ESSAY+QUESTIONS

=**UNIT 3 **= This is your only A2 History exam and you can only sit it in the summer of Year 13 - this means that you can not resit it. By the time that you have finished your Unit 4 Historical Enquiry, you will have nine hours a fortnight of lesson time to work through your Unit 3 studies You might be expected to consider historiography and to use it in an appropriate manner in order to support your own argument, but not to replace it. (However, historiography is most certainly not a requirement even for the very highest marks). Knowledge skills and especially the effective deployment of factual support to argument in essays, are even more important at A2. Crucial to success at A2 is judgement which, at the higher levels, should run throughout the whole essay. You should avoid simply listing relevant factors, but should link them together. There should be a confident handling of interpretation, with the key being the use of specific and well selected evidence from knowledge. **HISTORIOGRAPHY ** It might be hoped that students at this level are aware of the important issues from their period of study that have provoked debate amongst historians. When this knowledge is used to enhance the quality of arguments and to help to demonstrate historical understanding it is rewarded You are **NOT** required to introduce names, quotations or refer specifically to schools of historical thought in an answer. Reference to historians and historiography is only rewarded when appropriate to the question. Essays that are no more than historiographical description are placed in Level 2. **TIMING** This exam is an hour and a half long, this means that you have 45 minutes per essay. This time should be spent planning the entire essay before writing. You should know what your conclusion is going to be before you start your introduction. The best way to ensure that you make the right choice of questions is to briefly plan all three that are set - you only answer two of them, but if you start answering a question that you thought you could do, but don't have a good counter-arguement, it could lose you valuable time. **SYNOPTICITY** Synopticity is '**Approaching History in the way a professional historian would' by drawing together knowledge, ideas and arguments to show overall historical understanding**. (QCA's definition). Essentially, we are looking for **breadth of understanding** (an ability to see beyond the obvious and to see the deeper implications of questions), together with a **relevant linking of ideas and arguments** across the topic / period of the question. It mixes breadth of understanding (an ability to see the key underlying themes of the Unit 3 period the 'drivers' bringing change; the degree of continuity; the relationship between state and people), with depth of example and understanding of the importance of precise supporting detail. At A2, essays are likely to have more than one focus; more than one issue to discuss and more than one viewpoint to analyse. The question itself invites a 'synoptic response' so a good conventional essay answer will do all these things. **INTERPRETATIONS** Analysis and argument will, of necessity, show some understanding of historical interpretations and therefore an essay which displays some of the former qualities will be considered for an award of Level 3 or higher. In Levels 4 and 5 candidates will display an awareness of historical interpretations as they examine events, developments and issues from a variety of angles. One way in which they may reinforce their understanding of these different viewpoints is to refer to the views of historians, but this is not essential. It is the evidence on which the historians’ views are based that is crucial. Understanding will always be more highly rated than name-dropping. Some issues, events and developments studied at A2 have provoked important historiographical debate and where this is the case, it would beexpected that at A2 students would be introduced to ‘real’ historians’ interpretations in their preparation of the content of their unit. Such an approach should help students to form their own judgements and enhance the quality of their arguments, helping them to demonstrate their historical understanding. Some issues, events and developments have not given rise to specific historiographical controversy and whilst questions will be worded in a way which will allow students to debate issues, candidates will never be obliged to introduce names, quotations or refer specifically to schools of historical thought in an answer. In short, awareness of historical interpretation is not the same as awareness of historiography. When appropriate and properly used to enhance an argument, historiography will be rewarded, but whether reference to historiography is appropriate depends on the question itself and it is not a requirement, even for the highest marks. **ESSAY QUESTIONS**
 * KEY SKILLS FOR A2 ESSAYS AND PAST PAPERS **
 * The exam is 1 Hour 30 Minutes long
 * There will be 3 essay questions from which candidates choose any 2 - 45 marks and 45 minutes each
 * Two questions test depth (shorter periods Sections A, B, C or D)
 * One question tests breadth (covering c.3 out of 4 of Specification content - for example From 1642-1678)
 * The ‘depth’ provided in answers to the ‘breadth’ question is not expected to be as great as that found in the other two questions
 * A2 is more demanding than AS level
 * Unlike at AS, there are no set essay stems but the following are quite common:
 * How far…? –To what extent…?
 * Quotation followed by ‘Assess the validity of this view’
 * Essays have a greater complexity than at AS – there may be more than one focus e.g.:
 * **// 'The main reason for the defeat of the Royalist cause in the First Civil War was the leadership of Charles I.' Assess the validity of this view with reference to the years 1642 to 1646. //**
 * SECTION A: FROM MONARCHY TO REPUBLIC 1642-1653**
 * // A1 - 'The main reason for the defeat of the Royalist cause in the First Civil War was the leadership of Charles I.' Assess the validity of this view with reference to the years 1642 to 1646. (45 marks) //**

Candidates will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain the failings of Charles I and balance this against other factors. They may also stress the strengths of Parliament’s position. Candidates may refer to some of the following material in support of the failings of Charles I: personality, military failure, divided royalist councils, doubts over religious policies. Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider: military defeat, limited alliances, furthermore, candidates may focus on Parliament's strengths: London and resources, administration, religious motivation, New Model Army. In conclusion, candidates may stress the combination of Charles' failings, Parliamentary strengths vs Royalist weaknesses. This was the most popular question in terms of the number of candidates who attempted it. Most were able to provide sound thematic accounts, normally structured around royalist weakness and parliamentary strengths and then further broken down into sections within this. Others used a similar structure but placed stress on the immediate advantageous position Charles held and how this disintegrated and in a war of attrition Parliament’s greater resources began to tell. In dealing with Charles I’s leadership most candidates were comfortable in outlining his weaknesses as a leader and as a commander-in-chief. Stronger answers were able to add weight to this in illustrating his weaknesses through reference to the geographical and personality divisions on the royalist side. In dealing with royalist weaknesses most candidates also addressed the growing problems with royalist administration and financing of the war and some developed this through comment on the loss of the localities as being a part of royalist defeat. Better answers provided a more balanced approach to the royalist military record and notably of the role of Prince Rupert. Nearly all responses however, stressed the importance of the failure to capture London. Few, however, pointed out the practical difficulties for Charles in trying to achieve this. When dealing with parliamentary strengths candidates dealt well with the advantages of control of London. Few, however, commented on the use of Puritan and merchant networks within the city as part of the parliamentary alliance. Better answers added examples of the financial administration of Parliament, especially the excise and assessment. Few drew this out to consider parliamentary county committees, some of which were run by religious radicals driven to win the war. The role of religion was the area that few touched upon. While there was comment in relation to the negative impact of Charles’s Cessation Treaty or contact with the French very few wrote of the godly within the parliamentary alliance as a factor in their success. Useful comment could be had on the godly core of officers within the Eastern Association, notably Cromwell, Ireton and Harrison, who went on to be leading officers in the New Model with its regimental banners and chaplains displaying how for many in its ranks the war was a crusade. Indeed, while most candidates commented on the New Model, few were able to appreciate the role of parliament’s armies before 1645, with many believing that it was the New Model that won at Marston Moor. // A2 - To what extent was Parliament more to blame than Charles I for the failure of settlement in the years 1646 to 1649? (45 marks) // **// A3 - ‘Religion was more important than politics in the failure of Crown and Parliament to reach a settlement in the years 1646 to 1649.’ //// Assess the validity of this view. (45 marks) //** **CONTENT TO BE CONSIDERED:**Candidates need to consider the role of both religion and politics in the failure of Crown and Parliament to reach a settlement. Stronger responses will be clear in indicating the fundamental link between religion and politics in the period. Reference to the concept of ‘providence’ in terms of the New Model’s proceedings can feature and candidates may also comment on the importance of the Windsor Prayer Meeting and the public declaration of Charles I as ‘that man of blood’. The religious drive behind the radicalism of the army will be balanced by the their political actions, the Heads of the Proposals, Ireton’s Remonstrance and Pride’s Purge. These may be considered in the context of religion and political ‘necessity’. Some may even comment on Cromwell as a ‘reluctant regicide’ forming his decision from both ‘providence and necessity’. Candidates should consider both the role of Charles and Parliament in the failure of settlement. Charles’s role can be illustrated by his refusal to negotiate and his schemes to reassert his authority, in particular the Engagement. Parliament’s role can be considered from the perspective of the Newcastle Propositions through to a last attempt at settlement with the Newport Treaty. Candidates should also consider how Parliament’s division and Charles’s intransigence saw the emergence of the New Model Army as a political force which proved to be crucial in the politics of settlement. This was clearly the question that candidates found most difficult. The process by which attempts at settlement broke down in the period 1646 to 1649 and the reasons for regicide is a difficult area. It was pleasing to see, however, that the majority of candidates who attempted this question could illustrate at least a good knowledge of the period with many showing a very good knowledge of the themes and some of the key content of the reasons for Charles’ execution. There were a range of different responses, most of which were valid. The two most popular approaches were either chronological or thematic. A chronological structure is, in many ways, a very valid approach as the years 1646 to 1649 were a series of linked events in a process of failed settlement. The stronger responses underpinned this narrative framework with comment directly linking the key events to the key themes of the process such as the role of Charles, the actions of Parliament, the New Model Army or the role of religion. Those who adopted a thematic approach structured their responses around these themes and illustrated each with the key events of the period. While there were a high number of very good responses to this question it was evident that many, even of the highest quality, did not always deal with the crucial year of 1648 in sufficient detail. The key events of the period are: The Newcastle Propositions (1646), The politicisation of the New Model Army (1646–1647), The Heads of the Proposals (July 1647), The Engagement (December 1647), The Vote of No Addresses (January 1648), The Windsor Prayer meeting (April 1648), The Second Civil War, particularly the battle of Preston (August 1648), The Repeal of the Vote of No Addresses, The Remonstrance (November 1648), The parliamentary vote to continue negotiating on the basis of the Newport Treaty (5 December 1648), Pride’s Purge (6 December 1648), The trial of Charles I (January 1649). Candidates should also attempt to be more secure with their precise knowledge of these events. For example many candidates touched upon the Windsor Prayer meeting as an example of the political role of the New Model rather than as a key example of its religious motivation. There were, however, other candidates who wrote knowledgably about the millenarian Fifth Monarchist Major-General Thomas Harrison reflecting on Numbers 35:33 and publicly articulating a justification for regicide. As well as being secure in their knowledge of the key events of the period candidates who produced stronger responses linked these issues together as steps towards the regicide. For example some candidates were able to comment on the key role of Henry Ireton in drafting the Heads of the Proposals and his subsequent bitterness at Charles’s Engagement. His radicalisation was key in the central roles he played in writing the Remonstrance and organising Pride’s Purge. Many candidates ably linked religion and politics together, rightly stressing the symbiotic relationship of these issues in the seventeenth century. It was good to see some take this further, however, by commenting on the interrelation of providence and necessity as linked driving forces leading the army to enact regicide. Some commented on this by linking the influence of these factors on the ‘reluctant regicide’ Cromwell. Convinced that God had judged Charles it was ultimately Charles’ intransigence and the threat of a third civil war that made it a necessity for Cromwell and Ireton to become regicides. // A4 - To what extent was the abolition of monarchy in 1649 the result of political and religious radicalism rather than the intransigence of the King? (45 marks) // **SECTION B: FROM REPUBLIC TO MONARCHY 1653-1678** //B1 - To what extent did Charles II fulfil the expectations that existed for his Restoration in the years 1660 to 1667? (45 marks)//
 * CONTENT TO BE CONSIDERED:**
 * EXAMINER'S FEEDBACK:**
 * EXAMINER'S FEEDBACK:**

//B2 - Why did the governments of the Interregnum fail to find an acceptable settlement in politics and religion? (45 marks)//    //B3 - 'Religion was more important than politics in the failure of the Interregnum regimes of 1649 to 1660.' Assess the validity of this view (45 marks)// There were a range of different approaches to this question, all of which were valid when linked to the specific wording by directed comment. Some approached the question thematically, through sections on religion and politics. Others adopted a more chronological structure, but commented through this on religion and economic factors. Many brought in other factors, such as economic, but more particularly the role of Cromwell. Again the stronger responses when dealing with these factors or themes related them to the wording of the question. Many took Cromwell as the central element, shaping their essay around his religious radicalism and political conservatism and related this to the political instability of the period through the various changes of regime, Rump, Nominated Assembly to Protectorate as reflections of Cromwell’s shifting priorities as a result of what Worden referred to as his ‘ideological schizophrenia’. While many illustrated their argument with useful examples some would have benefited from a firmer grasp of key issues of religious and political tension in the period, for example: • The reforming record of the Rump • Republican opposition to the Instrument of Government • The Biddle Case • The Major-Generals • The Nayler Crisis • The Humble Petition and Advice More particularly, more students should have used some information from after Cromwell’s death, given that the question specified 1649 to 1660. In relation to this, the better responses set Monck’s action against Lambert as part of the growing conservative reaction across the Interregnum. It was very encouraging to see some link Monck’s intervention as part of general fears of the Quakers and Lambert’s links with them.
 * EXAMINER'S FEEDBACK:**

**SECTION C: THE CONSOLIDATION OF CHARLES II'S RULE 1667-1683** ** //C1 - To what extent can the Restoration Settlement in the years 1660 to 1685 be regarded as a failure? (45 marks)// ** Candidates need to consider how the Restoration Settlement can be regarded as a failure and a success. This could be considered across the whole period or by contrasting different periods of the years 1660 to 1685, such as 1660 to 1667 in comparison with 1678 to 1685. The Restoration may be regarded as a success from the perspective of Charles II in his maintenance of his authority. This may also be considered in the context of the growth of absolutism after 1683. Restoration Settlement can also be considered in the context of the problems facing Charles II in 1660. Candidates may also take a thematic approach considering religion, parliament, finance, opposition and the interrelation of these factors. It was very encouraging to see the range of high quality responses to this question. The vast majority of candidates clearly found this question accessible and approached it in different but valid ways. As the compulsory question that covers at least of three of the four sections of the specification clearly less detail is needed but there does need to be more of a range of illustration across the period. Candidates approached this normally in two ways. The most popular was a thematic approach considering the key themes of the later Stuart period, religion, finance, parliament, foreign policy and illustrating each with supportive comment linked to the idea of success. Other candidates approached the essay chronologically by structuring their essay around the obvious historical periods of Charles II’s reign, 1660–1667, 1667–1678, 1678–1685. There were others who adopted a change and continuity structure linked to the key themes of the period. Candidates were able to assess the nature of the immediate Restoration and key issues such as the constitution, finance, the army and religion before then exploring how these themes remained problems or sources of strength for Charles II. Equally responses that considered whether Charles was a success were credited highly if they linked their comment directly to the concept of the Restoration Settlement. All approaches were valid if they addressed the question. Indeed it was pleasing to see that candidates were very confident in deploying their knowledge of Charles II’s reign to this question. There were also some very strong responses which showed a real appreciation of the limits of the Restoration Settlement in an even broader context making links from 1646 to 1689. Most notable in these was comment on the continuing themes of anti-Catholicism and fear of absolutism as central to politics in the late Stuart period. Others even built on to these the failure of the Restoration in the broader context of the limits of the Stuart state, particularly with regard to finance and how this impacted on the relationship between Crown and Parliament. These usually enhanced their answers further by showing a conceptual grasp of the strength of the monarchy post-1681 being based on an acceptance of the influence of the Tory Anglican gentry and then a new settlement with this class in 1688-89 that dealt with the long term issues that the Restoration Settlement did not really resolve. Such impressive answers really did illustrate a grasp of the whole of the period 1642-1689 and the key themes that run through it. //C2 - Were the difficulties faced by Charles II due more to financial concerns than foreign policy in the years 1667 to 1678? (45 marks)// **//C3 - ‘The main reason for the failure of the Whigs in the Exclusion Crisis was the actions of Charles II.’ Assess the validity of this view with reference to the years 1678 to 1683. (45 marks)//** Candidates will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain the role of Charles II and balance this against other factors. They may also link the factors together. Candidates may refer to some of the following material in support of the importance of the role of Charles II: determination to protect the succession, manipulation of his prerogative, secure finance from Louis XIV. Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider: weakness of the Exclusionists, problems of alternative successor, radicalism of Exclusion, fear of repeat of 1641, no need for Exclusion given James' age and no Catholic heir/son. Furthermore, candidates may explain: growth of Toryism, Charles' secure position in Scotland, persecution of opposition. In conclusion, candidates may argue that it was a crucial combination of:Charles’ strengths that enabled him to take advantage of the Whig weaknesses in the context of a growing Tory reaction. Candidates addressed the actions of Charles and the weaknesses of the Whigs competently. Only the stronger responses developed a link between these and the development of the Tory Reaction that Charles took advantage of. In dealing with Charles’s actions, stronger responses balanced his exploitation of his prerogative, notably in relation to the powers of dissolution and prorogation, with his willingness to compromise. There was good illustration of the latter in relation to his proposal that William and Mary take some role as regents, restrictions on a Catholic successor, remodelling of his Privy Council or the use of temporary exile for both James and Monmouth. In dealing with how Charles took the initiative through his actions, some candidates would have benefitted why holding parliament in Oxford helped Charles and how his use of charters undermined the Whigs. While the treatment of the weaknesses of the Whigs was sound, again more precise use of support would have strengthened answers in Level 4. In particular, many candidates needed to address, or develop, the problem as to whether Exclusion was regarded as necessary. That James was only three years younger than Charles with two protestant daughters and no male Catholic heir was another reason for moderates as to why the Whig campaign was too radical. Some did develop this impressively by linking the reaction to the Whigs in the context of general concern about hereditary rights among the gentry. Explaining the Tory reaction in the context of the methods and arguments of the Whigs was clearly the theme that many candidates needed to address and support more. While many understood a general fear of ’41 again’, few went on to develop comment on Tory methods of exploiting this, such as Roger L’Estrange’s propaganda.
 * CONTENT TO BE CONSIDERED:**
 * EXAMINER'S FEEDBACK:**
 * CONTENT TO BE CONSIDERED:**
 * EXAMINER'S FEEDBACK:**

**SECTION D: SUCCESSION CRISIS AND GLORIOUS REVOLUTION 1683-1689** ** //D1 - To what extent was the revolution of 1688 to 1689 caused by James II’s religious policies? (45 marks)// ** **CONTENT TO BE CONSIDERED:** Candidates need to consider both James’ religious and political policies. These may include; intention to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts; decision to maintain and increase in size the army used to suppress Monmouth’s rebellion; the promotion of Catholics in the army and in local government; ‘Godden v. Hales’; the two Declarations of Indulgence; campaign to manipulate elections. Candidates can also consider the roles of William of Orange and Louis XIV. Candidates can assess the nature of the opposition to James in England and may link this to the importance of the role of William in the timing of the revolution. Candidates may also consider the importance of short-term factors like the birth of James’s son. Most candidates structured their answers thematically around the central strands, James’s policies, opposition and William. The majority could write with some support of James’s policies to promote Catholicism. For some more depth would have helped, for example, by being more precise in using evidence like Godden v. Hales (1686) than in general statements about the promotion of Catholics. Similarly while candidates could write about opposition and the role of William of Orange they did not always support this with clear examples or precise comment. A lot of candidates rightly focused on the birth of James’s son as a key turning point but more could have developed this by exploring further how it changed the nature of opposition in England and the approach of William of Orange. Some linked these two together ably exploring the revolution as a revolt from within allowing a successful foreign invasion. The strongest responses explained how James undermined his strong position in 1685 by promoting Catholicism and thereby alienating the Tory Anglican gentry that was the basis of the strengthening of the Stuart monarchy after the Exclusion Crisis. The nature of the opposition in England was considered before stressing the birth of James’s son as making this more overt and bringing about the intervention of William of Orange. Some set William’s intervention well in the context of his European policy, specifically his anti-Louis XIV agenda. These central themes were then supported by a brief consideration of James’s loss of nerve when William had arrived in England.
 * EXAMINER'S FEEDBACK:**

//D2 - To what extent was the Exclusion crisis of 1678-83 political rather than religious? (45 marks)//

**THEMATIC QUESTIONS** //E1 - How did the threat from religious radicalism change in the years 1646 to 1689? (45 marks)// //E2 - How important was the issue of multiple-kingdoms, the interrelation between England, Scotland and Ireland, in the political unrest of the years 1649 to 1689?// //(45 marks)// **//E3 - ‘The rulers of Britain never succeeded in solving their financial problems in the years 1660 to 1689.’ Assess the validity of this view. (45 marks)//** **CONTENT TO BE CONSIDERED:** Candidates will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain how finance was a problem for the rulers of this period and balance this with an assessment of various attempts to deal with the financial problems faced. They may also show how the problems of finance were interrelated with other problems, such as the relationship with Parliament. Candidates may refer to some of the following material in support of finance being a problem: the growth of trade under Charles II, the limited grant of finance to Charles II by his Parliament, use of finance by Parliaments, especially under Charles II, to influence policy, Dutch Wars.Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider: the increased income of Charles II may be set in the context of previous problems, Charles II used an alliance with France to solve his financial problems with Parliament, candidates can be credited for commenting on other factors proving more difficult.Furthermore, candidates may: link foreign policy to finace as a problem, point to James II's relatively prosperous financial position, stress that Charles II and James II did cope financially. In conclusion, candidates may: stress that finance was the root of power and key source of influence for Parliament, explain the underlying strucural weaknesses of the English state, see 1689 as the start of a resolution of financial weakness through the financial aspects of the Glorious Revolution and the changing nature of the relationship between Crown and Parliament. **EXAMINER'S FEEDBACK:** There were a pleasingly high number of strong responses to this question. Most answers rightly focused on Charles’s problems, given the time frame of the essay, but stronger responses were able to illustrate this with a range and depth of examples. Within such stronger responses, there were normally some references to the role of Parliament and its use of finances as a form of control. Others sensibly wrote of the significant impact of foreign policy, either through the Dutch Wars or relations with Louis XIV, had on Charles’s finances. Most candidates attempted to address the period of James’s rule in some form. Again better responses were able to do this with some precision. Reference was made to the vote of Parliament, in response to Monmouth’s rebellion, the £1.6 million a year that Charles II had been able to expect but also other extraordinary supply. As a result James’s annual income to 1688 was £2 million. He had, in effect, no financial concerns. Answers of the highest order were able to make comment on William and the 1689 situation, particularly how finance was a central part of the changed relationship between Crown and Parliament. Similarly, this more conceptual approach normally included some reference to the limits of the real reform needed and the crown’s focus on short-term solutions. **PAST PAPER QUESTIONS** Whilst the list of essay questions above is continually being updated, if you want to see what the actual exam paper looks like then they are attached for you below. This exam has only been running for a few years so we have limited past paper questions **2010**
 * 2011 **



**2012**

**EXAM ANSWER BOOKLET** **PLANNING YOUR ESSAY** **<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Some features of high level answers from June 2011 **
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Candidates, especially when dealing with breadth, considered the whole period.
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Candidates offered a balanced argument, but one that put forward their own opinion on the issues – rather than simply conveying the views of others.
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">This personal opinion was in the form of a sustained, supported judgement that was maintained from the start of the response, i.e. judgement was not confined to the conclusion.
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Knowledge was accurate, with the use of dates. This supported argument

**<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Some features of a low level answer form June 2011 **
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Over reliance on generalisation, e.g. ‘the rich..’; ‘the people..’
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Excessive and generalised reference to schools of thought rather than to individuals: ‘traditional’, ‘revisionist’, ‘modern’, ‘marxist’ historians.
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Imprecise or inaccurate factual support.
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Lack of an answer to the set question.
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Confusing structure / grammar / spelling to the extent that it is difficult for an examiner to understand the response.
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Use of jargon and slang – excessive abbreviation – or extensive use of asterisks.
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Contextual or bland introductions (sometimes with rhetorical questions and comments on essay structure)

**ASSESSMENT** The grade boundaries fluctuate from year to year, but as a guideline your combined mark (your two essays each out of 45, therefore totalling out of 90), taking the exams from the last few years the average mark required for each grade is given in the table below:
 * ** Average mark ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">MAX ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">A* ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">A ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">B ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">C ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">D ** || **<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">E ** ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">Per Essay ** || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">45 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">36 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">32 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">28 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">24 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">20 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">17 ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">For Exam ** || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">90 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">72 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">64 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">56 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">48 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">40 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'trebuchet ms',helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">33 ||

For detailed analysis of the grade boundaries open the document below:

To **convert your exam marks to UMS points**, and therefore to work out an estimate of what mark you need to get your UMS points needed for your University choices, follow the link and add in your scores: []

In order to make your approach to the questions more straightforward, below is the markscheme that we use to assess which aspects of the question you are strongest on and which areas you need to work on. With each essay you will get a double sided sheet, one for you to self assess your work, and the other for your teacher to give you feedback on. It is an important exercise for you to recognise which areas you think you are good at before being informed on what you actually are good at. This way your thinking and your self assessment will become more in line with what is actually required of you in the exam. Have a look at the assessment sheet below, please ask if you have any questions about it. Breakdown of the different skills required of you in your essays - these are known by the Exam Board AQA as Assessment Objectives (AO) When you submit an essay for assessment through the school you should expect to receive the form below back, highlighted and commented on. You should then read through the comments and give some feedback or advice to yourself for the next next essay that you do. Your teacher will make a photcopy of this sheet so that they can compare it with your next essay to see how you are progressing throughout the year. The good thing with this sheet is that it should become quickly obvious to you which of the AOs you feel you need to work on the most. There is a **Self Assessment** side as well as a **Teacher Assessment** side.
 * ** LEVEL, GRADE ** ** and MARKS ** || ** Understanding the Question ** || ** Own Knowledge ** || ** Analysis and Synoptic Links between ideas, arguments and information ** || ** Judgement ** || ** Awareness of Historical Interpretations ** || ** Quality of language and structure ** ||
 * ** Level 1 ** ** GRADE E ** ** 1-6 marks ** || Limited  ||  EITHER Some descriptive material OR a little accurate and relevant material  ||  EITHER loose links to question OR addresses only part of the question OR some comment but few, if any, synoptic links  ||  little if any  ||  little, if any, awareness  ||  limited in development skills of written communication weak  ||
 * ** Level 2 ** ** GRADE D ** ** 7-15 marks ** || Some  ||  EITHER descriptive material OR limited relevant factual material  ||  EITHER primarily descriptive   OR explicit comment with limited support and undeveloped synoptic links  ||  Some  ||  limited, debate described rather than used  ||  coherent but weakly expressed and/or poorly structured  ||
 * ** Level 3 ** ** GRADE C/B ** ** 16-25 Marks ** || Shows good  ||  relevant and appropriately selected evidence which may lack depth  ||  some analysis and some   synoptic links – may not be highly developed  ||  Occasional  ||  Some understanding  ||  clearly expressed and reasonable organisation  ||
 * ** Level 4 ** ** GRADE B/A ** ** 26-37 Marks ** || Good  ||  carefully selected range of precise evidence  ||  mostly analytical with some synoptic links  ||  sustained argument  ||  shows understanding of interpretations and may refer to historical debate  ||  well-organised and display good skills of written communication  ||
 * ** Level 5 ** ** GRADE A/A* ** ** 38-45 Marks ** || Very Good  ||  wide-ranging and carefully chosen evidence  ||  sustained & convincing analysis, linking arguments and evidence; a high level of synopticity; conceptual depth  ||  independent judgement; mature historical understanding  ||  a well-developed understanding of interpretations and debate  ||  well-structured and fluently written  ||