OCR – AS GCE British History Enquiries 1066–1660 F963: Option A
Mid-Tudor Crises 1536–69
Mark Scheme 1 (b)
Mark Scheme, Question 1 (b).
Examiners are told not to look for a set answer. The interpretation in the question may be agreed with or rejected – but it must be considered seriously, even if the claim is then rejected. Answers need to use all five sources, evaluating them as to their strengths and limitations as evidence and testing them against contextual knowledge. Four of the sources indicate that enclosures were one of the main causes of economic problems. Source A, for example, argues that it causes depopulation and inflation. However, Source C claims that enclosures can be beneficial and Source E attributes no blame on enclosures at all. It suggests that debasement, foreign wars and rack-renting are the principal problems. Overall, the best answers to this type of question are likely to be in the form of a balanced argument that is supported by ‘own knowledge’ and the sources in an integrated fashion. Evaluation of the evidence should also be blended in and not simply bolted on at the end.
Each answer has a final mark based on four Assessment Objectives (AO1a, AO1b, AO2a and AO2b) worth 10 + 12 + 28 + 20 marks = 70 marks. As the standard of the two answers lies between Level I and Level IV, only the descriptors and marks for these levels are tabulated below.
Marking Grid for Enquiries Question (b)
Assessment Objectives | AO1a - Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge and communicate clearly and effectively | AO1b - Demonstrate understanding of the past through explanation and analysis | AO2a - Analyse and evaluate a range of appropriate source material with discrimination | AO2b - Analyse and evaluate how aspects of the past have been interpreted and represented |
---|---|---|---|---|
Level IA |
Uses a range of appropriate historical terms; clearly and coherently structured and communicated answer. 9–10 marks |
Consistently relevant and analytical answer; clear and accurate understanding of key concepts and significance of issues. 11–12 marks |
Provides a focused comparison of both content and provenance; evaluates qualities and limitations of sources. 26–28 marks |
Excellent analysis and evaluation of the interpretation, using all sources and own knowledge to reach a conclusion. 20 marks |
Level IB |
Uses a range of appropriate historical terms; clearly and coherently structured and communicated answer. 8 marks |
Judgements supported by appropriate references to content and provenance; very good understanding of key concepts and significance of issues. 9–10 marks |
Provides an effective comparison of both content and provenance; evaluates qualities and limitations of sources. 23–25 marks |
Focused analysis and evaluation of interpretation, using all sources and own knowledge to reach a clear conclusion. 17–19 marks |
Level II |
Uses historical terms accurately; clearly and mostly coherently structured and clearly communicated answer. 7 marks |
Good attempt at explanation/analysis but uneven overall judgements; mostly clear understanding of key concepts and significance of issues. 8 marks |
Provides a relevant comparison of both content and provenance; evaluation lacks completeness and may be confined to the conclusion or second half of the answer. 20–22 marks |
Focused analysis and evaluation of interpretation, using all sources and own knowledge to reach a clear conclusion; some imbalance between use of own knowledge and sources. 14–16 marks |
Level III |
Uses relevant historical terms but not always accurately or extensively; mostly structured and clearly communicated answer. 6 marks |
Mixture of internal analysis and discussion of similarities and differences; uneven understanding of key concepts and significance of issues. 6–7 marks |
Provides a comparison; makes limited links with the sources by focusing too much on content or provenance. 17–19 marks |
Sound analysis and evaluation; there may be some description and unevenness between use of own knowledge and sources. 11–13 marks |
Level IV |
Some evidence that is tangential or irrelevant; some unclear, under-developed or disorganised sections but satisfactorily written. 4–5 marks |
Mostly satisfactory understanding of key concepts; some unlinked though relevant assertions, description/narrative but without a judgement 4–5 marks |
Attempts a comparison but comments are largely sequential; makes few points of comparative provenance or similarity/difference of content. 14–16 marks |
Some analysis and evaluation with increasing amounts of description; imbalanced use of own knowledge and sources. 8–10 marks |