The Assessment Criteria (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Assessment Criteria
Understanding the NEA mark scheme
Your NEA is marked by your teachers and then checked by AQA moderators. The marking follows an agreed set of criteria called Assessment Objectives (AOs). Understanding these criteria is essential for producing high-quality work.
The mark scheme is structured around three distinct objectives, each testing different historical skills. These should be familiar from your examined units, but in the NEA they are applied to your independent investigation.
The three assessment objectives
Your NEA is assessed against three Assessment Objectives, totalling 40 marks:
- AO1 - Knowledge and understanding (20 marks): This objective tests your ability to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the historical period you are studying. You must analyse key features and concepts such as cause, consequence, change, continuity, similarity and significance.
- AO2 - Source evaluation (10 marks): This objective assesses your ability to evaluate and use primary and/or contemporary sources. You must consider the value of these sources in relation to your investigation question.
- AO3 - Interpretation analysis (10 marks): This objective examines your understanding of how historians have interpreted the past differently. You must evaluate how convincing these interpretations are, considering the context in which historians were writing and any limitations they faced.
All three objectives require you to make judgements based on distinguishing different thinking skills. Your teachers will assign a level and mark for each objective based on the quality of your work.
AO1: Knowledge and understanding (20 marks)
AO1 carries half of the total NEA marks, reflecting that the main purpose is to provide an argued and analytical response to a historical question. You must demonstrate understanding of change and continuity within a chronological context of approximately 100 years.
Your response should explore key concepts including cause, consequence, change, continuity, similarity and significance. These concepts must be placed within their chronological context and analysed effectively.
What "analyse and evaluate" means
When the mark scheme asks you to analyse and evaluate, it means you must compare different factors and consider which are most significant. You need to weigh up evidence and reach reasoned conclusions, not simply describe events.
What constitutes a "substantiated judgement"
A substantiated judgement is an answer that you have proven through the use of evidence. You must provide specific examples and information to support your arguments, not make unsupported claims.
Level 5: 17-20 marks
At this level, your response shows a very strong understanding of change and continuity across approximately 100 years. You meet the full demands of the question with work that is very well organised and effectively delivered.
Your supporting information must be well-selected, specific and precise. You demonstrate a very strong understanding of key features, issues and concepts. The answer is fully analytical with a balanced argument and well-substantiated judgement.
Understanding balanced argument: Balance does not mean simply describing an alternative view alongside the one you support. Instead, you must explain why the alternative view is not as valid as your main argument. You would not dismiss an alternate view completely - rather, explain why it is less convincing than the position you are advancing.
Level 4: 13-16 marks
Your response demonstrates strong understanding of change and continuity within approximately 100 years and meets the demands of the question. It is well-organised and effectively communicated.
You provide a range of clear and specific supporting information, showing good understanding of key features and issues with conceptual awareness. The response is predominantly analytical in style with a range of direct comment relating to the question. The response is well-balanced with some judgement, though this may be only partially substantiated.
Key distinction: A good indicator that you are likely to achieve Level 4 or above is offering clear analysis and advancing your argument beyond simply describing events from the period.
Important note: You need to offer a clear answer to the set question. However, even at this high level, you do not need to entirely prove your views - partial substantiation is acceptable.
Level 3: 9-12 marks
The response demonstrates understanding of change and continuity within approximately 100 years and shows understanding of the question. You provide largely accurate information which shows awareness of key issues, though this information may be unspecific or lack precision in parts.
The response is effectively organised and shows adequate communication skills. There is considerable comment relating to the chosen question, although some of this may be generalised. The response demonstrates some analytical qualities and balance of argument.
What this level looks like: At this level you are beginning to provide an answer to the set question. However, you have moved away from an overly descriptive response or one that simply asserts something is correct. You have formed an argument and provide relevant information to support it.
Level 2: 5-8 marks
The response shows some understanding of change and continuity but may have limitations in its coverage of a context spanning approximately 100 years. The response may be either descriptive or partial, showing some awareness of the question but failing to grasp its full demands.
There is some attempt to convey material in an organised way, though communication skills may be limited. The response contains appropriate information and shows understanding of some aspects of the investigation, but there may be inaccuracy and irrelevance. There is some comment relating to the question but comments may be unsupported and generalised.
Critical weakness to avoid: A failure to consider the full demands is most often seen in an almost entirely descriptive response. This commonly occurs in responses that adopt a chronological structure, beginning with the first date in the set period and simply progressing from one year to the next.
Essential requirement: It is crucial that you not only consider the start and end dates but also cover the full chronological range in-between. The demands specify approximately 100 years, and you must address this timeframe properly.
Level 1: 1-4 marks
The response demonstrates limited understanding of change and continuity and makes little reference to a context of approximately 100 years. The chosen question has been imperfectly understood and the response shows limited organisational and communication skills.
The information conveyed is extremely limited in scope and parts may be irrelevant. There may be some unsupported, vague or generalised comment.
Why responses fall here: Responses that fail to offer any relevant material will be placed at this level. This includes responses that do not provide any material that can be specifically linked to the dates set in the question.
AO2: Source evaluation (10 marks)
For AO2, you must evaluate appropriate source material - either primary sources, contemporary sources, or both - within the historical context of your investigation period.
The demands are similar to those for examined units. Consider primary sources using the same criteria of content, emphasis, tone and provenance as you would for Paper Two.
What "value" means in source evaluation
Comments about the merits of sources should focus on whether each source is valuable or not. Value is determined by how well the source helps you to prove your answer to the set NEA question.
It is not sufficient to simply state that a source is from the time period. You must prove how the source helps support the answer to your question through using specific subject knowledge.
Understanding value versus reliability: The value of a source is not the same as its reliability or accuracy. It is entirely possible for a source to be inaccurate but very valuable indeed - for example, a piece of propaganda may be factually incorrect but highly valuable for understanding attitudes or methods of persuasion.
Level 5: 9-10 marks
You provide a range of relevant and well-supported comments on the value of at least three sources of two or more different types used in your investigation. These comments enable you to provide a balanced and convincing judgement on the merits of the sources in relation to the topic under investigation.
Purpose of evaluation: Such comments about the merits of sources should be in the form of a judgement about whether each source is valuable or not. Value is determined by how well the source helps you to prove your answer to the set NEA question.
Essential approach: Comments about the value of a source require you to prove how the source helps to support the answer to your set question. You need to use specific subject knowledge to support your views. Simply stating that a source is from the time period is not sufficient.
Level 4: 7-8 marks
You provide relevant and well-supported comments on the value of three or more sources of two or more different types used in the investigation. These comments allow you to produce a balanced assessment of their merits in relation to the topic under investigation. However, judgements may be partial or limited in substantiation.
What balance means here: You need to provide balance to reach this level. This means not seeing a source as being completely valuable, but perhaps identifying that there are reasons not to have complete confidence in its value.
Level 3: 5-6 marks
You provide some relevant comment on the value of three sources of at least two different types used in the investigation. However, some of the commentary is of limited scope, not fully convincing or has only limited direction to the topic under investigation.
Minimum requirements: You must address the value of at least three sources in order to advance to this level. There must also be two different types of source used.
Understanding source types: A focus on type might mean making general comments about how newspapers, for example, are valuable to the historian. However, to advance to higher levels you need to focus on the specific source that you have chosen.
Level 2: 3-4 marks
You either provide some comment on the value of more than one source used in the investigation but may not address three sources in equal measure, or you refer to sources of the same type. Alternatively, you provide some comment on the value of three sources of at least two types used in the investigation, but the comment is excessively generalised and not well directed to the topic of the investigation.
Level 1: 1-2 marks
You provide some comment on the value of at least one source used in the investigation, but the response is very limited and may be partially inaccurate. Comments are likely to be unsupported, vague or generalised.
Basic requirement: In order to access this level you need to refer to the value of at least one source. Ensure that you know what determines the value of a source.
AO3: Interpretation analysis (10 marks)
For AO3, you must discuss how convincing each interpretation is, in exactly the same manner as you would for the exam. However, this is an added requirement in the NEA that you also consider the time and context in which the historians were writing, plus any limitations they may have faced.
You must analyse and evaluate different ways in which aspects of the past have been interpreted, considering the historical context of these interpretations.
Your opportunity to assess historians' opinions
This is your opportunity to assess the opinion of other historians. You are not expected to summarise their entire work - simply to find a view or interpretation and to use your knowledge to assess how convincing this view may be.
What "understanding" means in this context: To show understanding you must do much more than simply summarise a source. You must be clear about the main thrust of the interpretation and use specific knowledge to challenge or to corroborate it.
Level 5: 9-10 marks
You show a very strong understanding of the differing historical interpretations raised by the question. You provide a strong, well-substantiated and convincing evaluation of two interpretations with reference to the time and/or context and the limitations placed on the historians.
What this requires: You must do much more than summarise a source - you must be clear about the main thrust of the interpretation and use specific knowledge to challenge or to corroborate it.
Level 4: 7-8 marks
You show good understanding of the differing historical interpretations raised by the question. There is good evaluation of the two interpretations with reference to the time and/or context and the limitations placed on historians, although not all comments are substantiated or convincing.
Expected approach: At this level you will be looking at each interpretation in some depth. There should be clear criticism of each source and a clear opinion. This opinion will be integrated into the demands of proving an answer to the NEA question.
Level 3: 5-6 marks
You show understanding of the differing historical interpretations raised by the question. There is some supported comment on two interpretations with reference to the time and/or context and the limitations placed on historians, but the comments are limited in depth and/or substantiation.
What you're attempting: At this level you will be attempting to address the issue of how convincing each interpretation is in providing a view that helps to advance your answer to the set NEA question.
Typical response pattern: The typical type of response for this level will tend to summarise the interpretation and not really attempt to evaluate how convincing the interpretation is. This is likely to be a very descriptive response.
Essential requirement: You need to refer to both the time/context and the limitations faced in order to access this level.
Understanding time/context and limitations:
- Time and/or context means that you need to research the historian and find out how the circumstances in which they were writing might have affected their views.
- Limitations might be difficulty in accessing source material due to archives being restricted, for example.
Level 2: 3-4 marks
You show some understanding of the differing historical interpretations raised by the question. You may refer to either the time and/or context or to the limitations placed on the historians, or to both in an unconvincing way.
Level 1: 1-2 marks
You show limited understanding of the differing historical interpretations raised by the question. Comment on historical interpretations is generalised and vague.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
- The NEA totals 40 marks: AO1 is worth 20 marks (half the total), AO2 and AO3 are each worth 10 marks. Plan your time and effort accordingly.
- Cover approximately 100 years: For AO1, you must demonstrate understanding of change and continuity across the full chronological period, not just describe events chronologically from start to finish.
- Balance means explanation, not just description: A balanced argument doesn't just present alternative views - it explains why your chosen argument is more convincing than the alternatives.
- Source value relates to your question: For AO2, the value of a source is determined by how well it helps you prove your answer to the NEA question, not simply whether it's contemporary or reliable.
- Go beyond summary for interpretations: For AO3, you must evaluate how convincing interpretations are by considering the time/context in which historians wrote and the limitations they faced - mere summary will not access higher levels.