GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
HISTORY – HY2
AS/Advanced
SUMMER 2014
Statistical Information
This booklet contains summary details for each unit: number entered; maximum mark
available; mean mark achieved; grade ranges. N.B. These refer to 'raw marks' used in the
initial assessment, rather than to the uniform marks reported when results are issued.
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.
HISTORY - HY2
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
Unit Statistics
The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they
'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed
should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly
occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year.
Unit
HY2
Entry
4492
Max Mark
80
Grade Ranges
A
B
C
D
E
Raw
UMS
58
53
48
43
39
64
56
48
40
32
1
Mean Mark
49.1
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.
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 following a
formula that their centres had prepared to use in the examination.
UNIT HY2
A number of candidates seem to be better prepared to address the specific assessment
objectives associated with this paper with some high marks gained. This may be a result of
the publication in Autumn 2013 of CPD material on HY2 on the WJEC on-line exam review
website. However some candidates struggled with the demands needed to offer source
evaluation in context and some relied too heavily on mechanistic consideration of the
sources. Examples of candidate answers and examiner comments for HY2 scripts from
summer 2013 can currently be found by visiting the WJEC exam review website at
http://oer.wjec.co.uk/.
In Part (a) candidates are expected to provide an explanation set in the specific historical
context in which it was produced and so there is a clear need to focus on the attribution and
especially the author and date of the source. In Part (b) candidates need to focus on the
exact question set – that is the ‘significance’ or ‘importance’ of the event set - and to make
use of the specific content and attributions of the sources as part of their response rather
than just rely on formulaic source evaluation comments. Part (c) generally was not well
completed with only a few candidates able to fully use the sources and their own knowledge
to come to a valid judgement regarding different historical interpretations of an issue.
Responses to Part (d) were largely awarded at Level 2 with many candidates content to
comment on the content and attribution of the three sources and then tag on some
omissions. Candidates who were better rewarded engaged with the selected sources in
their historical context and focussed their source evaluation comments on the wider
historical context involving the content and authorship of the three selected sources over the
depth study period rather than merely list what they did not include. A small number of
candidates are failing to complete all four of the sub - questions on the paper which suggests
that there are time management issues to be addressed
l
2
IN-DEPTH STUDY 1
WALES AND THE TUDOR STATE, c. 1529-1588
No candidates were entered for this option on the history of Wales during the Tudor period.
IN-DEPTH STUDY 2
REBELLION AND REPUBLIC, c. 1629-1660
Both questions set were equally popular and answered by roughly half the candidates.
(a)
Almost without exception candidates were able to understand the phrase in both
questions 1 and 2. However, fewer candidates were able to set the phrase in context
using their own knowledge, particularly for question 2. Most were getting the gist of
what the phrases were referring to but were unable to fully explain the meaning of the
phrase. A number of candidates did not refer to the attribution at all when discussing
the phrase which, as the mark scheme makes clear, is necessary if the answer is to
be fully rewarded. Many candidates who did refer to the attribution did so in a
mechanistic way, tending to discuss reliability rather than why, and in what context,
the phrase was uttered or expressed. A minority of candidates were able to use the
attribution to show why the particular phrase was uttered or expressed.
(b)
Both questions proved to be accessible to the vast majority of candidates who, in the
main, were able to discuss the issue of significance/importance reasonably well.
Most candidates were able to use the content of both sources to discuss the
significance importance of the set issue and to reach a judgement. However, some
candidates who attempted question 1 tended to drift off the issue of importance,
discussing (some describing) instead the role of the Scots in the Civil War. Some
candidates were able to refer to their own knowledge in addition to the sources to
discuss the issue of importance thus gaining credit for setting their answers (and the
sources) in context. Again, a number of candidates failed to refer to, let alone
discuss, the attribution at all. Those candidates that did attempt to use the
attributions did so in a mechanistic way – mainly to comment on the issue of
reliability. It is fair to say that a number of candidates did engage with the question –
using the attribution to help explain the importance or significance of either the role of
the Scots in the Civil War or of religion as a cause of the war.
(c)
Both questions proved to be accessible with the vast majority of candidates able to
recognise the interpretations in the sources provided. Most candidates were able to
discuss the given interpretations and reach a reasonable judgement about validity.
Some of the more able candidates were able to add their knowledge to the answer
which enabled them to set the interpretations in context and thereby helping to reach
a more considered judgement. However, a significant number of candidates simply
copied or paraphrased the content and attributions of the two sources. The more
able candidates were able to use the attributions to explain the difference in
interpretation of the issue, however, most were restricted to mechanical comments
on reliability or usefulness. It is disappointing to report that a number of candidates
were unable to discuss alternative interpretations to those in the sources. Apart from
the minority of candidates who completely misunderstood the sources, the only other
serious issue was the confusion some candidates exhibited in relation to the First
and Second Civil War. Candidates need to focus more on explaining how and why
the interpretations had been formed.
3
(d)
The vast majority of candidates know that the questions will require them to discuss
the usefulness of selected sources to explain either the causes and events (or both)
of the Civil War. That said, some candidates (thankfully a minority) still persist in
using more than the three sources identified in the question – in most cases this led
to the ‘trawl’ of old. Apart from those candidates who are intent on describing the
content of the selected sources, the majority were able to discuss the strengths and
limitations of the sources. Most were aware of the importance of referring and using
the attributions but many opted to offer a basic, mechanistic, sometimes superficial
response – the issue of bias was much to the fore in the majority of answers but why,
or the nature of that bias, was not always explained. It is evident that a number of
candidates do not consciously engage with the issue of utility. The word ‘useful’ is
often used indiscriminately and sometimes out of context. It is equally clear that a
trend is developing in which candidates opt to answer question (d) first.
IN-DEPTH STUDY 3
REFORM AND PROTEST IN WALES AND ENGLAND, c. 1830-1848
Examiners noticed that several candidates were not completing the paper: too much time
was being taken to answer (b) and (c) questions at the expense of the last part. It is still a
matter of concern, despite previous reports, that whole centres are still not dealing with the
attribution in the (a) answers.
1.
To attain the higher marks in part (a) candidates are expected to discuss the context
in which the phrase is set. Both the content of the source and attribution must be
used to answer the question set. Mere copying of the attribution will not be
rewarded: the date, origin and purpose of the source in context has to be the focus.
In part (a) candidates were expected to refer to the appalling conditions in the mills
and the prevalence of child labour. Oastler was an effective factory reformer with
significant influence although some candidates were confused at the prospect of a
Tory MP keen on reform! His use of language is highly revealing and is designed to
persuade the listener about the evils of working conditions.
In part (b) candidates are expected to use the nominated sources to discuss the
importance or significance of the set issue, in this case the importance of physical
force agitation in the Chartist movement. Candidates must use the content,
attribution and context of the sources to reach a judgement on the importance of
physical force agitation. It is also expected that candidates will use their own
knowledge of the period to demonstrate understanding of the importance of physical
force agitation in the Chartist movement. Source B says that physical force Chartism
alarmed Parliament whilst Source C plays it down. The main advocate of the
movement was O’Connor and his influential paper The Northern Star was important.
Evidence of the movement’s failure might include the outcomes of the 1839 rising
and the demonstration of 1848. The failure of Parliament to accept the petitions also
pointed to failure. The movement was badly divided on tactics between Lovett’s
followers and those of O’Connor. Green was a pioneering social historian who gave
prominence to social and economic issues whereas Harney was an active Chartist
who was sceptical about the importance and realism of physical force.
Part (c) focuses on differing or different interpretations. The question invites
discussion of the validity of a given interpretation. Candidates are expected, in their
answers, to show understanding of how aspects of the past have been interpreted in
different ways. They must also show an ability to analyse and evaluate the two
nominated sources in particular the content and authorship of the two sources for
their use in forming interpretations. Knowledge of other interpretations than the one
given is essential and must be used to attain the highest marks.
4
In this case the interpretation suggested was that the Merthyr Rising was a major
threat to the authorities. Candidates were invited to enter into a debate on whether
the Merthyr Rising was a major threat to the government. Answers should have
considered whether the evidence provided in each source and the circumstances in
which each view was expressed was valid. They should consider the motivation
behind each source. Source C is the work of a well- known Welsh Marxist historian
whereas Source D is from a Tory diarist. Source C clearly emphasises the
breakdown of law and order in Merthyr which is confirmed by Source D. However
Mrs. Arbuthnot cannot help making a comparison with Peterloo to make a party
political point. Her evidence would support a different interpretation. Merthyr did
cause Lord Melbourne, the Home Secretary, many sleepless nights and there is no
doubt the government’s military response suggests it was extremely concerned.
Gwyn Williams is convinced the Merthyr Rising was a major development in Welsh
working class consciousness and the radical tradition. Another interpretation is that
the Rising was of considerable concern to the authorities in South Wales but less so
elsewhere as Source D suggests.
Candidates are expected to show their ability to analyse and evaluate the three
nominated sources in the context of the whole depth study in the (d) question.
Source evaluation skills should be shown in discussion the strengths and limitations
of the nominated sources. To judge their utility there should be consideration of the
content and authorship of the nominated sources to discuss reliability, bias, purpose
and validity. It is vital that in discussing the three sources, candidates must refer to
the wider context of reform and protest in Wales and England in 1830-1848. In part
(d) a significant number of candidates did not make best use of their background
knowledge in answering this question. The three sources did provide some coverage
of the campaign for factory reform, the Merthyr rising and Punch’s view of public
health. It is vital in good answers that these particular sources are placed in their
appropriate context historical. Evidence is derived from a prominent factory reform
campaigner who is in no doubt of the case for reform, a Tory diarist whose viewpoint
is crystal clear and the satirical slant from Punch. The context on parliamentary
reform and Chartism is missing as are some aspects of social reform (public health,
education and poor law). There will be discussion of the wider range of sources that
could be of use in understanding Reform and Protest 1830-1848.
2.
To attain the higher marks in part (a) candidates are expected to discuss the context
in which the phrase is set. Both the content of the source and attribution must be
used to answer the question set. Mere copying of the attribution will not be
rewarded: the date, origin and purpose of the source in context has to be the focus.
In part (a) candidates needed to refer to the context of the workhouses often
nicknamed “Bastilles” by opponents of the Poor law reform. The conditions in the
workhouses were a key component of the opposition to the Poor Law. The language
and tone of the source was important and commented upon in the better answers.
In part (b) candidates are expected to use the nominated sources to discuss the
importance or significance of the set issue, in this case the significance of the 1848
demonstrations in the history of the Chartist movement. Candidates must use the
content, attribution and context of the sources to reach a judgement on the
importance of the 1848 demonstration. It is also expected that candidates will use
their own knowledge of the period to demonstrate understanding of the importance of
the 1848 demonstration. Source B describes the extent of the demonstration
whereas Source C is a self- congratulatory perspective from the wife of a prominent
government minister. The 1848 demonstration was the last great Chartist
demonstration with thousands involved and the government was terrified.
5
Enormous military preparations were made under the command of the Duke of
Wellington and early photographic evidence reveals the enormous size of the
meeting at Kennington. However O’Connor’s nerve seems to have failed and the
demonstration fizzled out. Lady Palmerston’s view was that there was a united front
against the Chartists. The divisions within the movement were exposed by the failure
of the demonstration. The Chartist petition was ignored and better economic
conditions probably killed off the movement. The failure of the 1848 demonstration
was symbolic.
Part (c) focuses on differing or different interpretations. The question invites
discussion of the validity of a given interpretation. Candidates are expected, in their
answers, to show understanding of how aspects of the past have been interpreted in
different ways. They must also show an ability to analyse and evaluate the two
nominated sources in particular the content and authorship of the two sources.
Knowledge of other interpretations than the one given is essential and must be used
to attain the highest marks. In this case the interpretation suggested that local
authorities had to be compelled to take action on public health. Source D is a
revealing insight into the state of public health in a large town whereas Source E
describes a wider picture. Source D reveals the lack of progress in Oxford mainly due
to the cost of reform. Source E on the other hand presents evidence of a more
positive picture in Manchester and suggests that the social commentators were being
unduly pessimistic. Briggs had carried out extensive research on the Victorian cities
which substantiated his comments. Source D is an accurate record of the inquiries
and there is no reason to doubt its veracity. Source E is the considered view of a
prominent nineteenth century historian who has conducted substantial research. The
evidence on public health reform is patchy – clearly some municipal authorities were
more energetic than others. The cost of reform was a great concern for ratepayers
and there were very strong vested interests such as the water companies.
Chadwick’s 1842 Report and the Health of Towns Report 1844 presented a
compelling case for compulsion and the impact of the cholera epidemics was fresh in
people’s minds. It is significant however that legislation was delayed until as late as
1848 and compulsion was reluctantly conceded in mid-Victorian Britain.
Candidates are expected to show their ability to analyse and evaluate the three
nominated sources in the context of the whole depth study in the part (d) question.
Source evaluation skills should be shown in discussion the strengths and limitations
of the nominated sources. To judge their utility there should be consideration of the
content and authorship of the nominated sources to discuss reliability, bias, purpose
and validity. It is vital that in discussing the three sources, candidates must refer to
the wider context of reform and protest in Wales and England in 1830-48. In part (d)
a significant number of candidates did not make best use of their background
knowledge in answering this question. The three sources did provide some coverage
of the Poor Law Amendment Act, the Chartist demonstration of 1848 and Chartism
generally. All of these sources need to be contextualised with regard to their
background. Source A is the work of a dedicated factory reform and anti-poor law
campaigner who is determined to present an indictment of the new system. Source
B on the other hand has more perspective although Gammage was a prominent
Chartist leader recalling events 50 years later and maybe inclined to present the
movement in the best possible light. This was clearly not the intention of the
cartoonist in Source F who is poking fun at the Chartists. There are many aspects
that are not covered such as the Reform Act 1832 and other aspects of popular
protest such as Rebecca and Merthyr. The three sources do not cover the whole
social reform context including factory reform, mines reform, education and public
health reform.
6
IN-DEPTH STUDY 4
CHANGE AND CONFLICT IN WALES, c. 1900-1918
1.
Most all candidates were able to give a good response to part (a), and were able to
place the phrase in the context of the period. The phrase refers to the religious
revival synonymous with 1904. Most pupils were able to make some reference to its
link with Wales and the preacher Evan Roberts of Cardigan. To gain the full marks
candidates needed to make references to the author’s standpoint in relation to this
issue. Being a gentleman farmer and a Lord he may well look down on the influence
of such a revival and its effect on the people and stress the negative influence of
social misconduct especially as maintaining order is in his best interest. Being a
private letter also, he may be expressing a personal viewpoint on his personal
experiences in Carmarthenshire rather than the effect of the revival on the whole of
Wales.
In part (b) most candidates were able to use the content of the sources to explain
something about public disorder in Wales, but very few focussed their answer on the
‘significance’ of public disorder in Wales. As such, many answers were contrived, a
paragraph about what the source said, a paragraph about who the author was and
then a paragraph of own knowledge. Such answers do not get out of Level 2
because they do not discuss the significance of public disorder in Wales i.e. the
question set. Too many responses paraphrased the content and then mechanically
discussed the authorship. Candidates who attempted to provide a judgement on ‘the
significance of public disorder in Wales’ were given higher marks because they were
clearly using the sources to answer the question set rather than produce mechanistic
content/author responses. Source A clearly shows that public disorder is having a
significant effect on the lives of people, especially gentleman and Lords in
Carmarthenshire. The author views disorder as a significant issue for the gentlemen
of Wales. Source B also shows that developing democracy is hindered by public
disorder because it is preventing women from voicing their opinions. It is clear also
that the paper is supportive of such behaviour and is promoting this disorder.
In part (c) candidates were invited to enter into a debate on the extent to which South
Wales was a prosperous area in this period. Candidates needed to consider whether
this interpretation was valid and supported or was there evidence to the contrary? It
is important to stress that this is an interpretation question and the focus should be
on how and why the author came to his/her standpoint on the matter and
subsequently why there may be other views on the subject matter. As such the focus
is very much on placing the sources in context and not about providing narratives
about good or bad times in South Wales. Most answers provided a mechanistic trawl
which has become synonymous with this question. First there was a paragraph about
what the source says, then a short paragraph about the author and then a narrative
history about the period. At that time, 1911, Wales was going through a turbulent
period of strikes and confrontation and the magazine would disagree with the
interpretation because it is written in a turbulent period and for a particular audience.
Source C however would agree with the interpretation given because it is looking at
the wider period and trying to generalise the experiences of Wales as a whole and
not just the workers, living and working conditions. Source C does mention the
‘relative happiness’ and would surely take into account the poorer living and working
conditions, but it has a general outlook which is different to the specific outlook seen
in Source D.
7
Part (d) is an opportunity for candidates to provide an overall assessment of the
sources and to deploy their contextual knowledge and understanding of the whole
topic. There will be strengths to each and every source as regards the content and
authorship and therefore it is disappointing to see candidates dismiss each source as
being unreliable and not useful because they are ‘biased’ or do not mention
everything. Clearly these candidates display a lack understanding of the use of
historical sources to an historian. At the lower levels candidates trawl the content of
each source, and only slightly better are those candidates that provide lengthy
narratives at what has been omitted in the sources. Better answers placed the
sources in context - what was happening in Wales at the time these sources were
written and how these sources help us in the understanding of these issues. They
help us understand these issues to some extent (strengths), but further issues need
to be explored to fully understand the issues raised in the context of the source
(limitation). The same is true of the authorship. However, too many answers are
mechanistic - a paragraph about what the source says, something about the author
and then a narrative about Wales in the period.
2.
Most candidates were able to address the context of the phrase in part (a) and
include information about the authorship. Most candidates could make reference to
some general strikes and riots but only a few actually mentioned events, which in the
context of the date of the source were specifically relevant e.g. Tonypandy or Llanelli
disputes. The key to understanding the phrase in context is the author’s standpoint
in relation to this issue- a right wing editorial with an establishment viewpoint who
may well have painted a negative viewpoint of the disputes in order to show its
negative effects on society which was otherwise orderly and harmonious. As always,
those that made references to the content and authorship and placed the phrase in
context received the full mark allocation.
In part (b) most candidates were able to use the content of the sources to explain
something about community identity in Wales, but very few focussed their answer on
the ‘importance’ of community identity in Wales in this period. As such, many
answers were contrived, a paragraph about what the source said, a paragraph about
who the author was and then a paragraph of own knowledge. Such answers do not
get out of Level 2 because they do not discuss the importance of community identity
i.e. the question set. Community identity is very important according to these
sources, it binds people together and they share a common bond in work, leisure and
culture. Source A sees this community identity being negatively affected by conflict
but one can see from Source B that it is this fierce loyalty which propels the workers
to fight for each other. One source sees the community under threat while the other
sees a joint struggle for life, clearly both sources see community identity as pivotal to
Wales in this period.
In part (c) candidates were invited to enter into a debate on the extent to which
immigration had a negative effect on Wales in this period. Candidates needed to
consider whether this interpretation was valid and supported or was there evidence
to the contrary? It is important to stress that this is an interpretation question and the
focus should be on how and why the author came to his/her standpoint on the matter
and subsequently why there may be other views on the subject matter. As such the
focus is very much on placing the sources in context and not about providing
narratives about immigration in general in South Wales.
8
Most answers provided a mechanistic trawl which has become synonymous with this
question. First there is a paragraph about what the source says, then a short
paragraph about the author and then a narrative history about the period. More
focus is needed on placing the source in context in order to explain how and why the
standpoints were reached. Written in 1914 Source C shows the effect of immigration
on the mining community as depicted by a small sample of 40 Welsh miners. Clearly
this is not a representative sample but the influx of migrant workers into the coalfield
may go some way to explaining why some historians can make this view. The
historian in Source D would have seen a wider picture of Wales in this period and
would have reached his more positive interpretation due to his consideration of a
wider period of history and across the different regions and experiences felt in Wales
in this period. Being a Marxist he is also less likely to see life in nationalistic terms
and more as class conflict and may well play down the role of cultural or linguistic
differences.
Part (d) is an opportunity for candidates to provide an overall assessment of the
sources and to deploy their contextual knowledge and understanding of the whole
topic. There will be strengths to each and every source as regards the content and
authorship and therefore it is disappointing to see candidates dismiss each source as
being unreliable and not useful because they are ‘biased’ or do not mention
everything. Clearly these candidates display a lack of understanding of the use of
historical sources to an historian. At the lower levels, candidates trawl the content of
each source, and only slightly better are those candidates that provide lengthy
narratives at what has been omitted in the sources. Better answers placed the
sources in context - what was happening in Wales at the time these sources were
written and how these sources help us in the understanding of these issues. They
help us understand these issues to some extent (strengths), but further issues need
to be explored to fully understand the issues raised in the context of the source
(limitations). The same is true of the authorship. However, too many answers are
mechanistic - a paragraph about what the source says, something about the author
and then a narrative about Wales in the period.
9
IN-DEPTH STUDY 5
BRITAIN, c. 1929-1939
Question 1
1.
Most candidates were able to give a good response to part (a), and were able to
place the phrase in the context of the period. Most pupils were able to make detailed
references to hunger marches in the period and could mention some marches or
events, most notably the Jarrow Crusade of 1936. To gain the full marks candidates
needed to make references to the author’s standpoint in relation to this issue, and
most were able to make references to the fact that the source would be heavily
biased against the marchers due to the political motivation affecting the reporting of
the events.
In part (b) most candidates were able to use the content of the sources to explain
something about the effects of poor health in Britain. Too many responses trawled
the content and then mechanically discussed the authorship. Candidates who
attempted to provide a judgement on ‘How significant were the effects of poor health’
were given higher marks because they were clearly using the sources to answer the
question set rather than produce mechanistic content/author responses. The idea
here again is to place the sources in context, what was happening at the time relating
to ‘the effects of poor health’ and how the author’s situation influenced his or her
position. Candidates at the higher level analysed and evaluated both the content and
the authorship of the sources as part of an enquiry into the significance of the effects
of poor health. Their answers demonstrated that different regions had different
experiences in the decade and that poverty was not a homogenous condition. A
government report would have been well investigated and is concerned with South
Wales in 1937. The social survey looked at York in 1936 but may be generalised to
other poverty-stricken areas. The whole issue of poverty in all areas are not covered
by these two sources alone and the negative experiences of Sources A and B do not
cover the full effect of poverty in all regions. The unemployed had vastly differing
experiences based on the nature of their condition and the time and place they found
themselves in. Source A shows that mortality rates were bad enough in some areas
to warrant a report on it while Source B says that the effects of poverty are increasing
rates of ill-health. Candidates that obtained the higher marks did so by also
commenting on why the authors would view the effects of poverty in a particular way.
The government report should be unbiased and based on research and it does
appear so because it recognises declining social conditions as a root cause of illhealth. Seebohm Rowntree is writing a follow up survey on York and is well placed
to make a comparative study of the city.
In part (c) candidates have to comment on a given interpretation in the question set.
This interpretation may, or may not appear in the sources supplied. In this instance
Source C is suggesting the National Government was doing its very best to tackle the
depression and this is supported by the interpretation in Source D. Candidates must
engage with the interpretation given and discuss how and why different
interpretations were formed, offering different interpretations to the one highlighted in
the question set. At the lower end candidates trawled what the content of each
source said, and mechanistically discussed the author. The higher performing
candidates discussed how and why these views were formed at the time and why
these particular viewpoints have been reviewed over the passing of time. Even here
there were some mechanistic trawling of what different historians have said, which
gains little credit as there is no attempt to explain how and why these views were
formed and subsequently how and why they differ in interpretation.
10
It is important for candidates to provide a judgement on the question set right from
the start, and many were able to do this. Candidates should, in the first instance, say
‘Do you agree with the interpretation…” and say to what extent. The main issue
following this was maintaining focus on the question set. Too many candidates relied
on mechanistic content / author trawl, and subsequently lost sight of the question set.
Higher level responses were able to look at the content of the sources and judge to
what extent they agree or disagree with the interpretation given –‘the how’. Higher
level candidates then discussed ‘the why’ by referring to the authorship and what
influenced the author in supporting/contradicting the interpretation in the question set.
The focus on ‘how and why’ interpretations differ is very important. Candidates that
accessed the higher marks also considered alternative interpretations about the
actions of the National Government which is very important to gain the higher end
marks
Part (d) is an opportunity for candidates to provide an overall assessment of the
sources and to deploy their contextual knowledge and understanding of the whole
topic. The key word here is ‘contextual’ knowledge, rather than a narrative of what
the sources say and what they do not say. As always, at the lower levels candidates
provided a trawl of what the sources say. Some candidates then provide D a
narrative of what is omitted from the sources. This in some way is discussing
strengths and limitations by inference but does little to answer the question set or
contextualise the sources given. The examiners are looking for an analysis of the
strengths and limitations of the given sources, looking at the content and authorship
to assess their utility in understanding Britain 1929-1939. Candidates that scored
good marks did so because they focused their answers on the utility of the sources in
respect of the given issues of poverty, the role of women and that of Mrs Stanley
Baldwin. These candidates concentrated their answers on discussing what was
occurring in Britain at the time that these sources were written and what further
contextual knowledge and evidence would be required to further appreciation of the
issues. The higher achieving candidates considered the strengths and weaknesses
of the sources and considered issues such as the effect of any bias on utility in
respect of the origin and purpose of the sources. For the higher level there was often
a discussion of the greater range of sources needed for an understanding of Britain
in this period, and the utility of such information in understanding Britain 1929-1939.
2.
Many candidates did not get the full allocation of marks in part (a) because they did not
successfully place the source in the context of the period. These views and similar ones
led to the setting up of the UABs and the procedure of means testing which was to prove
so unpopular. Few were able to mention the need to make cuts, specifically in
unemployment benefits at the time in order for Britain to balance the books and cut
spending. Some candidates were rewarded with Level 2 marks because they made
comments about the author’s standpoint in relation to this issue. A publication which was
supportive of the National Government would clearly support such a move and coming
from Cambridge it would appeal to its readers who were probably not hard up working
class people or unemployed.
In part (b) most candidates were able to use the content of the sources to explain
something about the importance of new leisure experiences for people in Britain in
this period. Too many responses trawled the content and then mechanically
discussed the authorship. Candidates who attempted to provide a judgement on
‘How important were new leisure experiences’ were given higher marks because they
were clearly using the sources to answer the question set rather than produce
mechanistic content/author responses.
11
The idea is to place the sources in context, what was happening at the time relating
to new leisure experiences and how the author’s situation is influencing his or her
opinions. Candidates at the higher level analysed and evaluated both the content
and the authorship of the sources as part of an enquiry into the importance of new
leisure experiences in this period. Their answers demonstrated that different regions
had different experiences in the decade and poverty was not a homogenous
condition. Source A showed the importance due to the rise in entertainment facilities
and clearly leisure experiences are drawing in the numbers. Source B confirmed how
important the cinema was as an escape from the monotony of life. Higher level
candidates then put these issues into context referring to other contextual issues at
the time, while lower level candidates produced narratives about the period.
Candidates that obtained the higher marks, did so by also commenting on why the
authors would view the importance of new leisure experiences in the way they did.
The historian would have a wider perspective of the period due to extensive research
while Rowntree’s view of York, again based on local research could well mirror the
situation elsewhere in depressed areas.
In part (c) candidates have to comment on a given interpretation in the question set.
This interpretation may or may not appear in the sources supplied. In this instance
Source C is suggesting the National Government was formed for economic reasons
but this is not supported by the interpretation in Source D which claims that saving
the country from financial ruin had nothing to do with MacDonald’s reasoning.
Candidates must engage with the interpretation given and discuss how and why
Source C has arrived at its interpretation given that Source D gives a completely
different interpretation. At the lower end candidates trawled what the content of each
source said, and mechanistically discussed the author. The higher performing
candidates discussed how and why these views were formed at the time and why
these particular viewpoints have been reviewed over the passing of time. Even here
there was some mechanistic trawling of what different historians have said which
gains little credit as there is no attempt to explain how and why these views were
formed and subsequently how and why they differ from the interpretations given in
Source C and D. It is important for candidates to provide a judgement on the
question set right from the start, and many were able to follow this advice.
Candidates should, in the first instance, say ‘Do you agree with the interpretation…’and say to what extent. The main issue following this was maintaining focus on the
question set. Too many candidates rely on mechanistic content / author trawl, and
subsequently lose sight of the question set. Higher level responses were able to look
at the content of the sources and to judge to what extent they agree or disagree with
the interpretation given –‘the how’. Higher level candidates then discussed ‘the why’
by referring to the authorship and what influenced the author in supporting /
contradicting the interpretation in the question set. The focus on ‘how and why’
interpretations differ is very important. Candidates that accessed the higher marks
also considered alternative interpretations about the formation of the National
Government which is very important to gain the higher end marks
Part (d) is an opportunity for candidates to provide an overall assessment of the
sources and to deploy their contextual knowledge and understanding of the whole
topic. The key word here is ‘contextual’ knowledge, rather than a narrative of what
the sources say and what they do not say. As always at the lower levels candidates
provided a trawl of what the sources say. Some candidates then provided a narrative
of what is omitted from the sources. This in some way is discussing strengths and
limitations by inference but does little to answer the question set or to contextualise
the sources given. The examiners are looking for an analysis of the strengths and
limitations of the given sources, looking at the content and authorship to assess its
utility in understanding Britain 1929-1939.
12
Candidates that scored higher marks did so because they focused their answers on
the utility of the sources in respect of the given issues of entertainment, the role of
women and the financial difficulties involved with helping the unemployed. These
candidates concentrated their answers on discussing what was occurring in Britain
at the time that these sources were written and what further contextual knowledge
and evidence would be required to further appreciation of the issues. The higher
achieving candidates considered the strengths and weaknesses of the sources and
considered issues such as the effect of any bias or utility in respect of the origin and
purpose of the sources. At the higher level there was a discussion of the greater
range of sources needed for an understanding of Britain in this period, and the utility
of such information in understanding Britain 1929-1939.
13
IN DEPTH STUDY 6
THE GERMAN REFORMATION, c. 1500 – 1555
1.
Question 1 was the more popular of the two questions by some margin. Part (a)
required the candidates to focus on the phrase, ‘the troubles raised for me by the
heresies of Luther’ and place it in its historical context through reference to the
content and authorship of Source F. Once again too many students cost themselves
marks by either ignoring the authorship completely or merely copying it out, so failing
to use it to answer the question set. Charles was seeking to explain how Luther’s
protest and the subsequent spread of his doctrines had created a range of problems
for him, the German Peasants’ War and rise of the Lutheran League amongst others,
which had distracted him from his true purpose, to promote and defend the Christian
religion.
Part (b) asked students to focus on the importance of Erasmus in early church
reform. Here was an opportunity to utilise ‘that quote’ to good effect. The responses
however, suggested that the students had a rather superficial view of his role and his
complex relationship with Luther and the calls for reform. Many could not go beyond
the familiar mantra, ‘that Erasmus laid the egg which Luther hatched’. Erasmus was
significant but he was a committed Catholic who remained loyal to Rome and it was
the teachings of St Paul which had the greatest influence on the thinking of Luther
rather than the satirical writings of an intellectual elite. Erasmus was however a
European (not German) author of some significance whose writings impacted on
those scholars who would be later drawn to Luther and his protest. Source A
illustrates this with the infamous tract satirising the clergy but it is a call for reform
and not revolution, a point supported by the rather traditional and discredited
historian used in Source B.
In part (c) it was the candidate’s perception of Source C and the phrase, ‘God’s
Word’, which caused the most problems. Too many candidates misinterpreted this to
mean, Luther’s word and so agreed with the question that his publications were
mainly responsible for the Reformation in Germany. The sources actually can be
used for two different perspectives and it was also anticipated that the students
would be able to offer some other interpretations.
Part (d) requires an approach that goes beyond just listing the strengths and
limitations of the content of the three specified sources. The key to this question is
source evaluation in the context of historical period studied. The sources are actually
very useful when considering some of the factors involved in the development of
Protestantism in Germany to 1555. They allow us to assess the impact of Luther and
his publications, the role of Protestant propaganda and the responsibility of Charles V
for the schism. We have the views of a leading modern historian, a German
propagandist and the outgoing Holy Roman Emperor. There are some valid
limitations and omissions but these must be relevant to the set enquiry, for example
the three selected sources say little about the Reformation before 1520.
2.
Part (a) asked candidates to define the phrase, ‘our trouble is with certain abuses
that have crept into the church’. Here the importance of the phrase lay in its context
and author. Candidates were confident in identifying relevant abuses within the
church which offended the reformers but were rather less sure when dealing with
events after 1525 and reformers other than Luther and Thomas Muntzer. This was a
significant statement of Lutheran beliefs which fully illustrated Melanchton’s skill,
influence and political expediency.
14
Candidates should note that part (b) was focused on “early calls for reform of the
Catholic church in causing the German Reformation”. All source evaluation must be
done in the context of the set enquiry. Source A clearly shows that all was not well in
the church long before Luther’s protest but a modern historian with a broader
overview of Reformation literature and the period suggests that these abuses were
generally accepted and that there was no widespread tradition of dissent amongst
the general population who actively sought the salvation provided.
In part (c) candidates were asked to use Sources C and D to examine the
interpretation that Luther’s leadership was crucial to the development of the German
Reformation. It was essential that they made a judgment on Luther’s leadership after
closely evaluating the sources provided. The subjective view of a contemporary
seduced by Luther’s protest lacks the perspective of modern historians who can see
wider influences. Candidates should also consider alternate interpretations about
why the Reformation developed, such as, the support of urban populations and the
ineffectual Imperial and Papal responses.
For part (d) the sources are useful in highlighting some of the factors involved in the
development of the Reformation in Germany. They focus on the development of
Lutheranism to the 1540s but no consideration is given to other areas such as the
role of the Humanists or the response and perspective of the Catholic Church. There
should be some focused and relevant discussion of the wider range of sources that
could be of use in understanding the German Reformation during this period.
IN-DEPTH STUDY 7
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, c. 1774-1795
1.
This was least popular of the two questions.
In part (a) most candidates were able to explain that ‘a war waged for liberty’ refers to
the desire by some revolutionaries to use war as a means of strengthening the
Revolution. Fewer candidates were able to explain the historical context, in particular,
that Brissot’s speech was part of an ongoing debate about the merits of war as a
policy.
In part (b) most candidates were able to comprehend the sources’ content, including
the King’s obvious expectation in Source A that the Assembly would co-operate with
his plans for financial reform and the Notables’ refusal to do so in Source B. This
was usually linked to a discussion of the significant decline in the King’s authority and
the fact that the Assembly of Notables paved the way for the summoning of the
Estates-General for the first time since 1614. However, discussion of the sources’
attributions tended to be very simplistic and few candidates discussed the specific
context of the sources, for example the King’s looming bankruptcy and or the
manipulation of public opinion by the Notables in the official record. This is essential
for the highest marks.
In part (c) most candidates were able to use the sources’ content to discuss the
interpretation that the Night of the 4th August was important in destroying feudalism.
This was linked to their knowledge of feudal obligations and the August Decrees.
Many candidates also offered alternative interpretations of the events such the
requirement to compensate feudal landlords (as suggested by Source D) or the role
of the Great Fear. Discussion of the attributions, however, tended to be rather
simplistic and very mechanical.
15
Weaker candidates still used part (d) as an opportunity to trawl through the collection
for content. The better responses adopted an overview approach that focused on the
strengths of the sources and their historical context before noting their limitations.
For example, the popular reception of the events of the night 4th August which
appeared to sweep away feudalism (Source C), the demand for war from the
Girondin (Source E) and the overthrow of Louis XVI (Source F) are all referred to.
However, there is little to suggest why the Revolution occurred and other key political
and religious reforms made by the National Assembly are absent. Consideration
needs to be given not only to the sources’ content, but to their attributions too and the
circumstances which led to the creation of the sources.
2.
This was the more popular of the two questions.
In part (a) most candidates were able to explain that ‘far from trying to end any
conflict in religion it has been proposed to revive it’ suggests that the Civil
Constitution of the Clergy and Clerical Oath had led to a schism in the French
Church. Fewer candidates were able to explain the context, in particular, that the
non-juring priests’ open letter was appealing not just to the King but the French
people after the Pope had attacked these reforms and the Revolution.
In part (b) most candidates were able to comprehend the sources’ content, including
the immediate reaction to the banquet for the Flanders Regiment described by
Desmoulins in Source A and the subsequent action taken by the women of Paris in
Source B. This was usually linked to a discussion of the King’s virtual imprisonment
in the Tuileries afterwards and the fact that the National Assembly had also been
sidelined during this journée. However, discussion of the sources’ attributions tended
to be very mechanistic and few candidates discussed the specific context of the
sources. This is essential for the highest marks.
In part (c) most candidates were able to use the sources’ content to discuss the
interpretation that financial mismanagement was responsible for the outbreak of the
French Revolution. This was linked to their knowledge of the huge cost of France’s
involvement in the American War and the inefficient tax system. Many candidates
also offered alternative interpretations for the outbreak such as the influence of the
Enlightenment, the growing social tensions and the Louis XVI’s inadequacies as a
King. Discussion of the attributions, however, tended to be rather simplistic and
mechanical.
Weaker candidates still used part (d) as an opportunity to trawl through the collection
for content. The better responses adopted an overview approach that focused on the
strengths of the sources and their historical context before noting their limitations.
For example, the sources provide some insight into the October Days (Source A), the
impact of the government’s religious policy (Source E) and the overthrow of the
monarchy (Source F). However, other key events such as the Flight to Varennes or
the Champ de Mars massacre are absent. Also, there is nothing which suggests why
the Revolution occurred and how it subsequently drifted into war. Consideration
needs to be given not only to the sources’ content, but to their attributions too as well
as the circumstances which led to the creation of the sources.
16
IN-DEPTH STUDY 8
THE CRISIS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, c. 1848-1877
Examiners noticed that several candidates were not completing the paper: too much time
was being taken to answer (b) and (c) questions at the expense of the last part. It is still a
matter of concern, despite previous reports, that whole centres are still not dealing with the
attribution in the (a) answers
1.
To attain the higher marks in part (a) candidates are expected to discuss the context
in which the phrase is set. Both the content of the source and attribution must be
used to answer the question set. Mere copying of the attribution will not be
rewarded: the date, origin and purpose of the source in context has to be the focus.
The majority of candidates were able to demonstrate their understanding of the
phrase by referring to the creation of the Confederacy and the issue of recognition of
Britain. Many referred to the importance of Gladstone as a significant senior British
politician and there was comment on the importance of the cotton industry and the
context of early Southern military success.
In part (b) candidates are expected to use the nominated sources to discuss the
importance or significance of the set issue, in this case the Dred Scott decision.
Candidates must use the content, attribution and context of the sources to reach a
judgement on the Dred Scott decision. It is also expected that candidates will use
their own knowledge of the period to demonstrate understanding of the importance of
the decision. The Dred Scott decision was a key factor in hardening divisions
between the North and South, emphasising the salience of the slavery issue. The
depth of feeling in the North is revealed in Source A. Source B sets out the ruling
itself, making clear that black Americans were not citizens and therefore had no legal
right to pursue cases in court. Candidates commented on the emotional outburst in
Source A and the considered view of an eminent historian in Source B who is
scathing about Taney’s methods and aims.
Part (c) focuses on differing or different interpretations. The question invites
discussion of the validity of a given interpretation. Candidates are expected, in their
answers, to show understanding of how aspects of the past have been interpreted in
different ways. They must also show an ability to analyse and evaluate the two
nominated sources in particular the content and authorship of the two sources.
Knowledge of other interpretations than the one given is essential and must be used
to attain the highest marks. In this case the interpretation suggested that conflict
about slavery caused the civil war. There was discussion of the viewpoint of a
prominent Confederate leader in Source C and the considered view of an academic
historian in Source D. Source C aggressively defends the institution of slavery in
stark terms, all the more influential as it was from a Southern politician who had
hitherto been regarded as a moderate. Source D is a cool appraisal by a modern
historian of the impact of the anti-slavery campaign, in this case “Uncle Tom’s
Cabin”. Stephens’s speech lays bare the true nature of the Southern secession and
the reasons for it. It was a moral issue and was regarded as such by huge numbers
in the North as Adam Smith makes clear. The evangelical flavour of the agitation is
made clear and candidates showed that recent work on Lincoln has revealed his own
beliefs changing under the pressure of events – from being not particularly religious
before 1860 to a position of radicalism on the issue by 1865. Here Stephen’s thought
process leading to secession as a solution in the south needed analysis, as does
Lincoln’s uncompromising refusal to negotiate on this aspect which many
southerners saw as the main cause of conflict.
17
Alternative interpretations referred to by candidates included the debate about states’
rights and anti-federalism and the debate about economic factors- the Beard thesis.
Few candidates actually dealt with these other possible interpretations.
In part (d) candidates are expected to show their ability to analyse and evaluate the
three nominated sources in the context of the whole depth study. Source evaluation
skills should be shown in discussion of the strengths and limitations of the nominated
sources. To judge their utility there should be consideration of the content and
authorship of the nominated sources to discuss reliability, bias, purpose and validity.
It is vital that in discussing the three sources, candidates must refer to the wider
context of the American Civil War and contextualise the three given sources. The
sources are useful in finding out about the British perspective of the civil war, the
Southern rationale for secession and the Republican viewpoint in the 1860 election.
The British perspective is very important as in 1862 it was by no means certain that
Palmerston’s government would recognise the Confederacy. The cotton famine was
a big moral issue in the north of England where working class support for the
northern cause was very strong. Gladstone’s speech was an eye-opener and it was
one that he came to bitterly regret in later life. Stephens’s defence of slavery is
highly revealing and the moderate tone of the 1860 poster is significant in the debate
about secession. Candidates discussed the viewpoint of a prominent British
politician, the tendentious view of Alexander Stephens and the inevitable bias of an
election poster. There are other factors to consider in the lead up to the Civil War
such as the Compromise of 1850, the Wilmot Proviso, Kansas-Nebraska and
Lincoln’s election 1860 for example. The whole context of the war itself is missing
from these sources. There should be discussion of the wider range of sources that
could be of use in understanding developments in the USA during this period. The
provenance of these sources had to be analysed to access the higher marks.
2.
To attain the higher marks in part (a) candidates are expected to discuss the context
in which the phrase is set. Both the content of the source and attribution must be
used to answer the question set. Mere copying of the attribution will not be
rewarded: the date, origin and purpose of the source in context has to be the focus.
The majority of candidates were able to demonstrate their understanding of the
phrase with reference to the Northern states’ negative reaction to the Fugitive Slave
Bill. The phrase was placed in its historical context by most with accurate comments
on abolitionist sentiment in the North as a consequence of the 1850 compromise.
In part (b) candidates are expected to use the nominated sources to discuss the
importance or significance of the set issue, in this case the Battle of Antietam.
Candidates must use the content, attribution and context of the sources to reach a
judgement on the importance of the Battle of Antietam. It is also expected that
candidates will use their own knowledge of the period to demonstrate understanding
of the importance of this battle. It was the first major strategic reverse suffered by the
South and its hero, Robert E. Lee. It led directly to Lincoln’s decision to issue the
Emancipation roclamation in 1862. It almost certainly persuaded the British
government not to recognise the Confederacy. It was one of bloodiest battles in
American history. Source B is a typical McClellan exercise in self-justification and
glorification whereas Source C is the considered view of the Civil Wars’ leading
historian putting the battles into a wider perspective.
Part (c) focuses on differing or different interpretations. The question will invite
discussion of the validity of a given interpretation. Candidates are expected, in their
answers, to show understanding of how aspects of the past have been interpreted in
different ways. They must also show an ability to analyse and evaluate the two
nominated sources in particular the content and authorship of the two sources.
18
Knowledge of other interpretations than the one given is essential and must be used
to attain the highest marks. In this case the interpretation suggested that secession
was an unpopular policy in the south. Source C is the recollection of a famous British
war correspondent whereas Source D is the view of a recent historian who has
researched the issue. Source C reveals Russell’s clear view that secession was in
fact extremely popular and his view that the Union was doomed struck a chord with
established opinion in Britain for much of 1861-62. Source D on the other hand
questions the popularity of secession. Candidates knew that many of Lincoln’s early
policies in the war were based on the assumption that secession was the work of a
fanatical minority and this certainly underpinned his cautious approach to slavery in
the border states that he wanted to keep in the Union. To reach the higher levels,
candidates will be expected to show a balanced use of source material and own
knowledge combined with a clear understanding that the forming of interpretations
depends on the availability of supportive source material together with the standpoint
and circumstances of the author.
Candidates are expected to show their ability to analyse and evaluate the three
nominated sources in the context of the whole depth study in part (d). Source
evaluation skills should be shown in discussion the strengths and limitations of the
nominated sources. To judge their utility there should be consideration of the content
and authorship of the nominated sources to discuss reliability, bias, purpose and
validity. It is vital that in discussing the three sources, candidates must refer to the
wider context of the American Civil War and contextualise the three given sources.
The sources are useful in finding out about the Fugitive Slave Bill, the eye witness
reportage of a well-regarded war correspondent and a southern sympathiser’s view
of the North’s war aims. Source A is a handbill generated by the anti-slavery society
which deserves some comment on its perspective, the value of an eye witness
account from an outsider’s perspective should be clear as will the bias of Volck’s
cartoon. There are many features of the origins of the civil war which are not
covered such as the Wilmot Proviso, the Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska,
Dred Scott and Lincoln’s election. The context of the war itself is hardly touched
upon in these sources.
IN-DEPTH STUDY 9
NAZI GERMANY, c. 1933-1945
Question 1 proved to be the least popular question but the overall mean mark was
marginally lower than Question 2.
1.
In part (a) candidates are expected to use their own knowledge of the period to
demonstrate an understanding of the nominated phrase and of the context in which it
was made. The responses were less formulaic in this round of examinations but
there was often very limited consideration of the phrase in context. Once again, it
appeared that candidates were less secure of their subject knowledge in relation to
foreign policy. Many candidates were aware of some aspects of Nazi-Soviet
relations but there was often little consideration of the full implications of the ‘change’
and whether it was genuine, highlighted by Admiral Canaris’ version of Hitler’s
speech. Many candidates wrote at length about the Pact of 1939, but few were
aware of the importance of the Pact in relation to German ambitions for Poland, and
neither did they consider that Hitler’s speech was intended to reassure the German
military commanders. Those candidates who used the nominated source to discuss
the context in which the phrase was used were once again more successful in this
question.
19
In part (b) candidates were asked to use Sources A and B to analyse and evaluate
the importance of terror in controlling opposition to the Third Reich. However, far too
many candidates were merely content with providing a summary of the content of
both sources with any focus on the importance of terror being generally implied
rather than explicit. Far too many candidates begin their responses with the phrase:
‘The sources say...or / The sources show... Some candidates found it difficult to
understand the content of the cartoon in Source A and they were unable to make the
connection between the threat of violence and the curtailing of individual expression
and thus the removal of potential opposition. Candidates should be encouraged to
consider the content of cartoons in a far more cynical manner and they should not
accept the content at face value. There were fewer problems with the content of
Source B where most candidates were able to identify the use of preventative
policing. Source evaluation continues to be largely mechanistic with few candidates
taking the opportunity to examine the veracity of the sources in the historical context.
Clearly the authorship of the sources and the date in which they were produced
should have a bearing upon whether they revealed the importance of terror in
controlling opposition to the Third Reich. Candidates should be encouraged to
develop their specific subject knowledge in order to set the sources within their
historical context.
In part (c) candidates are expected to show an understanding of how aspects of the
past have been interpreted in different ways. They are also expected to demonstrate
their ability to analyse and evaluate source material and to use it to support
arguments. It was evident that most candidates were aware of the complexity of
church state relations in Nazi Germany. However, many candidates whilst making
reasonable use of the sources in relation to the question were less secure in
identifying and developing a valid additional interpretation. Most were confident in
the treatment of the content of both sources. In Source C candidates were at liberty
to use the source as a indication of support or opposition. Some asserted that the
Nazi regime appealed to the Church whilst others suggested that the Church offered
a ‘timid and half hearted’ response which implied opposition. Some candidates sat on
the fence and argued that at times the Church supported and opposed the regime.
This meant that candidates were at least able to show awareness of the validity of
the interpretation in the context of other interpretations. Some candidates were well
versed in the debate and many offered the view that individuals chose not to support
the Nazis but there was no collective opposition. In Source D most candidates
focussed upon the ‘hostile local priest’ to challenge the validity of the interpretation in
the question. However, candidates need to adopt a far more rigorous approach to
source evaluation which considers the sources and their attributions in context. Few
considered the implications of a teacher denouncing a local priest or how the
historical debate has emerged in relation to Church/State relations.
In part (d) the majority of candidates failed to meet all the required assessment
objectives linked to this question. Candidates were expected to evaluate the
nominated sources within the context in which they were produced and within the
context of the Depth Study as a whole. They must not limit themselves to merely a
discussion of the key issues which are raised within the sources. Often the
evaluation of the sources concentrated upon the three sources only with the main
focus upon strengths and limitations with some source evaluation. Candidates
should consider the circumstances under which source is produced. Candidates
must also place the sources within the wider context of the Depth Study. Given that
the sources dealt with aspects of foreign policy, culture and terror; racial policy and
there was plenty of scope for candidates to point out the limitations of the sources in
studying the key issues related to Nazi Germany 1933-1945. However, there was
often a serious imbalance in the structure of most responses with either a weakness
in source evaluation, the content of the sources or the wider context.
20
The trend for candidates to concentrate narrowly upon the selected sources in
isolation continued into this round of examinations. Candidates must focus upon
producing balanced responses which meet the demands of the assessment criteria in
full in order to access marks at Level 3.
2.
In part (a) candidates are expected to use their own knowledge of the period to
demonstrate an understanding of the nominated phrase and of the context in which it
was made. The responses were less formulaic in this round of examinations but
there was often very limited consideration of the phrase in context. Once again, it
appeared that candidates were less secure of their subject knowledge in relation to
foreign policy. Many candidates were aware of some aspects of terms of the Treaty
of Versailles and how it affected Germany but there was often little grasp of the way
in which the ‘force of the Treaty had been weakened’. Few candidates considered
that the Treaty had already been compromised prior to 1936 by the Naval Agreement
with Britain, and German rearmament. Furthermore, few considered that whilst
Flandin was highlighting the German threat, his condemnation was verbal because
France had shown no inclination for decisive action against German breaches to the
Treaty of Versailles. What he was trying to do was to stir the other guarantors of
Locarno, which had sought to maintain the western settlement. Few candidates
pointed out that the Remilitarization of the Rhineland was the first territorial change to
the Treaty. Those candidates who used the nominated source to discuss the context
in which the phrase was used were once again more successful in this question.
In part (b) candidates were asked to use Sources A and B to analyse and evaluate
the importance of education for the Nazis. However, far too many candidates were
merely content with providing a summary of the content of both sources with any
focus on the importance of education being generally implied rather than explicit. Far
too many candidates begin their responses with the phrase: ‘The sources say...or /
The sources show... Most candidates had little difficulty with the content of the
sources and they were able to make the connection between education and
mobilising the young people in support of Germany in Source A. In Source B the
Nazification of young people was often highlighted with the emphasis upon patriotism
and indoctrination. The source evaluation continues to be largely mechanistic with
few candidates taking the opportunity to examine the veracity of the sources in the
context of the 1930s. Clearly the authorship of the sources and the date in which
they were produced should have a bearing upon whether they revealed the
importance of education for the Nazi regime. Candidates should be encouraged to
develop their specific subject knowledge in order to set the sources within their
historical context.
In part (c) candidates are expected to show an understanding of how aspects of the
past have been interpreted in different ways. They are also expected to demonstrate
their ability to analyse and evaluate source material and to use it to support
arguments. It was evident that many candidates were aware of the debate regarding
the so called legality of the Nazi seizure of power in Germany. However, although
the majority of candidates made reasonable use of the sources in relation to the
question they were less secure in identifying and developing a valid additional
interpretation. Most were confident in the treatment of the content of both sources.
In Source C candidates identified the use of terror and willing collaboration to
challenge the validity of the interpretation. In Source D most candidates focussed
upon the apparently democratic vote in the Reichstag for the Enabling Act. Few
however considered the context of the sources. For example, candidates did not take
the opportunity to point out that the vote in the Reichstag did not take place in the
21
Reichstag because it had been burned to the ground. Few drew attention to the
possible role of the Nazis in the arson attack. Neither did they challenge Kershaw’s
intentionalist theory of the consolidation of power through terror.
The majority of candidates failed to meet all the required assessment objectives
linked to part (d). Candidates are expected to evaluate the nominated sources within
their historical context in which they were produced and within the Depth Study as a
whole. They must not limit themselves to merely a discussion of the key issues
which are raised within the sources. Often the evaluation of the sources
concentrated upon the three sources only with the main focus upon strengths and
limitations with some source evaluation. Candidates should consider the
circumstances under which each source is produced Candidates must place the
sources within the wider context of the Depth Study. Given that the sources dealt
with aspects of education, the economy and foreign policy, there was plenty of scope
for candidates to point out the limitations of the sources in studying the key issues
related to Nazi Germany 1933-1945. However, there was often a serious imbalance
in the structure of most responses with either a weakness in source evaluation, the
content of the sources or the wider context as a whole. The trend for candidates to
concentrate narrowly upon the selected sources in isolation continued into this round
of examinations. Candidates must focus upon producing balanced responses which
meet the demands of the assessment criteria in full in order to access marks at Level
3.
GCE History HY2 Examiners Report Summer 2014
22
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