Edexcel A-Level History; Source-Value Questions (Paper 3)

Similar documents
Year 8 History. Progression Content and concepts (depth of understanding and. Skills mastery

Examiners Report June GCSE History 5HA03 3A

Examiners Report June 2010

Examiners Report January GCSE History 5HA03 3B

Examiners Report June GCSE History 5HA03 3C

FSA Training Papers Grade 7 Exemplars. Rationales

Q2b How could you follow up. Q1 Describe two features of Identify a feature = 1 mark Extra detail = 1 mark Do this twice.

Skills (Students will do): Determine word meanings Use context clues Acknowledge the need to stop and look for context clues.

Chapter 22. Joann T. funk

Author's response to reviews

Name : Assigned: 11/4 Due: 11/12. Document Based Question: The Effects of Industrialization RESOURCE PACKET. Resource: page # I.

Qualitative Research. Prof Jan Nieuwenhuis. You can learn a lot just by watching

Competency Rubric Bank for the Sciences (CRBS)

Critical Thinking Rubric. 1. The student will demonstrate the ability to interpret information. Apprentice Level 5 6. graphics, questions, etc.

Critical review (Newsletter for Center for Qualitative Methodology) concerning:

Types of Historical Thinking Skills:

Appeals Circular A22/14

Keep Wild Animals Wild: Wonderfully Wild!

Communication Assessment

Writing does not occur in a vacuum. Ask yourself the following questions:

AP WORLD HISTORY 2015 SCORING GUIDELINES

AIR QUESTION STEMS RL.6.1 RL.6.2 RL.6.3 RL.6.4 RL.6.5 6TH. COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS-SECONDARY ENGLISH

UNIT 4 ALGEBRA II TEMPLATE CREATED BY REGION 1 ESA UNIT 4

SAMPLE. Memory. Eyewitness Testimony Post-Event Discussion.

15 March 2012 Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP

Examiners Report June GCSE History 5HA02 2B

SOCQ121 & BIOQ321. Session 12. Research into Practice. Department: Social Science.

Mark Scheme (Results) January 2011

Outlining & Effective Argumentation. PWE Lunch Session 3/13/14

Critical Thinking Assessment at MCC. How are we doing?

Module 4: Technology: PsycINFO, APA Format and Critical Thinking

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Avancemos!, Level correlated to the

INTRODUCTION. Study and Practice

Some quick revision...

Reading Comprehension Strategies

Commissioned by The PiXL Club Ltd.

Insight Assessment Measuring Thinking Worldwide

Examiners Report Principal Examiner Feedback

Developing language writing convincingly (Example from undergraduate Cultural Studies)

Basis for Conclusions: ISA 530 (Redrafted), Audit Sampling

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF NOVA SCOTIA SUMMARY OF DECISION OF INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE D. Dr. Deanna Swinamer

The role of theory in construction management: a call for debate

Holt McDougal Avancemos!, Level correlated to the. Crosswalk Alignment of the National Standards for Learning Languages

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF BIOMEDICAL LITERATURE

Analysis for [Intervention] ([Jurisdiction] Feasibility Study)

Holt McDougal Avancemos!, Level correlated to the. Crosswalk Alignment of the National Standards for Learning Languages

Write a research proposal to rationalize the purpose of the research. (Consult PowerPoint slide show notes.)

UNDERSTANDING PAIN RELATED IMPAIRMENT: CHAPTER 18 OF THE AMA GUIDES INTRODUCTION

A Guide to Origin, Purpose, Value and Limitations (OPVL) IB History of the Americas

Missing data in clinical trials: a data interpretation problem with statistical solutions?

Social Studies 11 Block: The Most Significant Canadian Battles of the Great War

Science and Engineering Practice (SEP) Rubric

S.A.F.E.T.Y. TM Profile for Joe Bloggs. Joe Bloggs. Apr / 13

the examples she used with her arguments were good ones because they lead the reader to the answer concerning the thesis statement.

Cognitive domain: Comprehension Answer location: Elements of Empiricism Question type: MC

SUMMARY. Methods The present research comprises several substudies:

Write a response in paragraph form in which you must:

Clinical Research Scientific Writing. K. A. Koram NMIMR

Exemplar for Internal Achievement Standard. English Level 1

Division of Clinical Psychology Clinical Psychology and Case Notes: Guidance on Good Practice

Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level. Published

Stage 2 Research Project B Assessment Type 2: Outcome Synthesis (S2)

Relationships Between the High Impact Indicators and Other Indicators

Problem Set 2: Computer Psychiatrist

The Cochrane Collaboration

Writing a Language Analysis Essay

Jeopardy Q $100 Q $100 Q $100 Q $100 Q $100 Q $200 Q $200 Q $200 Q $200 Q $200 Q $300 Q $300 Q $300 Q $300 Q $300 Q $400 Q $400 Q $400 Q $400 Q $400

Exemplar for Internal Assessment Resource English Level 2. Resource title: Dissenting Voices

Principles of publishing


Incorporating Experimental Research Designs in Business Communication Research

Guidelines for Writing and Reviewing an Informed Consent Manuscript From the Editors of Clinical Research in Practice: The Journal of Team Hippocrates

Reduce Tension by Making the Desired Choice Easier

Understanding Assignment Questions: Propositions and Assumptions

Assignment 4: True or Quasi-Experiment

C/S/E/L :2008. On Analytical Rigor A Study of How Professional Intelligence Analysts Assess Rigor. innovations at the intersection of people,

NEW FINDINGS IN DIAGNOSIS: CORRELATION BETWEEN BIPOLAR DISORDER AND REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER

January 2, Overview

Sally Haslanger, What are we talking about? The semantics and politics of social kinds

September MESSAGING GUIDE 547E-EN (317)

Treatment of traumatized victims of human trafficking to support coherent or consistent testimonies An international explorative study

Scientific Thinking Handbook

Discovering Diversity Profile Individual Report

1.2 How science works Practical and enquiry skills

2017 학년도수능연계수능특강 영어영역영어. Lecture 03. 요지추론 - 본문. The negative effects of extrinsic motivators such as grades

Threat Assessment in Schools (2002). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Dept. of Education.

The Three Appeals of Argument Logical Appeal (logos) Ethical Appeal (ethos) Emotional Appeal (pathos)

Critique a Research Article. Aliza Ben-Zacharia DNP, ANP, MSCN Heidi Maloni, PhD, ANP, MSCN

Chapter 1 A Cultural Approach to Child Development

Close reading plan. "Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical" by Anne Casselman. Corey Nagle, 2014 Connecticut Dream Team Teacher

income as 'more than enough.' He describes a feeling of accomplishment regarding the ownership of his own apartment."

Wirral JSNA: Survey of AMMO veterans

NICE Guidelines in Depression. Making a Case for the Arts Therapies. Malcolm Learmonth, Insider Art.

FSA Training Papers Grade 4 Exemplars. Rationales

Parts of a STEM Fair Project

Guidelines for Incorporating & Strengthening Perspective-Taking & Self-Authorship into Division of Student Life Programs

Mark Scheme (Results) Summer 2010

The Scarlet Letter. Character Analysis Essay

A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY SPECIFICATION A

I. Logical Argument (argument) appeals to reason and intellect.

Transcription:

Edexcel A-Level History; Source-Value Questions (Paper 3) www.historychappy.com

Mechanics of the Question Assess the value of SOURCE for X and Y. Explain your answer, using the SOURCE and the information given about its ORIGIN and your OWN KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Value = The answer will need to use the SOURCE & OWN KNOWLEDGE to assess TWO DIFFERENT PURPOSES, considering the ORIGIN and CONTEXT of the source. Q. element What to do / use Value for X Use the Source, the information about the Origin and the Context. Value for Y Use the Source, the information about the Origin and the Context. Key Factors to remember when answering a How far did X cause Y question Have a deep knowledge of who wrote the source, what they wrote, when they wrote it and why they wrote it. Remember, all sources are constructs; they were written / produced for a reason. This is usually to make others think / feel / act in a certain way. Does the author represent a credible standpoint on the subject? Are they in a position to know about the subject in question? What were their motives for producing the source? Were they in a position to represent a particular viewpoint / influence actions of others e.g: a government and its policies? Interrogate the evidence of the source in relation to both enquiries separately (X & Y), confidently and selectively. Make reasoned inferences and show a range of ways the material can be used, for example by distinguishing between information (facts) and claim or opinion (biased / subjective elements). Use your knowledge of the historical context to illuminate and/or discuss the limitations of what can be gained from the content of the source material, displaying

secure understanding of the need to interpret source material in the context of the values and concerns of the society from which it is drawn. Begin your enquiry with an introduction that makes an explicit judgement on the value of the source for each of the two enquiries separately. Evaluate the source material, using valid criteria which are justified and fully applied. Take into account the weight the evidence will bear as part of coming to a judgement and, where appropriate, distinguish between the degree of certainty with which aspects of it can be used as the basis for claims. Use rich and forensic own knowledge (where appropriate) to support the points that you make. You must highlight the limitations of the source for each of the two enquiries. Do not accept everything that it says at face value. You must critique. Consider the role, perspective and insight of the source creator. For instance, a Private in the Army during WW1 might have had a good perspective on life in their section of a trench network, but might not be as much of an authority on the overall tactics / progress / strategic direction of the war as, for instance, a General or Field Marshall. The same could be true in reverse. Similarly, does the author have an axe to grind, or any idiosyncratic circumstances that may impact on their assessment, such as a grudge against a Government official or policy? WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN WHY IN WHAT FORMAT AUDIENCE. CONTENT NATURE ORIGIN PURPOSE - AUDIENCE

A-Level Markscheme

Scaffolding Section Requirements Sentence / Paragraph Starters Intro Clear judgement on each of the two enquiries separately. Source Z is valuable to a (limited / large) extent for revealing (ENQUIRY X) but its value for (ENQUIRY Y) is (limited / amplified) by the (provenance / context / etc.) of the source. Enquiry X Use the: CONTENT OWN KNOWLEDGE PROVENANCE ORIGIN CONTEXT To reach a mini judgement about the value of the source for this Enquiry. There is a (great deal / limited amount) of evidence in Source Z which is valuable for (Enquiry X) When (author) states this indicates that furthermore Indeed (quote / own knowledge) was a major contributing factor to the problems / issues outlined in Source Z for which suggests that (Quote / Claim) adds to / diminishes the credibility of which is further supported by Source Z claims, which is true / misleading as (use precise own knowledge to support / challenge claim). The account considers / ignores which suggest that / would indicate AUTHOR was / was not in a position to know / to suggest / would have a vested interest in This is supported by (own knowledge of context / origin). Therefore, Source Z is valuable for revealing ENQUIRY X to a great / limited extent, but it is limited / greater in value in some respects due to (limitations of outlook, role, perspective, etc) The claim that QUOTE suggests a degree of / that This is supported / challenged by the fact that furthermore This testimony / account is in the form of a (NATURE OF SOURCE) with the purpose of this source to adding to / diminishing the credibility / reliability of his evidence. The reliability of Source Z as evidence for ENQUIRY X is supported / challenged by the fact that (element of source which accords with / challenges the reality of the situation) AUTHOR, writing in Source Z, would be aware / unaware of (ISSUE). Therefore it can be seen that whilst Source Z it has limited / greater value for

Enquiry Y Use the: CONTENT OWN KNOWLEDGE PROVENANCE ORIGIN CONTEXT To reach a mini judgement about the value of the source for this Enquiry. There is also a substantial degree of / limited evidence in Source Z for (Enquiry Y) Same answer stems as above. Judgement Separate judgements on the value of the Source for each specific enquiry, In conclusion, Source Z is valuable to a large / limited extent for ENQUIRY X & Y. The value of Source Z s evidence in regard to ENQUIRY X / Y is greater due to the location / position / insight / circumstances of the writer. AUTHOR is well / ill informed about (issue) and can therefore write / produce a valuable / limited assessment of. The value of the testimony is limited / increased somewhat by his narrow / privileged view of. However, the value of Source Z for ENQUIRY X / Y is severely limited / improved by (insight / perspective / views / background / input / role, etc). Overall, Source Z does therefore provide some valuable insight into answering the question, but this is limited to a small / large extent due to the position and role of the writer. www.historychappy.com