A Level History - Exemplar pack - Paper 1 (AO3), Study notes of History

Download A Level History - Exemplar pack - Paper 1 (AO3) and more Study notes History in PDF only on Docsity!

A Level

History - Exemplar

pack - Paper 1

(AO 3 )

(Summer 2018)

Exemplar pack for GCE History (9HI0) - Paper 1 (covering AO3)

Contents

their merits. The best will also provide evidence that the candidate understands

the nature of historical debate.

When coming to a mark, examiners place the response into a level for each of

the three Bullet Points, making a judgement as to how securely it meets the

criteria outlined in the generic mark scheme. Should it meet each of the criteria

in a single level, the mark awarded will be at the top of that level. Should it meet

the criteria for one or more of the Bullet Points less convincingly, however, the

mark will be adjusted downwards in the mark band for that level. However, it is

common for responses to meet different levels for each, or some, of the Bullet

Points. In such cases, examiners apply the ‘best fit’ approach adjusting the mark

according to the balance between the levels attained and how strongly the

response meets the criteria for each bullet point.

• Introduction
• Generic Mark Scheme - 9HI01 AO3
• Example 1 - (Question 5 from 9HI0 1H)
• Student response to question 5 (9HI0 1H)
• Example 2 - (Question 5 from 9HI0 1F)
• Student response to question 5 (9HI0 1F)
• Example 3 - (Question 5 from 9HI0 1G)
• Student response to question 5 (9HI0 1G)
• Example 4 - (Question 5 from 9HI0 1G)
• Student response to question 5 (9HI0 1G)
• Example 5 - (Question 5 from 9HI0 1C)
• Student response to question 5 (9HI0 1C)
• Generic Mark Scheme 9HI01 AO

Student response to question 5 from 9HI0 1H:

This comment on the origin of the extracts s superfluous in Paper 1, Section C. There are no marks awarded for A in this question.

Here, the candidate shows some understanding of Extract 1 by describing points relevant to the debate.

Again, there is a limited understanding of the extracts here, but the point is lacking in development

The judgement on the interpretation posed by the question is assertive with little supporting evidence.

Examiner Comments

This response was awarded a Level 1.

Though the candidate shows some understanding of the arguments contained

in both extracts they are barely developed. There is also an absence of any

relevant contextual knowledge, even though it is clear that the candidate

understands the need for this. Finally, though a judgement is made, it is

assertive with little evidence provided to support it. As a result, it was judged

to have reached a low level 2 for the first Bullet Point in the generic mark

scheme, it was below baseline for Bullet Point 2 as there is no rewardable

material, and a level 1 for Bullet Point 3.

Taken together, the best-fit judgement for this response was a mark high in

the Level 1 mark band.

Student response to question 5 from 9HI0 1F:

There is some relevant contextual knowledge here but its links to the extracts are weak. There is no reward for A01 in Paper 1, Section C, thus Bullet Point 2 of the generic mark scheme requires linkage to the material in the extracts.

There is some support given for a judgement here but its linkage to the extracts is limited.

Here the candidate attempts some analysis of Extract 1 though it is limited in scope.

There is some contextual knowledge added to the point raised in the extract to expand on matters of detail.

Finally, the candidate turns to Extract 2 but it appears that time runs out and, while there is some comprehension, there is little else to reward.

Examiner comments

This response was awarded level 2.

This response was given a Level 2 mark. In each of the Bullet Points in the

generic mark 3 scheme, it meets the criteria for level 2 for its consideration of

the first extract; there is some understanding and attempted analysis of

Extract 1, some contextual knowledge added to the extract to expand matters

of detail and a limited judgement related to the material again, in Extract 1.

However, for Extract 2, there is little beyond a basic comprehension of some of

its content. Overall, this response merited an award of low Level 2.

Student response to question 5 from 9HI0 1G:

There is understanding of the extract here, together with some analysis as the candidate selects and explains some key points of interpretation.

Though it is not developed far, there is some contextual knowledge here linked to an issue of debate included in Extract 1.

Though this appears to be a point made from the candidate’s knowledge of issues related to the debate, it is essentially a summary of Extract 2.

A judgement here is related to key points in the extract.

Again, the candidate selects some key points of interpretation from the extracts.

Here, there is a demonstration of the awareness of the differences between the two extracts.

Examiner comments

This response was awarded level 3

This response reaches Level 3 for each of the Bullet Points in the generic mark

scheme. The candidate does demonstrate understanding of the extracts and is

aware of their differing interpretations. Also, some attempt at analysis is

undertaken by selecting and explaining key points of these interpretations.

It is lacking some range and depth of knowledge related to the issues of

debate covered in the extracts but overall, it does satisfy the criteria for L3 for

Bullet Point 2 of the generic mark scheme. Lastly, a judgement is given which

is clearly related to key points in the extracts and partly substantiated. Overall,

this achieved a mark high in the L3 mark band - the slight weaknesses in

Bullet Point 2 being offset by the relative strength of Bullet Point 3.

Example 4 (from 9HI0 1G)

Study Extracts 1 and 2 in the Extracts Booklet before you answer this question.

Question 5: In the light of differing interpretations, how convincing do you find

the view that Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939 because he thought the

western powers would not intervene?

To explain your answer, analyse and evaluate the material in both extracts,

using your own knowledge of the issues.

Moving on to Extract 2, the candidate demonstrates understanding of the differences of interpretation with Extract 1.

Again, some knowledge is integrated to discuss the views.

The difference in interpretation are highlighted by analysis of the two extracts here together with some similarity but there is little discussion of the issues

Here, the candidate attempts to introduce more of their own knowledge of the issues to the debate.

This knowledge is linked to the view in Extract 2 though it would have benefitted from greater depth and development.

Lastly, the candidate utilises the evidence from the two extracts to reach a supported judgement. It is again clear, through this discussion, that they are aware that the issues are matters of interpretation.