You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 4 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The source question on Component 2 and the NEA (Non-Examined Assessment) are the two elements of AQA A-Level History that require skills beyond essay writing. The source question tests your ability to analyse and evaluate historical evidence under timed conditions. The NEA tests your ability to conduct independent historical research over an extended period. This lesson covers both in detail.
The Component 2 source question is always phrased in the same way:
"With reference to these sources and your understanding of the historical context, assess the value of these sources to a historian studying [topic]."
You will be given two sources (usually extracts of 150–250 words each). These are typically:
| Combination | Example |
|---|---|
| Two primary sources | A government dispatch and a diary entry from the same period |
| One primary + one secondary | A speech from the period and a later historian's analysis |
| Two sources with different perspectives | A supporter's account and a critic's account of the same event |
The question is worth 25 marks and you should spend approximately 45 minutes on it (including reading time).
This is the most important distinction in source analysis at A-Level. The question does NOT ask:
It DOES ask: "How useful is this source to a historian studying [the specified topic]?"
A source can be biased AND valuable. A propaganda poster is obviously not a neutral account of events, but it tells a historian a great deal about what a regime wanted people to believe, how it constructed its message, and what values it appealed to.
Key Principle: Value = what a historian can learn from the source, not whether it tells "the truth."
When analysing any source, consider four dimensions:
| What to Do | What to Avoid |
|---|---|
| Identify the key claims, arguments, or information in the source | Simply paraphrasing or copying out the source |
| Select the most relevant points for the specified topic | Quoting long passages without analysis |
| Note what the source emphasises | Ignoring parts of the source that do not fit your argument |
| Note what the source omits (if you know from contextual knowledge) | Treating omission as evidence of dishonesty without further analysis |
Example: If a source is a speech by Stalin defending collectivisation, the content includes his arguments (modernisation of agriculture, defeating kulaks, building socialism) — but you should also note what he omits (the famine, forced deportations, resistance from peasants).
Provenance is the context of the source's creation. It is essential for evaluating value.
| Factor | Questions to Ask |
|---|---|
| Author | Who created the source? What was their position or role? What access did they have to information? What were their sympathies or allegiances? |
| Date | When was the source created? Was it during, immediately after, or long after the events it describes? Does the date affect the author's perspective? |
| Purpose | Why was the source created? To inform, persuade, justify, criticise, entertain, record? |
| Audience | Who was the intended audience? The public, a private individual, a government, posterity? |
| Type | What kind of source is it? A speech, letter, diary, official report, memoir, newspaper article? Each type has characteristic strengths and limitations |
Example analysis of provenance:
Source A is a letter from Thomas Cromwell to Henry VIII, dated March 1536, reporting on the progress of the dissolution of the monasteries. As Henry's chief minister and the architect of the dissolution policy, Cromwell had a vested interest in presenting the process as successful and the monasteries as corrupt. The letter is addressed to the king, meaning Cromwell would have been careful to tell Henry what he wanted to hear. This limits the source's value as an objective account of monastic life but makes it extremely valuable for understanding how the dissolution was managed politically and how Cromwell constructed his case for the policy.
This is where your own historical knowledge becomes essential. The mark scheme explicitly rewards candidates who use "understanding of the historical context" to assess the sources.
| How to Use Contextual Knowledge | Example |
|---|---|
| Confirm what the source says | "Source A's claim that monasteries were corrupt is supported by the evidence of the Valor Ecclesiasticus (1535), which revealed significant financial irregularities in some smaller houses" |
| Challenge what the source says | "However, Cromwell's commissioners have been criticised by historians such as Eamon Duffy for fabricating or exaggerating evidence of corruption to justify dissolution" |
| Fill gaps the source leaves | "Source A does not mention the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536), the largest popular rebellion of Henry VIII's reign, which demonstrated significant opposition to the dissolution" |
| Explain why the source says what it does | "Cromwell's positive tone can be explained by his political position: as the minister responsible for the dissolution, he could not afford to report failure to the king" |
Key Point: Contextual knowledge is what separates a good source answer from a mediocre one. You must go beyond what is in the sources themselves.
Every source has both limitations and strengths. The examiner wants you to identify both — not just one.
| Limitations | Strengths |
|---|---|
| Bias or partisanship | Reveals the perspective of a particular group or individual |
| Limited perspective (the author can only see their own viewpoint) | Provides a first-hand account from someone involved in events |
| Purpose may distort content (e.g., propaganda) | Purpose tells us about the priorities and values of the creator |
| May be inaccurate or incomplete | Even inaccuracies can be revealing (why did the author get this wrong?) |
| May represent only one social group, region, or viewpoint | Provides evidence of the views and experiences of that group |
Here is a recommended structure for the 25-mark source question:
Paragraph 1: Source A — Content and Value
Paragraph 2: Source A — Provenance and Evaluation
Paragraph 3: Source B — Content and Value
Paragraph 4: Source B — Provenance and Evaluation
Paragraph 5: Cross-Reference and Overall Judgement
Exam Tip: Do not write a separate introduction. Jump straight into your analysis. You have 45 minutes; do not waste time on preamble.
The mark scheme rewards candidates who consider the sources in relation to each other. Here are the key approaches:
| Relationship | What to Say |
|---|---|
| Agreement | "Sources A and B both suggest that... This convergence from different perspectives strengthens the evidence that..." |
| Disagreement | "Source A claims..., while Source B argues... This disagreement reveals the contested nature of [topic] and demonstrates that contemporary opinion was divided" |
| Complementary | "While Source A provides evidence of [one aspect], Source B illuminates [a different aspect]. Together, they offer a more complete picture than either does alone" |
| Different perspectives | "Source A represents the view from [position], while Source B represents [a different position]. The contrast reveals the different priorities of [groups]" |
| Mistake | Why It's Wrong | What to Do Instead |
|---|---|---|
| "This source is biased, so it is not useful" | Bias does not destroy value; a biased source tells us about the attitudes and perspectives of the author | Explain what the bias reveals and how it affects the source's value for the specific topic |
| Listing provenance without analysis | "The source was written by X in Y" — this is description, not evaluation | Explain HOW the provenance affects the source's value |
| Ignoring one source | You must analyse BOTH sources to reach Level 4+ | Allocate roughly equal time to each source |
| Not using contextual knowledge | The mark scheme explicitly requires "understanding of the historical context" | Use your own knowledge to confirm, challenge, or extend what the sources say |
| Treating the question as a comprehension exercise | Simply explaining what the sources say is not enough | You must EVALUATE — assess the value, not just describe the content |
| Comparing sources instead of assessing them | The question asks you to assess value, not to compare reliability | Focus on what each source offers a historian, then consider how they relate |
The NEA is an independently researched essay of 3,000–3,500 words on a historical question of your choice. It is worth 40 marks (20% of the A-Level) and is the only component where you have complete control over the topic.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 4 lessons in this course.