History A Exemplar Candidate Work With Commentary

Qualification
Accredited
A LEVEL
Exemplar Candidate Work
HISTORY A
H505
For first teaching in 2015
Y100 - Non Examination Assessed Unit

Summer 2017 examination series
Version 1
www.ocr.org.uk/history
A Level History A Exemplar Candidate Work
Contents
Introduction 3
Essay title: Assess the factors responsible for the fall of the Western Roman Empire. 4
Commentary 13
Essay title: How historically significant was the siege of Bridgwater in 1645? 14
Commentary 26
Essay title: How stable was Russia from 1906 to 1914? 27

Commentary 41
Essay title: Assess the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. 42
Commentary 57
Essay title: Assess the reasons for the changing legal status of homosexuality
1830-1965. 58
Commentary 65
Essay title: Assess the view that the Holocaust was a long-term plan by Hitler
to eliminate the Jews. 66
Commentary 73
2 © OCR 2018
Introduction
These exemplar answers have been chosen from the
summer 2017 examination series.
OCR is open to a wide variety of approaches and all

answers are considered on their merits. These exemplars,
therefore, should not be seen as the only way to answer
questions but do illustrate how the mark scheme has
been applied.
Please always refer to the specification (http://www.

ocr. org.uk/Images/170128-specification-accredited-
a-levelgce-history-a-h505.pdf ) for full details of the
assessment for this qualification. These exemplar answers
should also be read in conjunction with the sample
assessment materials and the June 2017 Examiners’
Report to Centres available on the OCR website http://
www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/.
It is important to note that approaches to question

setting and marking will remain consistent. At the same
time OCR reviews all its qualifications annually and may
make small adjustments to improve the performance of
its assessments. We will let you know of any substantive
changes.
3 © OCR 2018
Essay title: Assess the factors responsible for the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
AO1 L6 20/20, AO2 L6 10/10, AO3 L6 10/10
4 © OCR 2018
5 © OCR 2018
6 © OCR 2018
7 © OCR 2018
8 © OCR 2018
9 © OCR 2018
10 © OCR 2018
11 © OCR 2018
12 © OCR 2018
Examiner commentary
AO1: The opening paragraph places the events in context, puts AO3: Even within the opening paragraph there is an evaluative
forward an explained list of reasons for the fall and offers a view discussion of Gibbon’s view, with contextual knowledge used
as to the most important factor. There is a detailed explanation to challenge it. The opening also evaluates the interpretation
of Gibbon’s view with a strong focus on the actual question offered by Ott and therefore within the opening paragraph there
and good supporting knowledge to back up the argument have been two detailed evaluations of different interpretations.
put forward. The response uses other interpretations either to Gibbon’s view about the role of Christianity is also evaluated with
support or challenge the line of argument pursued. Factors are contextual knowledge so that a balanced judgement is reached.
evaluated so that the response does not simply produce a list The view of Heather and the role of the Huns are also considered
of reasons. The arguments are balanced and the discussion of and there is evidence of the use of a primary source to support
the factors is well developed. The analysis of the importance his claim. MacMullen’s interpretation is also explained and
of Christianity is thorough and the depth of knowledge used contextual knowledge is used to support the view. The response
in both the argument and evaluation is strong, while the focus has very full evaluation of a range of different interpretations and
on the actual question remains excellent throughout. When these are integrated fully into the response. Once again the level
discussing the role of the Huns in the fall there is once again of contextual knowledge used takes the response to the top of
detailed knowledge and a well-focused argument. In discussing the highest level.
the issue of political stability, further interpretations are used to
support the argument; these are used and not simply described
and again are linked back to the actual focus and demands
of the question. Once again the importance of the factor is
evaluated and the response is much more than a list of reasons
for the fall. In discussing the division of the empire the response
continues to remain well focused and the argument is well
supported with detailed knowledge. The conclusion reaches
a developed judgement which is based on the argument
pursued in the main body of the essay. The response is focused
throughout and there are no weaker parts, the analysis is of a
high level throughout and there are no descriptive sections. The
factors discussed are evaluated and there is a well-developed
judgement which would therefore reach the top of the highest
level.
AO2: Pliny is used to support the argument about the role

of Christianity in the break up and fall of the Empire. Pliny is
evaluated and both the strengths and weaknesses of his work
are considered. Primary sources, such as Tertullian, are used
to challenge the view about Christianity and again the source
is evaluated. There is detailed discussion of the problems
associated with using primary sources when dealing with the
Huns and this is integrated into the evaluation of Heather.
Primary sources, such as Paulinus, are not only used to support
the argument, but are also evaluated in some depth and, most
importantly, the conclusions drawn are linked back to the actual
question. Not only is the provenance of the sources considered,
but they are also evaluated using a good range of contextual
knowledge. This is also seen in the discussion of St Jerome
where again the source is explained and evaluated using both
provenance and context. A wide range of primary sources are
used and both their provenance and contextual knowledge
are used to evaluate them in relation to the question, with the
depth of knowledge ensuring the response goes to the top of
the highest level.
13 © OCR 2018
Essay title: How historically significant was the siege of Bridgwater in 1645?
AO1 L6 18/20, AO2 L6 9/10, AO3 L6 9/10
14 © OCR 2018
15 © OCR 2018
16 © OCR 2018
17 © OCR 2018
18 © OCR 2018
19 © OCR 2018
20 © OCR 2018
21 © OCR 2018
22 © OCR 2018
23 © OCR 2018
24 © OCR 2018
25 © OCR 2018
Examiner commentary
AO1: The opening paragraph places the siege of Bridgwater in AO3: The first main paragraph uses Underdown to emphasise
its historical context and indicates some of both the short and the importance of Bridgwater and this is confirmed by reference
long-term impacts. The focus is consistently on the question to a primary source written by Sprigge. There is cross-referencing
and the depth of knowledge and analysis is high throughout between Underdown and Sprigge and Fairfax is also used to
the response. There is depth of knowledge about the strength confirm the view of Underdown on page 4. The use of primary
of the garrison and this is used to support the argument sources to support secondary interpretations is a strength of
about its importance and a supported judgement is reached. this response and helps to take it to the highest level. Braddick’s
Although many of the sources are evaluated, good use is also view about the importance of its fall is supported by detailed
made of them in pursuing the argument that the siege was contextual knowledge and this is further reinforced by reference
significant, helping to build up a strong and persuasive case. to Symond’s diary on page 5. The response also evaluates
The response is also able to place the siege in its wider context Royle’s view using a letter from the king. The response also
of the Civil war and the developments. The response provides goes on to consider the longer-term impacts of the siege on
a detailed evaluation of the longer-term impact of the siege the town and again Braddick’s view is evaluated using both
and remains well focused on the question. This discussion is contextual knowledge and reference to later census reports
also well supported by reference to a range of primary sources to produce a balanced view. Underdown’s view of the impact
which are used to support and develop the argument. Similarly, of the siege is evaluated using the Quarter Session Records on
in examining the impact on trade and commerce a range page 7 and these are also linked to the work of Bates Harbin.
of primary and secondary sources are used to further the There is a detailed discussion about the impact of the siege on
argument. An overall supported judgement is reached which the buildings on page 8, most notably the castle and again the
places the significance of the siege in the wider context of the views are evaluated using primary sources. The response displays
war. The answer reaches Level 6 as there is consistent focus, but a good range of interpretations which are treated critically using
would benefit from a more developed judgement and placing both contextual knowledge and primary sources to evaluate
of the siege in context of the war. them, however towards the end it is a little less developed and
this prevents it from reaching the very top.
AO2: From the very start of the main body of the response on
page 1 there is evidence of a wide range of primary sources
being used to support the argument. The primary sources used,
such as Sprigge on page 2, are well explained in relation to the
question. There is evaluation of the provenance of Sprigge and
the discussion is balanced with the response using a secondary
interpretation by Royle to back up the view. The report of
Fairfax on page 3 is also well explained and there is cross-
referencing between a royalist and a parliamentary account
with their corroboration used to support the argument pursued.
Contextual knowledge is used to support Sprigge’s argument
on page 3. There is also cross-referencing when the fall of
Bridgwater is discussed on page 4. There is a very good range
of primary sources and they are evaluated, although in places
some greater development of their provenance would take the
response to the very top of the mark range.
26 © OCR 2018
Essay title: How stable was Russia from 1906 to 1914?
AO1 L5 16/20, AO2 L4 6/10, AO3 L6 9/10
27 © OCR 2018
28 © OCR 2018
29 © OCR 2018
30 © OCR 2018
31 © OCR 2018
32 © OCR 2018
33 © OCR 2018
34 © OCR 2018
35 © OCR 2018
36 © OCR 2018
37 © OCR 2018
38 © OCR 2018
39 © OCR 2018
40 © OCR 2018
Examiner commentary
AO1: The opening shows a good awareness of the debate and AO3: The issue of economic stability is considered through an
the wider importance of the question which is noted in the evaluation of Stone, where contextual knowledge is used and
concluding centre comment. This is developed in the second there is also cross-referencing with Smith to further corroborate
paragraph and the importance of stability in understanding the view. This evaluation is balanced and the centre notes
the events of 1917 is considered. The first paragraph on page 2 the presence of good evaluation, where the views of Nove
identifies the major issues to be considered in addressing the are considered and detailed knowledge is applied and the
question and therefore provides a structure to the answer. The arguments are fully explained and developed. Evaluation
depth of knowledge used to support the discussion surrounding continues with the discussion of Stolypin and agricultural reform,
economic stability is of a high standard and a good example of which again is well developed and a range of interpretations are
what should be expected at this level. The response does show considered on page 5. The response goes on to discuss social
some interim judgements, but this is not consistent, however it stability and again a range of views are considered. Kochan’s
is quite strong when discussing agriculture on page 6. Ideas are view is cross-referenced with Hosking and some contextual
fully explained and most of the argument is balanced, with the knowledge is used to evaluate them. In discussing political
analysis considering both sides of the argument. The conclusion stability on page 8 the view of Figes is evaluated and again a
is well developed and the judgement does follow from the main good range of contextual knowledge is used and the view is
body of the response. However, the answer is not always well corroborated by McKean. However, the argument is balanced
focused and there is some drift from the actual question about with Pares’ view considered and evaluated using contextual
stability in the period from 1906 to 1914 to the Revolution, knowledge. The range of interpretations used is impressive
which although linked to these events is not the actual question and they are treated critically with a good range of contextual
and therefore the centre was correct not to place the answer in knowledge used to evaluate them. In places the knowledge
the top level. There would need to be a much more consistent could be more detailed or closely linked to the interpretation
focus for this to occur. and this prevents it from reaching the very top of Level 6.
AO2: There is some use of primary material, seen when

the agricultural reforms are considered on page 6 and the
contemporary writings of Bunin are evaluated. On page 11 the
response considers the speech of Guchkov to the Octobrist
Party and this is used to support the argument and is placed
in context of the Fourth Duma. The range of primary material
used is reasonably limited. To reach the higher levels there ought
to be a wider range used throughout the response and there
should be greater consideration of their provenance and use of
contextual knowledge.
41 © OCR 2018
Essay title: Assess the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
AO1 L5 13/20, AO2 L4 6/10, AO3 L5 7/10
42 © OCR 2018
43 © OCR 2018
44 © OCR 2018
45 © OCR 2018
46 © OCR 2018
47 © OCR 2018
48 © OCR 2018
49 © OCR 2018
50 © OCR 2018
51 © OCR 2018
52 © OCR 2018
53 © OCR 2018
54 © OCR 2018
55 © OCR 2018
56 © OCR 2018
Examiner commentary
AO1: The opening paragraph identifies the main issues to AO3: The first main paragraph explains Hobsbawm’s view as to
be discussed in the essay and offers a view as to the most why the Soviet Union fell and there is some evaluation using
important reason. There is also some awareness of the historical contextual knowledge at the start of page 2. Hobsbawm’s
debate. There is clear explanation of the coup to overthrow view is also linked to Sakharov’s return, further adding to its
Gorbachev and this is well supported. The response shows credibility. Marples’ view about the role of Eastern Europe
an understanding of how the coup led to the CSPU ban and in the collapse is considered and there is some evaluation
the ultimate collapse of the USSR. The role of Eastern Europe using contextual knowledge. However, there are also places
in the collapse is discussed on page 4 and its importance is where, rather than evaluating a view it is used to support the
evaluated. However, the discussion on page 5 does see some argument. The response considers the view of McCauley and
drift from the focus and a tendency towards a more descriptive his emphasis on the role of the Cold War in the collapse and
rather than analytical approach. There is an attempt to compare although some contextual knowledge is present it is not well
the importance of events in Eastern Europe with Gorbachev’s linked to the actual interpretation. There is also some evaluation
policies and this is also seen in the discussion of Cold War of the role of the arms race with own knowledge applied to
developments. This leads to a supported and fully developed test its importance and it is also supported by a reference to
judgement as to the most important factor and this is also linked a speech made by Gorbachev to the United nations (page
to the view of Oxley. The response is mostly focused but there 8). McCauley’s view is further supported by reference to the
are some areas where it could be sharper and this is why the economic problems facing the USSR, which are fully explained.
response is at the bottom of Level 5. In places the argument A range of interpretations are discussed and there is evaluation
could be clearer and greater depth of support and analysis is using contextual knowledge, but to go higher there would need
needed for the response to go higher. to be a wider range of views and greater depth of contextual
knowledge to test them. Where primary sources are used to
AO2: The importance of Sakharov’s return from exile is discussed support the interpretations credit has been given and this helps
through reference to a letter from Kryuchkov, which is evaluated to take the response to Level 5.
by considering its provenance. The loss of support for Gorbachev
is seen in the source by Khasbulatov, which is evaluated using
provenance and is also linked to Hobsbawm’s argument. The
response uses a US CIA document to further the argument
and again there is some evaluation using its provenance. In
discussing the importance of the Cold War the response uses
Gorbachev’s memoirs and there is some evaluation of these
and a limited link to McCauley is made. Gorbachev’s speech
to the United Nations (page 9) is fully explained. A good range
of primary sources are evaluated, but the response considers
only their provenance and would need to also apply contextual
knowledge to reach a higher level.
57 © OCR 2018
Essay title: Assess the reasons for the changing legal status of homosexuality 1830-1965.
AO1 Level 4 12/20, AO2 L4 5/10, AO3 L3 3/10
58 © OCR 2018
59 © OCR 2018
60 © OCR 2018
61 © OCR 2018
62 © OCR 2018
63 © OCR 2018
64 © OCR 2018
Examiner commentary
AO1: The opening paragraph provides an overview of the AO3: This is the weakest of the Assessment Objectives. The topic
changes in the legal position. It identifies some of the issues that based essay requires responses to refer to named historians and
led to changes and which are to be discussed in the response. this is not evident in the main body of the essay. However, there
The first main paragraph establishes the situation at the start is reference in the footnotes and therefore some credit can be
of the period and explains attitudes towards the crime. On given. However, different interpretations are not really evaluated,
page 2 there is some explanation of changing attitudes and knowledge is not applied to test the views and therefore the
this is well supported with primary sources used to back up the response is limited to the lower levels. There would need to be
argument. Detailed knowledge of a range of events continues clear identification of the different views as to why there were
to be used on page 3 to take the argument and explanation changes in the legal status of homosexuality and these would
forward and once again primary material is used to support the then need to be tested by the direct application of knowledge
argument. The Cleveland Street Scandal is explained and used to the views if the response was to reach a higher level.
to show changing attitudes towards homosexuality. Wilde’s
case on pages 4 and 5 is used to explain attitudes at the turn of
nineteenth/twentieth centuries and there is some evaluation
of the factors discussed. Discussion on page 5 about politicians
is also used to show attitudes in the mid twentieth century
and this is developed using a range of examples. There is some
evaluation of the Kinsey report and its impact on opinion, which
is developed on page 6. Changes after the Second World War
are explained and again these are supported by reference to
primary sources. The conclusion helps to bring together a range
of issues that have been explored through a chronological and
often quite descriptive approach. The response does largely
remain focused on the issues and therefore reaches Level 4, but
to go higher the analysis would need to be stronger.
AO2: Primary sources are explained, as on page 2 with the Pratt

and Smith case, but the evaluation is quite limited with some
hint of typicality. The comment by Dickens at the bottom of
page 2 and top of 3 is evaluated and explained and there is
some limited consideration of the provenance with reference
to Dickens being a journalist. The use of primary sources to
develop and explain the argument is well sustained and this is
seen most clearly on pages 3 and 4. The case of Oscar Wilde and
his comments about reactions towards him on page 4 is also
used to support the argument and there is some undeveloped
evaluation of the source. The Kinsey report is evaluated and
there is some evidence used to show its impact on public
opinion. Sources are used to support the explanation of changes
after the Second World War and there is some evaluation on
page 6, but it would benefit from greater development. A wide
range of primary material is used to support the argument and
there is some evaluation, however there would need to be
greater consideration of provenance and more direct application
of own knowledge to test the views of the sources if the answer
was to reach a higher level.
65 © OCR 2018
Essay title: Assess the view that the Holocaust was a long-term plan by Hitler to eliminate the Jews.
AO1 L4 12/20, AO2 L3 4/10, AO3 L3 4/10
66 © OCR 2018
67 © OCR 2018
68 © OCR 2018
69 © OCR 2018
70 © OCR 2018
71 © OCR 2018
72 © OCR 2018
Examiner commentary
AO1: The opening sets out the debate among historians and AO3: Although the opening paragraph shows an awareness of
does offer a view. The first main paragraph does attempt to the debate, there are no named historians and instead the focus
address the question, but the focus on the actual issue in is on ‘schools’ of history. The response raises the view of Stone on
the question could be stronger. The lack of precise focus on page 2, his view is explained and is linked to the question but
the actual question continues on page 2 and although an there is no real attempt to evaluate the view offered, with just a
argument is pursued the depth of supporting knowledge and basic comment at the end of the paragraph. The interpretation
development of analysis is limited, seen also in the discussion of of Chen is also just used to support the argument; it is explained
Mein Kampf. The analysis is not always strong and the focus on rather than evaluated. The Interpretation of Steinweis is used to
the actual issue of whether it was a long-term plan needs to be support the argument being pursued rather than driving the
much stronger. Knowledge of Kristallnacht is sound, but it is not argument and once again any attempt to evaluate the view
well used to develop the argument and in places knowledge offered is very limited. Although the response does contain a
is imparted. This is seen even more clearly on page 4 when range of historians’ views they are usually used illustratively and
discussing propaganda, where knowledge is imparted, attempts any critical comment is limited. The response does consider
at argument are weak and the focus on the actual question is the view of Burleigh on page 5 and although there is some
limited. Such an approach continues in the discussion on the evaluation it is not developed and is again used more to
Nuremberg Race Laws, where again the analysis and link back support the argument. Once again this approach is seen in the
to the real focus of the question is not strong. Discussion of the treatment of the Wannsee Conference, where Broszat’s view is
Nisko Plan on page 5 is also quite descriptive and this continues explained and used to support the argument and any attempts
when the Madagascar Plan is considered. The conclusion does at evaluative comments are limited. In many ways the same
attempt to link the earlier material back to the question, but this applies to AO3 as to AO2; the interpretations need to be treated
needed to be much more evident in the whole of the response. more critically if the response is to move beyond Level 3. Most
Although there is focus on the question it is not always strong of the interpretations are used to support the argument and
and direct and therefore it is placed in Level 4. In order to reach the answer would also benefit from moving away from the
Level 5 the quality of analysis and supporting detail would need structuralist/intentionalist debate which obscures the issue.
to be stronger and the focus on the precise question much more
apparent.
AO2: The first main paragraph does contain a primary source.

Although there is mention of the date when it was written
it is not really evaluated and instead is used to support the
argument. Similarly on page 2 the quotation from his speech at
Salzburg is used to support the argument, but it is not evaluated.
The views in Mein Kampf are also used to support the argument,
but once again there is little attempt to evaluate them. This is
also seen on page 3 with the comment about the gallows on
Munich’s Marienplatz, where there is some explanation of the
source and, at best, a limited evaluative comment. Hans Frank’s
comment on page 5 adds further weight to the view that most
sources are simply explained with only very limited critical
treatment and linking of knowledge to the actual source. The
response uses a range of primary sources, but their evaluation
is limited and in many instances they are used illustratively and
therefore the response reaches Level 3. In order to reach a higher
level the response would need to be more critical in its handling
of the source material.
73 © OCR 2018
The small print
We’d like to know your view on the resources we produce. By
clicking on the ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ button you can help us to ensure
that our resources work for you. When the email template pops
up please add additional comments if you wish and then just click
‘Send’. Thank you.
Whether you already offer OCR qualifications, are new to OCR, or
are considering switching from your current provider/awarding
organisation, you can request more information by completing the
Expression of Interest form which can be found here:
www.ocr.org.uk/expression-of-interest
OCR Resources: the small print

OCR’s resources are provided to support the delivery of OCR
qualifications, but in no way constitute an endorsed teaching
method that is required by OCR. Whilst every effort is made
to ensure the accuracy of the content, OCR cannot be held
responsible for any errors or omissions within these resources.
We update our resources on a regular basis, so please check the
OCR website to ensure you have the most up to date version.
This resource may be freely copied and distributed, as long as

the OCR logo and this small print remain intact and OCR is
acknowledged as the originator of this work.
OCR acknowledges the use of the following content:
Square down and Square up: alexwhite/Shutterstock.com
Please get in touch if you want to discuss the accessibility of

resources we offer to support delivery of our qualifications:
resources.feedback@ocr.org.uk
Looking for a resource?

There is now a quick and easy search tool to help find free resources
for your qualification:
www.ocr.org.uk/i-want-to/find-resources/
www.ocr.org.uk/alevelreform
OCR Customer Contact Centre
General qualifications
Telephone 01223 553998
Facsimile 01223 552627
Email general.qualifications@ocr.org.uk
OCR is part of Cambridge Assessment, a department of the University of
Cambridge. For staff training purposes and as part of our quality assurance
programme your call may be recorded or monitored.
© OCR 2018 Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations is a Company

Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England. Registered office 1 Hills
Road, Cambridge CB1 2EU. Registered company number 3484466.
OCR is an exempt charity.

History A Exemplar Candidate Work With Commentary

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

History A Exemplar Candidate Work With Commentary

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Qualification

Exemplar Candidate Work

Y100 - Non Examination Assessed Unit

Essay title: How stable was Russia from 1906 to 1914? 27

OCR is open to a wide variety of approaches and all

Please always refer to the specification (http://www.

It is important to note that approaches to question

AO1 L6 20/20, AO2 L6 10/10, AO3 L6 10/10

AO2: Pliny is used to support the argument about the role

AO1 L6 18/20, AO2 L6 9/10, AO3 L6 9/10

Essay title: How stable was Russia from 1906 to 1914?

AO1 L5 16/20, AO2 L4 6/10, AO3 L6 9/10

AO2: There is some use of primary material, seen when

AO1 L5 13/20, AO2 L4 6/10, AO3 L5 7/10

AO1 Level 4 12/20, AO2 L4 5/10, AO3 L3 3/10

AO2: Primary sources are explained, as on page 2 with the Pratt

AO1 L4 12/20, AO2 L3 4/10, AO3 L3 4/10

AO2: The first main paragraph does contain a primary source.

OCR Resources: the small print

This resource may be freely copied and distributed, as long as

OCR acknowledges the use of the following content:

Square down and Square up: alexwhite/Shutterstock.com

Please get in touch if you want to discuss the accessibility of

Looking for a resource?

© OCR 2018 Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations is a Company

Вам также может понравиться