1. Students are commonly marked down in Ao1 for a lack of coverage of the whole period in breadth. This mistake can be made in two ways:

   • Simply Missing Out: A fundamental requirement of the NEA is for the student to provide evidence of contextual understanding of the whole period set in the question. This is not expected to be a mechanical coverage of equal weight across the entire period. Some questions began in, for example, 1760 but failed to mention anything at all of the circumstances at the outset of the period! Other questions ended in 1870 but failed to mention anything after 1840!

   • Stepping Stone Approach : Avoid simply just jumping from one event to another in your writing without considering the contextual developments between these periods. For instance coursework considering for example, if religion was the most significant reason for Tudor Rebellion tended to jump from a description of one rebellion to the next, without registering that the named factor, religion, was the contextual element running throughout.

2. Students can fail to make effective argument and judgement consistently throughout the essay.

   • A judgement should be provided and built upon throughout the essay. Both your sources and interpretations should ultimately be used to forward your own opinion.

   • Some students took too much of a sectional approach - with chapter headings that did not encourage the student to consistently building their judgement throughout the essay as they would be expected to do in a 25 marker exam question.

For the relevant aspects ('lenses' used) of the period you're analysing, some or all of the following questions would be worth considering:

• What was the situation at the end of the 100 years like? What examples / details do you have to support this claim?

• What was the situation during the period like? What examples / details do you have to support this claim?

• Were there any turning points? reversals? gradual changes? sharp changes? changes for some and not others?

• What was the situation towards the end of the 100 years like? What examples / details do you have to support this claim?

1. Not addressing value well - i.e. not being able to explain how the value of the source may differ from its reliability or accuracy. Remember value refers to the value it has to a historian studying the extent of change and continuity over the period. Biased sources could be extremely valuable in this regard!

2. Evaluating the primary sources by type alone - i.e. a generic commentary about the utility and value of newspapers in general. Its valuable because its a newspaper and therefore is objectively true... No!

3. Evaluating the primary sources with basic provenance statements - its valubale because it was published or written at the time of the events... No!

4. Giving very simple descriptions of the author of a source. This prevents real evaluation and therefore is not credited very highly at all. This source was written by Paul Bogle, a Black Jamaican, and so therefore is valuable as a source... No! Don't disrepsect Paul Bogle like that.

Paragraph 1: Source A

• What is the source? Basic Provenance and context - who created it when, where, why ?

• What is the content of the source re: the question? How does it answer your essay question? Change? Continuity?

• What do you infer from the source re: the question?

• What about its provenance makes it valuable for answering your question? Are any limitations in the source therefore overcome by this?

Paragraph 2: Source B

• What is the source? Basic Provenance and context - who created it when, where, why ?

• What is the content of the source re: the question? How does it answer your essay question? Change? Continuity?

• What do you infer from the source re: the question?

• What about its provenance makes it valuable for answering your question? Are any limitations in the source therefore overcome by this?

Paragraph 3: Source C

• What is the source? Basic Provenance and context - who created it when, where, why ?

• What is the content of the source re: the question? How does it answer your essay question? Change? Continuity?

• What do you infer from the source re: the question?

• What about its provenance makes it valuable for answering your question? Are any limitations in the source therefore overcome by this?

A very sensible approach would be to situate your source analysis in the correct thematic and chronological position.
For instance you might find valuable insight in a proclamation from Paul Bogle (source) for understanding the extent to which the conditions for Black Jamaicans had changed.
Great, then place this source evaluation at the end of your argument on the extent of change / continuity in the conditions for Black Jamaicans. Your inferences from it should logically support your thesis.

What is the source? Basic Provenance and context - who created it when, where, why ?

• This source is

• We are able to access this source of evidence because...

• This source was created in order to...

• Its important to note this source was created before/after

• The creator of this source was noteworthy because...

What is the content of the source re: the question? How does it answer your essay question? Change? Continuity?

• The reveals a continuing...

• This reveals real change in...

What do you infer from the source re: the question?

• This therefore supports my thesis that...

What about its provenance makes it valuable for answering your question? Are any limitations in the source therefore overcome by this?

• The provenance therefore provides the historian / us with...

1. At the very basic level, some students don't even understand what the historian is arguing, and/or can't explain this clearly. Don't be that guy.

2. But even if you have understood them, it's not good enough to simply include and explain arguments of two historians. You are supposed to evaluate them. Simply quoting a historian is not enough!

3. Evaluating a historical argument is initially done using your own contextual knowledge - as you do in your Interpretation extract exam question.

4. Its much easier to choose two clearly opposing views as you need to identify differences clearly and evalaute which you find most convincing and why.

5. Evaluation of the context of the historian requires, yes, knowing about the context of the historian. This can be used to explain why the two historians may differ. Avoid simplistic attacks on historians based upon little knowledge - he would disagree with her argument because he is a British Historian writing in the 1960s. Do the research.

Paragraph 1: Historian A

• What has historian A argued re: change and continuity? (several arguments identified ideally - e.g. a 'global argument' and then a couple of others as with an extract exam question)

• What contextual knowledge do I have to support or challenge Historian A's arguments re: change and continuity?

• How convincing do I therefore find Historian A's arguments?

Paragraph 2: Historian B

• What has historian B argued re: change and continuity? (several arguments identified ideally - e.g. a 'global argument' and then a couple of others as with an extract exam question)

• What contextual knowledge do I have to support or challenge Historian B's arguments re: change and continuity?

• How convincing do I therefore find Historian B's arguments?

Paragraph 3: Comparison

• How does Historian B's argument complement or contrast with Historian A's re: change and continuity?

• Why might Historian A and B's arguments differ and complement? What context were these interpretations constructed in and why that influence the nature of the interpretations?

• Ultimately therefore which arguments, from Historian A and B re: change and continuity are most convincing? (ensure these are consistent with your overall thesis)

Evaluating Paragraph

What has historian A argued re: change and continuity? (several arguments identified ideally - e.g. a 'global argument' and then a couple of others as with an extract exam question)

What contextual knowledge do I have to support or challenge Historian A's arguments re: change and continuity?

• This is a valid argument because...

• There is clear support for this argument in...

• Despite .... We can see flaws in this argument...

• Fidhha and Naimah are thinking...

• Through this... one can see that...

• It can be demonstrated...

• However there are also be limitations to this argument when considering...

• It is evident that...

• This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that...

How convincing do I therefore find Historian A's arguments?

• Ultimately therefore this argument supports my thesis that...

Comparison Paragraph

How does Historian B's argument complement or contrast with Historian A's re: change and continuity?

• There is a disparity between these two arguments...

Why might Historian A and B's arguments differ and complement? What context were these interpretations constructed in and why that influence the nature of the interpretations?

Ultimately therefore which arguments, from Historian A and B re: change and continuity are most convincing? (ensure these are consistent with your overall thesis)