1. Improving your department’s sourcework

2. Problems with sources Simply summarising and copying sources Comprehension - conceptual language Abstract nature of some visual sources, e.g. political cartoons Failure to correlate by direct comparison, often failing to take account of more than two sources Confusion of utility and reliability Irrelevant use of provenance & unsubstantiated assertions, e.g. about bias Ability to relate sources to own knowledge, often relying on one or the other Ability to identify and synthesise different interpretations from sources

3. OCR 2007 In these ‘does it prove’ type questions, candidates must realise that they have to ask ‘What doesn’t this source tell me?’

4. WJEC 2007 Too many candidates are still just considering the usefulness of the source in terms of its content value and are either completely ignoring the origin and purpose or are just paying lip-service to it via paraphrasing the attribution. Many candidates write COP at the top of the page but seldom advance beyond evaluating the content in their answer. They have clearly learnt the formula but not how to apply it.

5. EDEXCEL Not enough candidates make effective use of nature, origin and purpose with reference to utility. When applied, it was often mechanistic with learnt responses such as ‘photos cannot lie’, ‘it was written by an eyewitness and must be useful’ or generalised comments about primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are invariably seen as far more valuable than their secondary counterparts

6. EDEXCEL 2007-2 Nevertheless cross-referencing still causes difficulties to surprisingly many candidates. Even strong candidates gave lengthy descriptions of each source in turn before beginning to cross-reference. Some simply described each source and then made a broad brush statement such as ‘Source C supports Sources A and B’. Others compared Source A and B and were given no credit. Again, a number of candidates made lengthy and generally irrelevant comments on the provenance of the sources.

7. Some candidates may like to try ‘ASK-V’:attribution/sources/knowledge and validity (is the interpretation valid – that is, backed up by the evidence?); this approach will highlight the attribution more than is done at present by many candidates, and it may ensure that all of the requirements in the italics are met.

8. In evaluation questions candidates can go a long way by testing the claims of a source against their own knowledge of the topic. It is surprising how many candidates do not do this.

9. More able candidates should now be moving on from saying that the historian/author ‘will have looked at primary and secondary evidence’. There should now be an attempt, by the strongest candidates, to suggest some particular kinds of primary and secondary evidence, thereby building on their KS3 skills. This approach will help more candidates to access Level 4.

10. OCR, 2007 To gain the top level it is important that candidates make clear the reasons for publication at that time, ie the 1930s, rather than a more general approach

11. The majority of good answers reflected critically on the time difference between the date of the source, 1990, and the event it described, 1932. The most able candidates were then able to comment that the reputation of the BBC would enhance the source’s credibility.

12. Here many candidates effectively went straight into the purpose of the source, i.e to encourage people to work on collective farms

13. Many candidates are now naming the previous sources and are constructing a two-sided response, as well as incorporating their own background knowledge. Many more candidates did attempt to consider the attribution this year and, with varying degrees of success, attempted to consider how the historian might have reached that particular viewpoint.

14. AQA guidance to include: Specific source detail comment about that detail in relation to the particular question being answered clear contextual knowledge enabling a judgement to be made about the purpose or validity of the source in question. Content – quote it. Comment – on the content. Context – relate to events.