desire for an heir were considered to be the main reasons to explain why Henry VIII
took control of the Church. Henry’s desire for political power and financial security along with
the influence of reformist ideas promoted by the Boleyn faction figured prominently in a large
number of answers. More might have been made of Cromwell and Cranmer’s influence and
that of continental reformers.
Question 2(b)
Those candidates who focused on the question set made some notable points worthy of
merit including that the influence of European reformers such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli
only really made itself evident during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth. Some
candidates displayed an impressive understanding of the complex political and religious
situation in Europe by stating that though Henry VIII rejected much of Luther’s ideas he
embraced the notion of religious independence from Rome and the dissolution of the
monasteries. Again some candidates were able to articulate clearly the impact that the
papacy had on England by sponsoring the Catholic Counter Reformation: a continental2
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
inspired fightback which Mary and her two chief advisers, Pole and Gardiner, embraced
willingly to the point of burning heretics. Unfortunately, far too many candidates did not
know enough about the European Reformation to offer a meaningful and balanced
discussion. For these candidates a passing mention of Luther and Calvin was deemed
sufficient for them to then proceed to discuss, in some cases in fine detail, the other factors.
3.
Protest, Disorder and Rebellion, c.1529-1569
Question 3(a)
It is clear that a number of candidates expected a question on either the causes or failures of
a particular rebellion. Regardless of the question set, many simply discussed the causes of
the Pilgrimage of Grace. However, the question required candidates to explain why the
rebellion led by Robert Aske was popular and strongly supported. It was the largest rebellion
of its kind during the whole of the Tudor period. For the more aware candidates, the reasons
were readily ascertained and clearly discussed: closure of the monasteries, hatred of
Cromwell and, ironically, support for Henry VIII. Economic hardship, heavy taxation and
famine were also put forward as explanations. The charisma and energetic leadership of
Aske was cited, quite rightly, by a number of candidates as a key reason for the support.
Question 3(b)
The candidates’ overwhelming desire to discuss (more often describe) each rebellion in turn
continues to cause problems with questions of this type. The chronological approach can
yield results but the thematic model is better suited to answering this kind of question.
Rather than proceeding list-like through each rebellion, candidates would be better advised
to identify those rebellions for which political grievances were the primary cause of the
uprising, for example, Rhys ap Gruffudd, Wyatt and the Northern Earls. Thus they might then
go on to discuss the other grievances that were responsible for causing rebellion in this
period, generally speaking, economic and social in Kett, religious in the Pilgrimage of Grace
and Western or Prayer Book rebellion. The more astute candidates did demonstrate an
awareness of the complexity of the issue and the inter-dependent relationship between
economic, political and religious grievances factors in each of the rebellions.
4.
Social and Economic change in Wales & England, c.1525-1588
Question 4(a)
Again this question proved to be the least popular by a fair margin. Indeed only a single
response was seen. The answer was rather general, defining and describing enclosure
rather than focusing on the question and explaining why it was so unpopular and caused so
much opposition.
Question 4(b)
Apart from a general and not very focused description of social and economic trends during
the period, the sole answer to this question lacked the quality and knowledge required to
tackle it successfully. A description of the gentry linked to their status and power simply did
not answer the question.
3
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
PERIOD STUDY 2
ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF WALES AND ENGLAND, c.1603-1715
1.
Politics, Government and the Crown, c.1603-1642
Question 1(a)
This question proved surprisingly challenging for the many candidates that answered it. It
was soon clear that many did not know who Wentworth was. Some confused him with
Buckingham whilst others inexplicably confused him with Laud thinking he was the
Archbishop of Canterbury. Worse still, some thought Wentworth and Stafford were two
different people. Wentworth (Strafford) is a key figure in the reign of Charles I so there is no
real excuse for not knowing who or how important he was. This lack of knowledge resulted in
a fair proportion of rubric scripts as several candidates avoided answering this question.
Those candidates who knew who Wentworth was were able to explain why he had become
unpopular – as the king’s chief adviser he was an easy target for those critical of royal policy,
his rule in Ireland and his apparent disregard for Parliament.
Question 1(b)
This question proved accessible to the vast majority of candidates. Candidates were able to
discuss the impact religious differences had on the relationship between a ‘Puritan’
Parliament and an ‘Arminian’ King. The role of Laud and his religious reforms, particularly in
Scotland, were discussed with confidence. As for the other factors, finance and divine right
were very much to the fore as being mainly responsible for the tension between the Crown
and Parliament. It was pleasing to see a number of candidates suggesting that MPs were as
guilty as the King in contributing to the tension, suggesting that they too behaved in an
aggressive and arrogant manner.
2.
Regicide, Republic and Restoration of the Monarchy, c.1648-1685
Question 2(a)
Although a minority of candidates were confused between the Republic and the Protectorate
those that were aware of the key factors were able to answer this question confidently.
Some answers tended to be framed list-like - discontent with the notion of republicanism and
republican rule; Cromwell’s authoritarian rule and the power vacuum after his death - but
most were able to show how one factor led to another to explain why the Republic collapsed
in 1660.
Question 2(b)
This question proved challenging for a number of candidates. It was clear that some
candidates did not have a clear idea what the Barebones Parliament was so they either said
very little or ignored it completely and went immediately into an answer they had prepared in
expectation. Several candidates more or less repeated what they had written for part (a) in
this answer. However, some candidates did attempt to provide a balanced answer by
estimating the significance of the Barebones Parliament against other factors such as the
Personal Rule, the regicide, the Rump Parliament and the rule of the Major-Generals. Very
little was said about the Civil War or the Protectorate and developments during Cromwell’s
rule.
4
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3.
The Restoration and the reign of Charles II, c. 1660-1685
Question 3(a)
Candidates who answered this question were, on the whole, ignorant of the reasons why
Charles II faced opposition from religious groups. They needed to explore the nature and
motivation of groups such as the Puritans and pro-Catholic groups. The health and status of
the established church could also have been discussed. There were those within the Church
of England who were unhappy with the King’s apparent failure to provide the kind of reforms
and leadership that the state church required. There were those who suspected the King’s
religious beliefs and their suspicions were proved when he converted to Catholicism on his
deathbed in 1685.
Question 3(b)
This question proved challenging for all but the more able candidates. The more aware
candidates were able to offer a meaningful discussion of English foreign policy and its
impact on relations between the Crown and Parliament. Closer relations with France and
war with the Dutch dominated answers on this topic. Other factors were generally discussed
with some confidence though the balanced answer required was achieved only by a minority
of candidates.
4.
Religion, Radicalism and Dissent, c. 1645-1681
Question 4(a) and (b)
No candidate attempted to answer these questions.
5
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
PERIOD STUDY 3
ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF WALES AND ENGLAND c.1780-1886
1.
Parliamentary Reform and Politics, c.1780-1832
Question 1(a)
In part (a) examiners were looking for explanations of the unpopularity of the Tory
government. As soon as candidates began to give coherent and linked reasons (not just a
list) supported by some specific facts Level 3 marks could be given. Where the explanations
were sketchy and / or generalised and lacked specific knowledge lower marks were
awarded. This was generally answered well with many candidates offering several factors to
explain the reasons for the demand for parliamentary reform. The majority of candidates
engaged well with outlining the reasons for the unpopularity of the Tory government. Some
answers took a longer term perspective referring to the post-war policies of the Liverpool
governments whilst others focussed on the later 1820s with the growth of radicalism, the reemergence of the parliamentary reform issue, the Tory split about Catholic Emancipation
and the party’s poor showing in the 1830s election. Some answers combined both long and
short term causes of unpopularity: as always the examiners were looking for answers which
provided a coherent and linked explanation.
Question 1(b)
In part (b) candidates have to make a judgement about the importance of a given factor
during the period studied. Clearly it is expected that this given factor is clearly understood
and explained in any answer. However, in addition, candidates must evaluate its importance
in comparison with other main factors. Evaluation does not mean an extended list of
alternatives: it involves making judgements about relative importance and establishing a
relevant set of criteria. The higher marks will be given to candidates who can provide quality
evaluation, make supported and reasonable judgements, backed up by specific facts on the
factors given and chosen. It is vital that in making their analysis candidates are careful to
cover the whole period, in this case 1780-1832. Level 3 marks would be given for
reasonable evaluation of the key factors and alternatives, covering the whole period set and
supported by specific facts. Mere listing of alternatives will not gain Level 3 marks; indeed
where the evaluation is sparse, the facts generalised and period coverage limited, lower
marks will be awarded.
The fear of radicalism was evaluated in the best answers to (b) with clear references to its
impact on the governing classes from the 1790s onwards, the repressive legislation of the
Younger Pitt and to its continuing impact in the post-war period. The relative importance of
the fear of radicalism was evaluated and, very often, linked with other factors influencing
parliamentary reform and politics. These factors included the influence of the early
parliamentary reform movement, the French Revolution, the responses of Lord Liverpool’s
government after 1815, the impact of Catholic Emancipation and the Reform Act crisis of
1830-32. Weaker answers failed to look at a range of factors or provided only the sketchiest
evaluation of the factors given.
6
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2.
Popular Protest c.1815-1848
Question 2(a)
In part (a) examiners were looking for reasons why the Chartist movement had failed. As
soon as candidates began to give coherent and linked reasons (not just a list) supported by
some specific facts Level 3 marks could be given. Where the explanations were sketchy and
/ or generalised and lacked specific knowledge lower marks were awarded. This question
was widely attempted and, in the main, was well answered with detailed knowledge of the
problems of the Chartist movement. Answers tended to focus upon the divisions in the
movement, the strength of the government response including use of the military, railways
and the new police forces, the determination of government and Parliament not to accept
further electoral reforms and Chartist petitions, the failure to mobilise middle class support,
the success of Peel’s reforms and the onset of the mid-Victorian boom and failures of
Chartist leadership, particularly that of Fergus O’Connor. Weaker answers listed the aims of
the Chartists and commented upon their achievements without addressing the central point
of the question set.
Question 2(b)
In part (b) candidates have to make a judgement about the importance of a given factor
during the period studied. Clearly it is expected that this given factor is clearly understood
and explained in any answer. However, in addition, candidates must evaluate its importance
in comparison with other main factors. Evaluation does not mean an extended list of
alternatives: it involves making judgements about relative importance and establishing a
relevant set of criteria. The higher marks will be given to candidates who can provide quality
evaluation, make supported and reasonable judgements, backed up by specific facts on the
factors given and chosen. It is vital that in making their analysis candidates are careful to
cover the whole period, in this case 1815-48. Level 3 marks would be given for reasonable
evaluation of the key factors and alternatives, covering the whole period set and supported
by specific facts. Mere listing of alternatives will not gain Level 3 marks; indeed where the
evaluation is sparse, the facts generalised and period coverage limited, lower marks will be
awarded.
Answers to part (b) were not always successful in analysing the link between economic
hardship and popular protest. The better answers provided discussion of the post-war
depression after 1815, the agricultural discontent of 1830-31 and its link with poor law
reform, the breakdown of law and order in west Wales 1839-42 and the impact of the
economic depression in the 1830s and 1840s. Other influences upon popular protest were
analysed in good answers and the examiners rewarded comparisons with radical and
political influences, the non-economic causes of Chartism, the protests against the new poor
law and the arguments about free trade and the Corn Laws.
3.
The Campaigns for Social Reform, c.1815-1848
Question 3(a)
In part (a) examiners were looking for reasons why the condition of towns and public health
was a cause for concern. As soon as candidates began to give coherent and linked reasons
(not just a list) supported by some specific facts Level 3 marks could be given. Where the
explanations were sketchy and / or generalised and lacked specific knowledge lower marks
were awarded. This was a less popular question and whilst there were many very
generalised descriptions of poor living and working conditions in early nineteenth century
towns, there were few attempts to link this with the concern of individuals, organisations and
government. The best answers were able to explain the impact of Chadwick’s report, the
attempts of some local authorities to reform, the arguments advanced in Parliament about
the need for a healthy workforce and clean water, the Royal Commission on the Health of
Towns and the frustration with ineffective local improvement acts.
7
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Question 3(b)
In part (b) candidates have to make a judgement about the importance of a given factor
during the period studied. Clearly it is expected that this given factor is clearly understood
and explained in any answer. However, in addition, candidates must evaluate its importance
in comparison with other main factors. Evaluation does not mean an extended list of
alternatives: it involves making judgements about relative importance and establishing a
relevant set of criteria. The higher marks will be given to candidates who can provide quality
evaluation, make supported and reasonable judgements, backed up by specific facts on the
factors given and chosen. It is vital that in making their analysis candidates are careful to
cover the whole period, in this case 1815-48. Level 3 marks would be given for reasonable
evaluation of the key factors and alternatives, covering the whole period set and supported
by specific facts. Mere listing of alternatives will not gain Level 3 marks; indeed where the
evaluation is sparse, the facts generalised and period coverage limited, lower marks will be
awarded.
The key factor in (b) was the Liberal Tory reforms. Better answers analysed the influence of
humanitarianism on the reforms to the legal system and the operation of criminal justice.
The significance of the economic policies of Huskisson and Robinson were commented
upon and not always made relevant to the question set. The impact of trade union reforms
and the removal of religious grievances were better done. Examiners were expecting
comparisons to be made with other issues affecting social reform including the influences of
the utilitarians, the impact of humanitarians and religion, government investigations of social
problems, the influence of campaigns, pressure groups and individual reformers and
campaigners.
4.
Foreign Policy c.1793-1841
Question 4(a)
In part (a) examiners were looking for explanations of Britain’s support for liberal and
national movements in Europe in the 1820s. As soon as candidates began to give coherent
and linked reasons (not just a list) supported by some specific facts Level 3 marks could be
given. Where the explanations were sketchy and / or generalised and lacked specific
knowledge lower marks were awarded.
There were some impressive responses to this question with clarity about the concepts of
liberalism and nationalism and their impact upon British foreign policy. The best answers
were exemplified with references to events in Spain and Portugal particularly, scepticism
about the Congress System, the influence of Canning and the problem of the Greek War of
Independence.
Question 4(b)
In part (b) candidates have to make a judgement about the importance of a given factor
during the period studied. Clearly it is expected that this given factor is clearly understood
and explained in any answer. However, in addition, candidates must evaluate its importance
in comparison with other main factors. Evaluation does not mean an extended list of
alternatives: it involves making judgements about relative importance and establishing a
relevant set of criteria. The higher marks will be given to candidates who can provide quality
evaluation, make supported and reasonable judgements, backed up by specific facts on the
factors given and chosen. It is vital that in making their analysis candidates are careful to
cover the whole period, in this case, 1793-1841. Level 3 marks would be given for
reasonable evaluation of the key factors and alternatives, covering the whole period set and
supported by specific facts. Mere listing of alternatives will not gain Level 3 marks; indeed
where the evaluation is sparse, the facts generalised and period coverage limited, lower
marks will be awarded.
8
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
The influence of the Eastern Question was generally well known and understood. Most
candidates were able to evaluate the decline of Turkish power and the threat from Russia.
The perceived threat to British naval and commercial interests in the Mediterranean and
beyond was analysed well as were the Greek War of Independence, the Mehemet Ali crisis,
the Convention of London 1840 and the Straits Convention of 1841. Other issues which
could have been evaluated to establish relative importance included the wars against France
1793-1815, the balance of power in Europe and the Congress of Vienna, trade, commercial,
naval and strategic interests in other parts of the world, the importance of liberalism and
nationalism and the opposition to the Atlantic slave trade.
9
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
PERIOD STUDY 4
ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF WALES AND ENGLAND, c.1880-1980
1.
Wales and England in transition, c.1880-1929
Question 1(a)
This question was attempted by over 90% of the candidates. The question required
candidates to focus on a linked explanation as to why the Government took the
unprecedented step of directing and organising labour (workers) during the First World War.
Most candidates were able to provide at least a list of reasons why it was necessary for
people to take an active part in the war effort in order to ensure overall victory. Candidates
were able to describe the active role played by women thanks to Government legislation
although why the DORA Act was more prominent than the Treasury Agreement Act or the
Munitions of War Act in candidates’ answers is a mystery. The importance of winning the
war took centre stage although too many merely stated what the Government did rather than
explaining 'why' they needed to do so. There were some very good linked answers. By
linked answers this means answers that provide a means of explaining how one event or
decision lead to, or influenced another: cause and effect if you like. An example would be
how some decisions were made due to the need for attrition, to keep morale high and
various examples were given how this was done by controlling and directing labour including
conscription , the Land Army and providing munitions.
Question 1(b)
Candidates were asked to consider to what extent was the decline of the staple industries
the most important development in Wales and England 1880-1929. To fully answer the
question set therefore candidates would have to evaluate further changes brought about by
various factors and their subsequent impact 1880-1929. These factors could include the
Liberal reforms; the Social Surveys of Booth and Rowntree; the impact of war; economic
decline in general; the General Strike and perhaps industrial relations.
The majority of candidates were able to provide answers which at the very least listed
important developments in this period. They knew something about the decline of the staple
industries and were able to suggest that other factors were also important developments.
These candidates were placed within the boundaries of mid-level 2 as the tendency to
mechanistically present a whole host of other important factors is not really answering the
question set. These are mostly rote-learned responses which do not allow the more able
student to evaluate the issue in the question. Typically there is a paragraph about the
influence of the main factor, then a paragraph about the influence of another factor, then
another couple of factors and then, and only then, a short paragraph about which was the
most influential - what may be regarded as a bolt-on reference to the question set.
Evaluating the factors against each other gains Level 3 marks because the candidates are
answering the question set - “the most important development” in this case. This cannot be
done by pre-prepared responses.
As we saw last year many answers were seen that based their arguments on conjecture.
This cannot be rewarded. Sentences such as ‘If it wasn’t for the work of Booth and
Rowntree, the Liberals would never have introduced reforms’, or ‘If it wasn’t for the war
Britain’s economy would have improved’ cannot be accepted as credible historical debate.
10
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2.
British foreign policy, c.1902-1939
Question 2(a)
This question was answered by a third of the candidates. The question required candidates
to focus on a linked explanation as to why relations between Britain and France changed
1902-1914. Many candidates simply did not know enough about the issue to be able to
respond in anything but general terms. Most candidates were able to list some reasons and
provide some knowledge about the Ententes but few were able to provide a linked
explanation using a chronological mechanism to explain how Britain moved closer to France
between 1902-1914. Britain certainly wanted to protect her economic interests first and
foremost and thus the Entente was intended to prevent disputes arising, and was not meant
as a military alliance against Germany as stated by many candidates. The relationship
between France and Russia was a cause of concern and Britain wanted to avoid a costly
conflict between the two great powers. The role of Edward VII in building a firm
Anglo-French relationship was not mentioned by many candidates, but most were able to
see that co-operation between Britain and France including the Anglo-French naval
agreement was also linked to the growing fear of German aggression.
Question 2(b)
In this question, the candidates were asked to consider whether protecting the Empire was
the most important influence on British Foreign Policy 1902-1939. To fully answer the
question set therefore candidates would have to evaluate the importance of the influence of
protecting the Empire against other important influences including the fear of Germany, the
fear of Russia, economic considerations, the desire to avoid war, the search for collective
security or appeasement. Candidates that attempted this question were able to discuss
developments in the earlier period, the move from isolation towards the Ententes and the
reasons why this happened. However, the main factor (protecting the Empire), was
glossed over by many who relied heavily on pre-prepared answers, ignoring the question
given and producing narratives about collective security and the use of appeasement. The
majority of these candidates were placed within the boundaries of Level 2 as the tendency to
mechanistically present a whole host of other influential factors continued. These are rote
learned examples of candidates unloading class notes. Typically there is a paragraph about
the influence of the main factor, then a paragraph about the influence of another factor, then
another couple of factors and then, and only then, a short paragraph about which was the
most important influence, with a little, if any, evaluation. There were however some very
good responses dealing with the main factor and evaluating the significance against other
significant developments in the period.
3.
Party Politics, c.1900-1940
Question 3(a)
This question was attempted by a minority of the candidates seen. The question required
candidates to focus on a linked explanation as to why support for minority parties grew after
1918. Most candidates were able to provide a few reasons why support for minority parties
grew after 1918 and these focussed on the post-war depression and economic instability
arising as a result of the Wall Street Crash. Only a few were able to discuss ‘minority parties’
in respect of the Communist Party and the British Union of Fascists. Even fewer discussed
the origin of the nationalist Plaid Cymru. Good linked answers were few and far between. By
linked answers this means answers that provide a means of explaining how one event or
decision lead to, or influenced another: cause and effect if you like. Disillusionment with the
party system and the lack of an effective opposition to the National Government did not
figure in many answers but the appeal of fascism and the oratory skills of Oswald Moseley
were mentioned by most candidates.
11
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Question 3(b)
Candidates were asked to consider whether the rise of the Labour Party was the most important
influence in British party politics from 1900-1940. As has often been the case for this question,
more than any other, candidates again this year tended to gloss over the main factor and provided
a list of other factors which were important in party politics in the period. No attempt was made by
some candidates to address ‘the rise of the Labour Party’ and many others were only able to
provide the briefest of comments regarding the Labour government of 1924 only lasting a few
months in office. Candidates that fail to discuss the main factor can only access mid-level 2
marks. Those candidates that accessed the higher marks did so because they discussed ‘the rise
of Labour’ set against other factors that covered the period. There was a need to evaluate these
factors in order to provide a judgement on the question of the ‘most important influence’. There
were too many
pre-prepared answers and these types of responses are not helpful for students who would
otherwise have accessed higher marks.
4.
Role and status of women, c.1900-1940
Question 4(a)
This question was answered by nearly half of the candidates. Most candidates were able to
explain in general terms why the lives of women changed during the 1920s. The distinction
here was the difference between descriptive answers that wrote ‘how’ the lives of women
changed and the explanatory answers which discussed ‘why’ the lives of women changed.
One answering the question set, the other not. Many answers focused on the situation prior
to 1920: the changing role and status of women due to war work, enfranchisement and the
work of the women’s suffrage societies. There was merit in this type of response.
Candidates gained the highest grades when discussing the legislation passed during the
1920s that gave women legal rights as valued members of society, and why women came
to be viewed differently in society (or not as some argued with validity).
Question 4(b)
Candidates were asked to consider whether the campaign for women’s suffrage was the
most significant development in changing the role and status of women 1880-1929. To fully
answer the question set therefore candidates would have to evaluate the significance of the
women’s suffrage campaign against a range of other factors including the influence of the
role of women during the war, notable individuals, changing attitudes during the 1920s, and
developments in education and voting rights. The majority of candidates were able to
discuss the work of the Suffragettes and the Suffragists in detail and although there were too
many unfocused narratives, there were also some very well focussed pieces of work. The
majority of candidates were placed within the boundaries of Level 2 as the tendency to
mechanistically present a whole host of other influential factors continued as they do in other
questions on this paper. These were mostly rote-learned. Typically there was a paragraph
about the influence of the main factor, then a paragraph about the influence of another
factor, then another couple of factors and then, and only then, a short paragraph about
which was the most significant development. Candidates at Level 3, engaged with the issue
of ‘the most significant development’ and were well rewarded for such an evaluative
approach.
12
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
PERIOD STUDY 5
ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF EUROPE, c.1515-1621
1.
The threat to Europe from the Ottoman Empire, c. 1520-1571
Question 1(a)
This question was the least popular on the paper with only a small number of candidates
attempting it. However, it must be judged a success since all the candidates, with varying
degrees of success, gained good marks. This topic continues to be the least popular but also
continues to excite the candidates who study it as it is so different from other histories they
have studied. By its continued success it is an example to centres of an area long
overlooked and which perhaps deserves fresh consideration. They were able to explain why
the Ottoman Sultans were powerful although some strayed into explaining why they were a
threat to Europe. The Ottoman Sultans were powerful because they were chosen it was not
a hereditary position and they were head of an empire with superior strength. Also the
structure of both the army and navy demanded complete loyalty to its head, the Sultan. Also
the army was a standing army unlike the mercenary armies of Western Europe. This
increased the Sultan’s power. In addition power came from the great wealth of the Ottoman
Empire .Most candidates made reference to the West’s acknowledgement of that power by
calling Suleiman 'Magnificent.' In his own culture he is known as 'The Law Giver.'
Question 1(b)
The answers to this question were quite mixed. It proved challenging for most candidates
inasmuch as some were not quite sure how the French reacted. Evaluation of Hapsburg
Valois rivalry, the Capitulation Treaty and its secret clauses, the offer made to the Ottomans
of the use of French ports should be assessed. These should have been evaluated against
other factors that were significant such as the disunity of all of Western Europe until the Holy
Alliance, that the Ottomans were a force based on conquest, the threat in Eastern Europe to
Hungary and Vienna, and the fear of control of the Mediterranean. Better answers really
engaged with the question set and emphasized the link between the French/Ottoman
Alliance and Hapsburg/Valois rivalry.
2.
Martin Luther and the German Reformation, c.1517-1555
Question 2(a)
Some candidates were able to give a reasonable explanation of the reasons why so many
German princes converted to Lutheranism. They discussed that there was economic
advantage for conversion. Tithes no longer had to be paid to the Church and that there was
political advantage to a prince’s conversion for if a prince converted his subjects were
expected to follow his lead. A prince then had the possibility of freedom from control by a
foreign power. Some princes converted for genuine religious reasons and candidates could
also have discussed this.
Sadly some candidates had knowledge of this issue but were not able to apply it to produce
a linked coherent explanation. Instead they produced a list or narrative or sometimes an
explanation of what was the most/main reason which is not a requirement of this task.
Better responses answered the question set and used linkage mechanism such as
chronology, political, economic and religious reasons to explain why many German princes
converted to Lutheranism.
13
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Question 2(b)
Better answers on this question were very well done by some candidates who did not find it
difficult to evaluate whether Imperial reaction to Luther was mainly responsible for the
development of the German Reformation. They engaged with the question and were able to
analyse and evaluate in a sustained and convincing way. However, although some
discussed many relevant issues, equally there were candidates whose answers were vague
and simplistic and also a very small minority of candidates interpreted Imperial reaction to
mean only the Imperial cities and sometimes the Imperial knights with no reference to the
Emperor himself. Also there were very long and detailed answers from some candidates
who obviously had much knowledge on this topic and did not want to waste it. These
candidates invariably found themselves with limited time to complete their second answer on
the paper. These candidates are reminded that it is an historical skill to select and deploy
relevant information to answer a question set and that the length of an answer is by no
means a guarantee of more marks. They are to be encouraged to consider that the level of
their response displays a firm grasp of historical skills.
Better answers were able to offer that Emperor Charles V was young and inexperienced,
that he misjudged Luther’s stance at Worms in 1521 and he allowed him to escape death
and continue his attack on the established Church. Some also noted that the Holy Roman
Emperor was continually distracted by foreign affairs and was unable to devout the time and
energy to stop Luther. Candidates also noted that after the setting up of a princely league
Charles V faced war with many princes and he also was rarely able to persuade the Papacy
to work with him to deal with Luther’s challenge. Support for Lutheranism from the Imperial
cities and knights was also accepted here as an additional reaction within Germany.
Many candidates were also able to evaluate Imperial reaction against other factors which
could be considered to have varying degrees of responsibility for the development of
religious reform in Germany. These included support from the princes, cities and the
peasants of Germany, the influence of economic, social and political grievances and the
rapid dissemination of Lutheranism, aided by the use of the printing press, as well as the
influence of key individuals.
3.
France, 1515-1547
Question 3(a)
This was a very popular question which produced both very skilled answers to the question
set and others which were not fully developed. Where this question, on why there were
financial problems in the reign of Francis I, was answered well, candidates concentrated on
Francis I’s lavish spending to display his Renaissance Prince status, his expenditure on
Hapsburg/Valois rivalry and the inadequate reform of the Royal Treasury. These candidates
were also well able to give a linked explanation, mainly using chronology but also using
Renaissance culture and in some cases warfare, politics or power as linkage. There were
candidates who linked reasons but who were unable to access the top marks in L3 as they
did not fully support or develop these reasons.
Question 3(b)
Most candidates made a reasonable attempt at a discussion of Francis I’s response to
religious change as a significant development in France in the period 1515-1547 and
considered a range of other factors which could be classed as developments in France in
this period such as, Hapsburg Valois rivalry, finance, social change, Renaissance culture
and changes in government. It was hoped that candidates would have evaluated the
significance of Francis I’s varied response to religious change in his realm throughout his
long reign by exploring such change as the Concordat of Bologna of 1516, French
Humanism as displayed by the Circle of Meaux, conflict with the Sorbonne, the Affair of the
Placards of 1534 and the Edict Of Fontainebleau and religious repression. There was also
some evidence of mechanical linking sentences being used but the better answers used the
previous reason to show how the next developed and evaluated and balanced against such
factors as Hapsburg/Valois rivalry, changes in government , problems with finance and the
pressure of Francis I displaying himself as a superior Renaissance prince.
14
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
However, there were candidates whose response was less of a focus on the question set
and more a list of factors coupled with a bolt on mechanical/formulaic judgement in the last
paragraph or at the end of every paragraph. Thus some well-informed candidates, who did
not genuinely engage with an evaluation, often because they have a formula which they
have to follow, were unable to access Level 3. Also preparing a list of stock phrases does
not allow for access to higher marks in Level 3. Better answers balanced their assessment of
factors. They were well supported with specific relevant historical knowledge rather than a
mechanical rote statement followed by a narrative. They were engaged with the question
set. There was evidence of a debate and a genuine attempt to evaluate the significance of
relevant factors developing in France in the period 1515-1547.
4.
Spain in the reign of Charles V, 1516-1555
Question 4(a)
This question was very popular with most centres choosing to answer it. Unfortunately
linkage of valid reasons why there was rivalry with France during the reign of Charles V
seemed to be challenging for a large minority of candidates who resorted to listing in a
mechanical way. As observed last year, this highlights the over-reliance on recalling
prepared notes and a reluctance to think about the question set.
However, it is pleasing to note that there were some answers which were very well informed,
thoughtful and fully focused on finding and explaining valid reasons for the rivalry between
these neighbours in early sixteenth century Europe. These included discussion on Charles
V’s large monarchia, his election in 1519 as Holy Roman Emperor, the encirclement of
France by Spanish power, images of Renaissance monarchy and culture and rival claims to
Milan. Linkage could have been achieved through chronology, power, territory or
Renaissance culture. It was a pity that so many understood a variety of valid reasons but
they were unable to explain how one led to another and they resorted to listing reasons.
There was also some evidence of mechanical linking sentences being used. Better answers
used the previous reason to show how the next developed.
.
Question 4(b)
The best answers to this question did try to engage with the question in an evaluative tone
throughout. They engaged with the word “impact” and acknowledged that impact could be
both positive and negative. For example, they could have said that the New World impacted
negatively by causing inflation and positively by being a social safety valve for Spain and an
opportunity to spread Catholicism. Also the relative impact of both finance and other factors
on Spain in this period were sometimes approached and candidates were justly rewarded
when this was seen. Therefore better answers engaged with the exact wording of the
question set. They focused on ‘significant’, ‘impact on Spain’ and ‘finance’. This included an
evaluation of the significance of financing expensive wars with France in Italy, Charles V’s
defence against the mighty Ottoman Turks on land and at sea, the cost of his role as Holy
Roman Emperor, the finance of and exploitation of New World wealth and the relative
poverty of Spain’s economy. These better answers than went on to evaluate this main factor
against other factors which could have been considered to have a significant impact on
Spain in this period such as rivalry with the French, colonial administration and resources,
political and social problems within Spain, religion, the Ottomans and Renaissance culture.
However, once again this question also produced some of the weakest responses on this
paper. Many did not focus on the significance of factors, there was much narrative, the
present tense was used throughout and several instances of candidates merely unloading
their classroom notes on Spain’s finance with little or no attempt to engage with the question
set. There was also much listing of other factors which might be considered as significant
developments in a mechanistic way with rote sentences linking factors. Some candidates
also displayed a wealth of knowledge on the topic but there was little or no attempt to select
and deploy their knowledge to answer the specific question set. All of these factors
contributed to candidates being held back from accessing the higher levels.
15
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
PERIOD STUDY 6
ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF EUROPE, c.1696 -1815
1.
Russia during the reign of Peter the Great, 1696 -1725
Question 1(a)
This question was attempted by a significant number of candidates. They were asked to
explain why Russia became involved in conflict in the Baltic during the reign of Peter the
Great. Most candidates were familiar with the underlying factors, namely challenging Swedish
dominance, expanding Russian trading interests, furthering Peter's policy of westernisation
and establishing Peter's credentials as a major military and political figure within the European
context. Some weaker candidates sought to list factors rather than offer a linked explanation.
Question 1(b)
Candidates were asked to consider the extent to which Peter the Great’s policy of
westernisation was the most important change that occurred during his reign. While clearly this
was a very important and significant policy in drawing Russia towards the European economic
and geo-political orbit, it should be viewed within the context of a range of other policies.
These cover a range of domestic and military reforms. His internal policies had the aim of
modernising his country and curbing any potential threats to his authority , particularly from the
Church and the Nobility. His foreign policy was linked to westernisation but also had other
features – notably campaigns against the Ottomans and the Swedes. .
2.
Prussia during the reign of Frederick the Great, 1740 – 1786
Question 2(a)
All candidates answered this question which asked them to explain why Silesia was
important for Prussia up to 1748. There were many good responses which sought to explain
with great clarity the importance of Silesia to Prussia. Answers covered such factors as the
economic benefits of acquiring a province rich in natural resources and people and setting
down a marker that Prussia under Frederick was force to be reckoned with. Weaker
candidates continued to offload their class notes in an unstructured and wholly irrelevant
way without any contextual overview.
Question 2(b)
Candidates were asked to consider the extent to which Frederick the Great's military
successes were the most important achievement of his reign, 1740-1786. While some
candidates wrote narrative accounts often setting out in great detail his military campaigns and
successes they frequently overlooked other aspects of his policy. Good arguments were
presented for considering his domestic reforms and the general sense of enlightenment which
enhancing his status as a visionary figure.
16
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3.
The Hapsburg Empire during the reigns of Charles VI and Maria Theresa 17111780
Question 3(a)
A small number of candidates answered this question and for the most part they produced
acceptable answers. The question asked candidates to explain why Charles was successful
during his reign. There were some good accounts of his careful attempt to construct the
pragmatic sanction. His initial foreign policy successes, the setting up of global trading
companies and the sending out of the message that the Hapsburg Empire was stull a force
to be reckoned with were also important in this respect. A number of candidates noted that
in general his other successes were overshadowed by his need to resolve the issue of the
succession.
Question 3(b)
The responses to this question were generally good. Candidates were asked to consider to
what extent the Diplomatic Revolution was the most important development in the Hapsburg
Empire during the period 1711-80. While some candidates saw the question as an opportunity
to provide a narrative account of Maria Theresa’s foreign policy in the period 1740-63, without
giving due focus to the changing alliances and the importance of this , a number failed to
consider other possibly important developments such as Maria Theresa’s domestic reforms of
foreign policy successes after 1763 such as the partition of Poland. Balance answers needed
to consider a range of plausible alternatives in a fully integrated way.
4.
International Relations c.1710-1756
This question was not attempted by any candidates.
17
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
PERIOD STUDY 7
ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF EUROPE, c.1815-1917
1.
Europe, 1815-1856
Question 1(a)
Candidates were expected to show an understanding of the interrelationship of the reasons
why relations between the Great Powers deteriorated. Whilst most candidates were able to
identify a range of different reasons why relations between the powers deteriorated they
were not always able to provide a coherently linked explanation. One of the reasons why this
did not occur was because of the approach adopted by many of the candidates. They often
began their answers with the routine phrase ‘One reason why..' which was then followed
with: ‘another reason why…’ and so on. This kind of approach does not allow the candidates
to explain why one development led to another, and so many of the candidates were only
able to access marks at Level 2. These candidates tended to deal with a range of factors in
isolation. Most highlighted the fact that the fear of France had subsided; the Treaty of
Versailles did not resolve the differences between the powers and the differences over the
application of the principles of the Congress System. However, there was often no attempt to
establish a link between these issues. For example candidates did not take the opportunity
to point out that fact that the fear of France had diminished meant that the common ground
between the powers was removed which exposed differences at Versailles and within the
working of the Congress System.
Question 1(b)
In this question, a lack of precise knowledge and understanding of the impact of the 1848
revolutions on the stability of Europe was often exposed. The more focussed candidates
were aware of the potential threat of nationalism and liberalism to autocratic order but there
was limited focus upon the influence of 1848 on other social and political developments.
Most candidates were more secure in dealing with the other factors such as: the impact of
the Vienna Settlement and the Congress System.
2.
Italy, 1830-1871
Question 2(a)
Candidates were expected to show an understanding of the interrelationship of the reasons
why the papacy hindered the process of unification. Whilst most candidates were able to
identify a range of different reasons why the papacy hindered the process of unification, they
were not always able to provide a coherently linked explanation. One of the reasons why this
did not occur was because of the approach adopted by many of the candidates. They often
began their answers with the routine phrase ‘One reason why..' which was then followed
with: ‘another reason why…’ and so on. This kind of approach does not allow the candidates
to explain why one development led to another, and so many of the candidates were only
able to access marks at Level 2. These candidates tended to deal with a range of factors in
isolation. Most highlighted the fact that there was a fear of nationalism and the presence of
the catholic garrison in Rome. However, there was often no attempt to establish a link
between these issues. For example candidates did not take the opportunity to point out that
fact that the papacy was intent upon strengthening its popularity and maintaining its temporal
and spiritual power and that this in itself hindered the movement for unification.
18
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Question 2(b)
In this question, fairly routine evaluations of a range of different contributions to Italian
unification emerged. However, whilst the contribution of Cavour was usually soundly
evaluated, candidates often failed to weigh up the contributions of these other key
individuals against the contribution of Cavour. The significance therefore of Cavour’s role
was often lost within a general evaluation of the factors that led to Italian unification.
3.
Germany, 1830-1871
Question 3(a)
Candidates were expected to show an understanding of the interrelationship of the reasons
why there was rivalry between Austria and Prussia after 1848. Whilst most candidates were
able to identify a range of different reasons why there was rivalry between Austria and
Prussia after 1848, they were not always able to provide a coherently linked explanation.
One of the reasons why this did not occur was because of the approach adopted by many of
the candidates. They often began their answers with the routine phrase ‘One reason why..'
which was then followed with: ‘another reason why…’ and so on. This kind of approach does
not allow the candidates to explain why one development led to another, and so many of the
candidates were only able to access marks at Level 2. These candidates tended to deal with
a range of factors in isolation. Most highlighted the fact that there were different nationalist
solutions for the unification of Germany, one which excluded Austria; plus the importance of
the Zollverein and the growth of Prussia. However, there was often no attempt to establish a
link between these issues. For example candidates did not take the opportunity to point out
that fact that the exclusion of Austria from the Zollverein led to the growing economic and
military power of Prussia, which manifested itself in the Danish Crisis and the war with
Austria in 1866.
Question 3(b)
In this question, the more focussed candidates were able to evaluate the contribution of
Prussian military power against a range of other factors. Some argued that whilst Prussian
military power was the instrument of unification the favourable international situation, the
establishment of the nationalist movement, the role of Bismarck and Prussian economic
power formed the basis upon which Prussian military power could be exploited. The focus
upon the other factors varied from centre to centre in both degree and scope. What often
became the common denominator between candidates was the lack of effective evaluation
of the main factor in relation to the contribution of the other key issues. Some candidates
were content merely to establish a link between the various factors affecting unification
which was a key element of Part (a) rather than Part (b).
4.
The Eastern Question c.1815-1856
Question 4(a)
This question was only attempted by two candidates. Candidates were expected to show an
understanding of the interrelationship of the reasons why the Crimean war broke out. The
candidates were expected to link the general context of the Eastern Question to the
individual aspirations of the Powers, which led to an underlying conflict of interest, which
manifested itself in the outbreak of war.
Question 4(b)
In this question, the contribution of Russia to tensions in the Eastern Question needed to be
evaluated against a range of other key issues. Candidates could have focussed upon the
opportunistic way that Russia took advantage of developing situations such as Unkiar
Skelessi and the Mehemet Ali crises. This should have been evaluated within the context of
Russian designs on the Straits and the Mediterranean at the expense of Turkey.
19
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
PERIOD STUDY 8
ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF EUROPE, c.1878-1989
1.
International relations, c.1878-1914
Question 1(a)
Candidates were expected to show an understanding of the interrelationship of the reasons
why there was rivalry between France and Germany in the period. Whilst most candidates
were able to identify a range of different reasons why there was rivalry between France and
Germany in the period they were not always able to provide a coherently linked explanation.
One of the reasons why this did not occur was because of the approach adopted by many of
the candidates. They often began their answers with the routine phrase ‘One reason why..'
which was then followed with: ‘another reason why…’ and so on. This kind of approach does
not allow the candidates to explain why one development led to another, and so many of the
candidates were only able to access marks at Level 2. These candidates tended to deal with
a range of factors in isolation. Most highlighted general economic and political rivalry and
some linked this to an antagonism over Alsace and Lorraine. French isolation featured a lot
but often it was presented in a narrative format without any attempt to establish a meaningful
linking mechanism. The Moroccan crisis was often presented in isolation.
Question 1(b)
In this question there were a number of very generalised and unconvincing responses to the
threat posed by Russia to international relations between 1878-1914. Most made
generalised references to the Balkans, Turkey and the stability of Europe. Most candidates
were more secure in dealing with the other factors such as: the alliance system; the Balkans;
other great power rivalries; and the role of other powers. However, meaningful and
convincing evaluations of the key factors in relation to the Russian threat were rare.
2.
Germany c. 1878-1919
Question 2(a)
Responses to this question were very rare. Candidates were expected to show an
understanding of the interrelationship of the reasons why Germany was defeated in the First
World War. Candidates were expected to explain the connections between general factors
such as food shortages and a munitions crisis in the context of the entry of the USA into the
War, general war weariness and the failure of the Spring Offensive.
Question 2(b)
In this question it was expected that candidates would evaluate the impact of Bismarck’s
foreign policy upon the development of Germany in the context of the influence of other
factors such as domestic policy; the influence and ambitions of William II; the impact of war
and the Settlement of Versailles; authoritarian government and the economic growth of the
Germany.
20
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3.
Italy, c.1918-1944
Question 3(a)
Candidates were expected to show an understanding of the interrelationship of the reasons
why Fascism became popular in Italy between 1918-1922. Whilst most candidates were able
to identify a range of different reasons why Fascism became popular, they were not always
able to provide a coherently linked explanation. One of the reasons why this did not occur
was because of the approach adopted by many of the candidates. They often began their
answers with the routine phrase ‘One reason why..' which was then followed with: ‘another
reason why…’ and so on. This kind of approach does not allow the candidates to explain
why one development led to another, and so many of the candidates were only able to
access marks at Level 2. The candidates tended to deal with a range of factors in isolation.
Many candidates had a random approach to identifying the factors which led to the
popularity of Italian Fascism. A chronological consideration of the historical context would
have a least allowed the candidates to make an attempt at a linked explanation. For
example, the candidates could have explained the unpopularity of the weak post war liberal
government, leading to post war disillusionment and Red two years which had a positive
effect on the appeal of Italian Fascism. However, there was often no attempt to establish a
link between these issues.
Question 3(b)
In this question most candidates were able to illustrate the Fascist use of terror in terms of
the Fascist squads and the preventative and repressive powers of the police and the case of
Matteotti in particular. Some answers seemed to stop in 1924 in terms of Fascist terror and
there was little reference to the later period. The more focussed candidates were aware of
the range of other factors which impacted upon the people of Italy. However, meaningful and
convincing evaluations of the key factors in relation to the impact of Fascist terror were rare,
Most candidates identified either foreign policy; the establishment of authoritarian
government; propaganda and economic and social developments as alternative factors.
However, there is still a tendency in some centres for candidates to consider only one
alternative factor which is weighed up against the main issue set. This approach does not
allow the candidates to access marks at Level 3 because the arguments deployed do not
show sufficient period coverage and a sense of balanced evaluation does not emerge.
4.
The Communist Revolution in Russia, c.1917-1941
Question 4(a)
Candidates were expected to show an understanding of the interrelationship of the reasons
why Stalin carried out purges. Whilst most candidates were able to identify a range of
different reasons why relations between the powers deteriorated they were not always able
to provide a coherently linked explanation. One of the reasons why this did not occur was
because of the approach adopted by many of the candidates. They often began their
answers with the routine phrase ‘One reason why..' which was then followed with: ‘another
reason why…’ and so on. This kind of approach does not allow the candidates to explain
why one development led to another, and so many of the candidates were only able to
access marks at Level 2. The candidates tended to deal with a range of factors in isolation.
Most highlighted the fact that Stalin desired to exercise more control; and was a product of
his personality; the desire to purge the party linked to the Five Year Plans. However, there
was often no attempt to establish a link between these issues. For example, candidates did
not take the opportunity to point out that fact that Stalin committed these excesses in order
to guarantee his own security, maintain the continuation of his supremacy and the
supremacy of his policies within the Soviet Union.
21
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Question 4(b)
In this question most candidates displayed sound knowledge and understanding of aspects
of the economic changes which affected the people of Russia. There were attempts to
analyse and evaluate collectivisation and industrialisation and the impact upon rural and
urban workers. Some analysed the changes in the context of a command economy and
target setting and propaganda. However, the impact of economic changes was not always
evaluated effectively against the range of other policies which affected the lives of the people
of Russia. Candidates were often secure in dealing with the other factors such as the impact
of revolutionary changes, cultural changes and political developments but they did not
analyse and evaluate the impact of these factors upon different groups within society or
within the context of the impact of economic changes.
22
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
WJEC
245 Western Avenue
Cardiff CF5 2YX
Tel No 029 2026 5000
Fax 029 2057 5994
E-mail: [email protected]
website: www.wjec.co.uk