Instructions for Advanced Higher History



Download 208.81 Kb.
Page1/4
Date20.04.2016
Size208.81 Kb.
TypeInstructions
  1   2   3   4





Draft Specimen Question Paper and Marking Instructions
Advanced Higher History

This is an extract from the specimen question paper and marking instructions for Advanced Higher History


This extract is given for viewing today in strictest confidence. You must keep it in a secure place. It must not be published either in print form or via social / electronic media.


Note:

This extract is for guidance only.

Exam duration - 3 hours



Marks – 90

Section 7Germany: From Democracy to Dictatorship, 19181939
Part 1Historical Issues50 marks
Attempt TWO questions.
Each question is worth 25 marks.


49.

How valid is the view that there was nothing more than a revolutionary situation in Germany in 1918–1919?

25




50.

“The Treaty of Versailles lay at the root of the instability faced by the German government between 1919 and 1923.”
How valid is this view?

25




51.

To what extent does Stresemann’s foreign policy show him to be little more than a traditional German nationalist?

25










52.

To what extent did industrialists gain most from Nazi economic policies between 1933 and1939?

25










53.

How far does Nazi oppression explain the ineffectiveness of opposition to the Nazi regime, 1933–1939?

25



Section 7Germany: From Democracy to Dictatorship, 19181939

Part 2Historical Sources40 marks


Study the sources below and answer the questions which follow.




Source A: from a newspaper article by Berlin journalist Friedrich Kroner (August 1923)







Source A




There is not much to add. Inflation pounds daily on the nerves: the insanity of the numbers, the uncertain future. There is an epidemic of fear and of naked need. Lines of shoppers form in front of shops and no disease is as contagious as this one. The lines always send the same signal: the city will be shopped empty yet again. Rice 80,000 marks yesterday costs 160,000 marks today, and tomorrow perhaps twice as much again. Everyone is buying frantically. The piece of paper, the spanking brand new banknote still moist from the printing presses, paid out today as a weekly wage shrinks in value on the way to the grocer’s shop. The zeros, the multiplying zeros . . . The rising prices bring mockery and laughter. Someone shouts, “Cheaper butter!” Instead of 1,600,000 marks just 1,400,000 marks . . .




Source B: from Franz von Papen’s Memoirs (1952)







Source B




Historical developments are the product of diverse forces . . . I am entitled to ask that my own actions be judged in the light of this fact . . . I have been represented as naïve and incapable of grasping the true implications of the political situation at the end of 1932 . . . Yet not many people seem to realise the extent to which Hitler arose because of the harsh clauses of Versailles and the economic crisis caused by reparations. Hitler and his movement were in essence a reaction against hopelessness and for that sense of hopelessness the victorious powers must bear their full share of the blame. Hitler became Chancellor with the support of almost 40% of the German electorate. I have been accused of betraying the Weimar Republic and hoisting Hitler into the saddle as a way of taking revenge against Schleicher. But the correct narrative of events shows that this is not true.




Source C: from Ian Kershaw’s Hitler (1991)







Source C




The handover of power to Hitler on 30 January 1933 was the worst possible outcome to the irrecoverable crisis of Weimar democracy. It did not have to happen. It was at no stage a foregone conclusion. Electoral success alone could not bring it about. Under the Weimar constitution, there was no compulsion upon the President to appoint as head of government the leader of the party which had won most seats in a general election . . . Hindenburg had refused Hitler the chancellorship in August 1932 with the Nazis on the crest of a wave. Five months later he changed his mind with the Nazi Party in crisis following the electoral setback of November 1932 . . . Hitler’s appointment was technically constitutional. Few among the elite groups had Hitler down as their first choice, but by January 1933, with other options apparently exhausted, most were prepared to entertain a Hitler government. Had they opposed it, a Hitler government would have been inconceivable. Hitler needed the elites to attain power.




Source D: from Guidelines for Teaching History in Secondary Schools (1938) issued by the German Central Institute of Education




Source D




The teaching of History is based on the natural bond of the child with his nation and has the particular task of educating young people to respect the great German past. The teaching of History must bring the past alive for the young German in such a way that it enables him to feel the responsibility of every individual for the nation as a whole . . . A new understanding of the German past has emerged from the faith of the National Socialist Movement in the future of the German people. The teaching of History must come from this vital faith . . . The certainty of a great national existence . . . is for us based . . . at the same time on the clear recognition of the basic racial forces of the German nation, which are always active and indestructibly enduring.




Answer all of the following questions.

54.

How fully does Source A explain the impact of hyperinflation on the lives of Germans in 1923?

12

55.

How much do Sources B and C reveal about differing interpretations of the reasons for Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany?

16

56.

Evaluate the usefulness of Source D in explaining the goal of the Nazis’ Volksgemeinschaft.

12











Marking Instructions extract

  1. General Marking Principles

This information is provided to help you understand the general principles you must apply when marking candidate responses to questions in this Paper. These principles must be read in conjunction with the Detailed Marking Instructions, which identify the key features required in candidate responses.


(a)

Marks for each candidate response must always be assigned in line with these General Marking Principles and the Detailed Marking Instructions for the relevant question.


(b)

Marking should always be positive. This means that, for each candidate response, marks re accumulated for the demonstration of relevant skills, knowledge and understanding: they are not deducted from a maximum on the basis of errors or omissions.


(c)

Marking must be consistent. Never make a hasty judgement on a response based on length, quality of hand writing or a confused start.


(d)

Use the full range of marks available for each question.


(e)

The Detailed Marking Instructions give illustrative examples of points that would be relevant within a candidate response. They are neither an exhaustive list nor a model answer. Other relevant points and approaches should be credited.


(f)

For credit to be given, points must relate to the question asked. However, where candidates give points of knowledge without specifying the context, these should be rewarded unless it is clear that they do not refer to the context of the question.


(g)

For points of knowledge/understanding in any response, marks should be awarded for points that are:


    1. relevant to the issue in the question

    2. developed (by providing additional detail, exemplification, reasons or evidence)

    3. used to respond to the demands of the question (eg evaluate, analyse, etc)

Marking principles: 25-mark essay questions

To obtain more than 12 marks in a 25-mark essay question, there must be a reference (however minor) to historiography. If the candidate is unable to show that they have referred to or quoted from historians, or considered historical schools of thought, then they are not meeting the basic requirements of the marks scheme for a pass. Full guidance on the intention of each essay, and possible format and relevant content of candidates’ answers, is given in the detailed Marking Instructions for each question.


The grid that follows describes how 25-mark questions will be assessed against the following four criteria:

The two key criteria which are used to help determine where an essay is placed within a mark range are analysis/evaluation/line of argument and thoroughness.


The descriptions on the grid provide guidance on the features of essays falling within mark ranges which approximately correspond with the grades D, C, B, A, A+ and A++, assuming an even level of performance across all questions in the paper, and in the coursework. Many essays will exhibit some but not all of the features listed; others will be stronger in one area than another. Features described in one column may well appear in a response which overall falls more within another column(s). ‘Historical interpretations’ is the only criteria that should be thought of as a hurdle. The others are not. Markers should reward what the candidate has tried to argue and not penalise what may have been omitted. Remember, a candidate’s arguments and evidence may differ substantially from the marks scheme, but the candidate should still be given whatever credit they deserve.

The grid below guides markers in placing responses within an overall likely mark range, and indicates how to award individual marks against the four marking criteria.

The grid describes the typical or most likely qualities of responses. Individual candidate responses do not follow a set pattern and many responses may fall outside these descriptions, or be close to two or more descriptions. Where this is the case, markers will use their professional expertise in awarding marks appropriately.

25 mark questions — mark ranges and individual marking criteria




Mark ranges

Marking criteria


Structure

0–9

10-12

13-14

15-17

18-19

20-22

23-25




  • no relevant functional introduction

  • no separate sections which relate to relevant factors

  • no conclusion which makes an overall judgement on the issue

An attempt to structure the essay, seen in at least one of the following:




  • relevant functional introduction

  • separate sections which relate to relevant factors

  • conclusion which makes an overall judgement on the issue

The structure displays a basic organisation but this may be loose. This would refer to:




  • relevant functional introduction

  • separate sections which relate to relevant factors

  • conclusion which makes an overall judgement on the issue

The structure is readily apparent with a competent presentation of the issues. This would include each of:




  • relevant functional introduction

  • separate sections which relate to relevant factors

  • conclusion which makes an overall judgement on the issue



Clearly structured, perceptive, presentation of issues. This would include each of:




  • relevant functional introduction setting out main interpretations

  • separate sections which relate to relevant factors

  • conclusion which makes an overall judgement on the issue



Clearly structured, perceptive presentation of issues. Structured so that the argument clearly develops throughout the response.


This would include each of:


  • relevant functional introduction setting out main interpretations

  • separate sections which relate to relevant factors

  • conclusion which makes an overall judgement on the issue




Analysis/evaluation /line of argument

No evidence of analysis


Or
Analysis is not relevant to the question

There is much narrative and description rather than analysis or evaluation


There is a weak sense of argument

There is an attempt to answer the evaluative aims of the question and analyse the issues involved, although this is possibly not deep or sustained. The analysis includes relevant isolated factor.


Argument is generally clear and accurate but there may be confusions

There is a firm grasp of the evaluative aims of the question and the candidate tackles it with a fairly sustained analysis


Argument is clear and accurate, and comes to a suitable — largely summative —conclusion

There is a firm grasp of the evaluative aims of the question and an assured and consistent control of the arguments and issues


The conclusion arises logically from the evidence and arguments in the main body, and attempts synthesis

Fluent and insightful presentation of the issues


There is a firm grasp of the evaluative aims of the question and a very assured and consistent control of all the arguments and issues
The conclusion gives a robust overview/ synthesis and a qualitative judgement of factors

Fluent and insightful presentation of the issues with a detailed and effective analysis and evaluation which advances the argument and considers various possible implications of the question, going beyond the most obvious ones


The conclusion gives a robust overview/ synthesis and a qualitative judgement of factors

Historical sources/

Interpretations

No discernible reference to historical works



No discernible reference to historical works



There is some awareness of historians’ interpretations in relation to the issue


Historians may be used as illustrative points of knowledge

There is an awareness of historians’ interpretations and arguments


Historians may be used as illustrative point of main lines of interpretation

There is a sound knowledge and understanding of historians’ interpretations and arguments


There is some awareness of possible variations of these interpretations or connections between them

There is a sound and consistent knowledge and understanding of historians’ interpretations and arguments


There is some awareness of possible variations of these interpretations or connections between them. There may be an appreciation of the context which gives rise to these interpretations.

There is a sound knowledge and understanding of historians’ interpretations and arguments and an engagement with current historiography

NB the term ‘current historiography’ refers to the prevailing present thinking on the issue, not necessarily recent works
Shows consistent awareness of possible variations of these interpretations and connections between them, including an appreciation of the context which gives rise to these interpretations.


Thoroughness/relevance of information and approach

No evidence of relevant knowledge of the issue



Treatment of the issue shows little relevant knowledge


Some elements of the factual content and approach relate only very loosely to the issue

Treatment of the issue shows sufficient knowledge which reflects a basic understanding of the issue



Treatment of the issue shows an awareness of the width and depth of the knowledge required for a study of the issue



Treatment of the issue is based on a fair quantity of research, demonstrating width and depth of knowledge


Points of evidence are linked to points of analysis or evaluation

Treatment of the issue is based on wide research and demonstrates a considerable width and depth of knowledge


Points of evidence are linked to points of analysis or evaluation

Treatment of the issue is clearly based on a wide range of serious reading and demonstrates a considerable width and depth of knowledge


Points of evidence are linked to points of analysis or evaluation




Further general advice to markers — 25-mark questions
All markers will mark positively and reward what is there in the response However, there are criteria which, if not met, means the candidate will fail.
Factors which lead to an essay failing:
1. Total misunderstanding of the title. The question is set as a particular title, and therefore there is a particular issue to be addressed. A response where the candidate has missed completely the point of the question is almost certain to fail. Similarly, a candidate may seem to “turn” a question to fit a prepared response. While some aspects may be able to be credited, the marker must be convinced that the response adequately and actively addresses the question set for a pass to be awarded. In a question which contains an isolated factor, this factor must receive due attention. A response which ignores the isolated factor must fail.
2. Extreme brevity. A very short response of around 2-3 sides would have to be astonishingly well argued to score highly. It is very unlikely to have sufficient depth and breadth of argument to convince a marker it had covered enough of the mark-worthy criteria to pass.
3. Lack of historiography. Responses without recognition of different historical interpretations will not be awarded more than 12 marks. There is a fairly open definition of “historical interpretations” as the minimum expected pass standard. At Advanced Higher level there must be signs of the candidate’s reading, and therefore some awareness that there are different views on an issue.

If a candidate were to introduce a new paragraph with a phrase such as “Naturally, other historians have argued …” or “There is another school of thought on this matter …” that will suffice for meeting the C standard. If they (accurately) quote historians by name, or refer to particular schools of thought, or give quotes from historians and changing views over time, the essay will fall into the higher mark ranges, on this criteria.




Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page