The night before the exam... A room full of nervous students. What advice to you give?
It’s
tempting to “throw the kitchen sink” and bombard students with everything they
could possibly need to know. But at this late stage, there’s not much to be gained
from this – what knowledge they have now is basically what they’ll have
tomorrow morning, and anything else they might want to recap and revise they’ll
be much better doing at home by themselves (or, preferably, they’ll get an
early night and good sleep).
I’m
also not a fan of predictions. It’s a serious risk that trying to second-guess
the exam writers will send students off on the wrong scent.
Instead,
I’ll suggest here a more targeted, concepts- and skills-focused approach. The
brief resource to accompany this can be found here.
Tip 1: Think about Timing and Order
Most
simply, the paper is 2½ hours long. That means 1 hour for Section A and 1½ hours
on Section B. Students are told this on the front of the paper, but it’s useful
to remind them of what this means.
It shouldn’t
matter what order they answer questions in (although only answer 2 out of 3
questions for Section B!). It is, however, worth reading through all four
questions on the paper first, before starting to plan and write.
Timing
must include planning – ideally 10 minutes for Section A and 5 minutes per Section
B question. No plan = no coherent answer!
Tip 2: Identify the Argument in the
Extracts
For
Section A, the question stem (“Using your
knowledge of the historical context, assess how convincing the arguments in
these three extracts are in relation to…”)
always remains the same. It is the question focus (after the words “in relation
to”) that tells students what they’re looking for.
Knowing
this is key to identifying what the argument in each extract is.
An AQA webinar recently pointed out that lots of students struggle to identify the
argument in an extract. Each extract will make a number of individual points,
but these will build towards a key line of argument. And the argument will
almost always be summed up best with a single sentence or short quote.
Take
for example, this (made up) question:
Using your knowledge of the historical context, assess how
convincing the arguments in these three extracts are in relation to the politics of autocracy, c. 1894 to
1917.
|
Extract A: Abraham Ascher, Stalin:
A Beginner’s Guide (2016) Tsar Nicholas II, who ascended the throne in 1894, possessed none of the
qualities necessary for effective leadership. He did not understand
that even rulers who claim absolute power need to gain the confidence of
large sectors of the population. Although moderately intelligent, he lacked
the personal drive and vision to take charge of the government, to
familiarize himself with the workings of his administration, and to instill a
sense of purpose and direction into the ministers and the bureaucracy. He was
narrow-minded and prejudiced, incapable of tolerating people who did not fit
into his conception of a true Russian, a fatal flaw in a country composed of
over a hundred ethnic groups with a wide range of cultures, languages, and
religions. Nicholas also could not bear the word ‘intelligentsia’, which he
considered ‘repulsive’ because many of its members tended to oppose
autocratic rule. The Tsar was convinced that except for the intelligentsia
most people in the Empire were deeply devoted to him. |
When supporting or challenging the main points made here (Nicholas II didn’t understand government work, he was intolerant of other opinions and the public, he hated the intelligentsia), students need to relate these back to the overall argument being made, best summarised in these words from the first sentence: “Nicholas II…possessed none of the qualities necessary for effective leadership.” This, in turn, needs to be related to the question focus, the politics of autocracy c.1894 to 1917.
A neat
way of doing this is to give the quote to introduce the argument, then
summarise what it means in relation to the question, before tackling the main
points given in the extract. For example, Stating that “Nicholas II…possessed
none of the qualities necessary for effective leadership”, Ascher contends the
politics of autocracy, 1894-1917, was made much less effective by the Tsar’s
personal and political limitations.
Tip 3: Know the Meaning of Command
Words
For section B, students have been asked in the past questions beginning with:
- “Statement”. Assess the validity of this view…
- How significant was/were…?
- How effective was/were…?
- To what extent was/were…?
Two of
these are straightforward. Assess the validity of this view = How far
do you agree? To what extent…? = How far?
However,
the other two can potentially lead students down the wrong path.
Questions
beginning How significant was/were…? can be answered by focusing on the
factor given only, or by bringing in other factors. For example, the 2019
question “How significant was the growth of towns, in the years 1894-1914, to
changing Russian society?” might simply focus on the social impact of
urbanisation (a big ask requiring knowledge that really exceeds the
specification), or compare urbanisation to other factors impacting Russian
society, as the mark scheme makes clear (below). It’s worth pointing out,
though, that these other factors will certainly seem more relevant and
convincing to the question if linked clearly to the stated factor of growth of
towns:
By
contrast, How effective was/were…? questions ask students to focus squarely on
the factor given, as in the 2021 question “How effective were tsarist policies
towards ethnic minorities and Jews in strengthening the Russian Empire in the years
1855 to 1894?” Here, only points linked directly to ethnic minority policies
and Jews can be credited, as the mark scheme indicates:
Although
not explicitly stated by the specification, the 1H course basically runs according
to 4 broad factors: power/authority (incl. opposition), economy, society, and
culture (individuals are sprinkled in amongst all of these).
In
order to avoid straying from the point of Section B question, it’s very useful
for students to start with identifying which theme is actually being asked
about in each. Just tweaking one or two words in a question four radically
alter the approach students have to take.
Consider
these three questions, all about the consequences or the 1861 Emancipation
Edict (and other relevant factors).
|
How significant
was the Emancipation of the Serfs to strengthening Tsarist political
authority, c. 1855-1881?
|
|
How significant was the Emancipation of the Serfs to Russia’s economic development, c. 1855-1894?
|
|
How significant was the Emancipation of the Serfs to cultural change in Russia, c. 1855-1894?
|
|
How significant was the Emancipation of the Serfs to Russia’s social transformation, c. 1855-1894?
|
Tip 5: Be Philosophical
This
is much easier said than done. But I’d try to take the pressure of students.
They’ve worked hard for two years. They can’t control what questions are on the
paper, who marks their paper, or when they sit it. So they don’t need to worry
about those things.
Instead,
focus on the one thing that can be controlled. What they write.
In the
end, I'll tell them there’s only one purpose to their exam. To tell a stranger what
they know. That’s all they can possibly do – and if they do that as well as you
know they can, they’ll be fine.
Good
luck to you and your students!
