You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Section A of Edexcel Paper 2 is a source paper, and the skill it assesses — the analysis and evaluation of contemporary source material — is the single most heavily rewarded ability in the whole examination for this option. Every preceding lesson has closed with a "Working with Sources" section that models the skill on the particular topic; this lesson draws those threads together into a systematic training in the AO2 method, so that you can approach any pair of sources the examiners set, on any part of the 1955–92 period, with a disciplined and confident technique. It sets out the assessment objective and what it demands, the four-part method of interrogating a source, the crucial principle of reading a source for a defined enquiry rather than for abstract "reliability," and the range of source-types you can expect to meet across this option — from the advertisements and social criticism of the affluent 1950s to the speeches, protest texts, journalism, and official records of the decades of challenge and reaction.
For the Edexcel depth study, mastering this skill is not an optional extra but the core of success in Section A. The most common and most costly failing in source work is to treat sources as things to be pronounced "reliable" or "unreliable" and then set aside; the examined skill is quite different — it is to weigh the value of each source for a specific historical question, using its provenance, tone, purpose, and content to determine what it can and cannot tell us. This lesson trains that habit of mind. It is deliberately a skills lesson: where the content lessons taught the history and modelled the sources on each topic, this one abstracts and consolidates the transferable method, and it should be read alongside the final lesson on Paper 2 exam technique, which places the source skill within the structure and timing of the whole paper.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson develops the compulsory Section A skill of Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 2, Option 2H.2 (Route H depth study): "The USA, 1955–92: conformity and challenge." It is a skills lesson consolidating the AO2 source-evaluation technique modelled throughout the course, and it draws its illustrative source-types from across the whole period. Within our own teaching sequence it is placed after the narrative lessons and before the exam-technique lesson, so that the transferable method is secured before it is set within the structure and timing of the paper as a whole.
Because Paper 2 is a depth paper, the reward is for source judgements set firmly in context, resting on fine command of the period. (For the precise weightings and question wording, consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.)
Key definition. A contemporary source (also called a primary source) is one produced at the time of the events it concerns — a speech, letter, photograph, advertisement, newspaper report, official record, or the like. Section A evaluates such sources; it does not, in this part of the paper, assess the interpretations of later historians (the AO3 skill), which belong to the historiographical debate developed in the final lesson.
The assessment objective examined in Section A rewards the ability to analyse and evaluate contemporary sources for their value to an enquiry. Everything in effective source work flows from grasping what this means — and from avoiding the single most common misconception.
The misconception is that source evaluation is about deciding whether a source is reliable or biased. Students trained in this reflex read a source, notice that its author had a motive or a point of view, pronounce it "biased" and therefore "unreliable," and imagine they have evaluated it. They have not. Almost every source has a purpose and a point of view — that is what makes it a historical source rather than a neutral fact — and to dismiss a source as "biased" is to say almost nothing. Worse, it throws away the source's real value, because a source's very partiality is often what makes it useful: a piece of propaganda is invaluable evidence of what a regime wished people to believe, a self-serving denial is valuable evidence of a strategy of concealment, an advertisement is valuable evidence of the values a culture projected. The point is never to ask "is this source biased?" but "given what this source is, and why it was produced, what can it tell us about the question I am asked?"
The cardinal principle, then, is this: a source is not valuable or worthless in the abstract, but valuable for a particular enquiry. The same source may be of the highest value for one question and of little use for another. A political advertisement is of limited value for the question "what were the real social conditions of the 1950s?" but of the highest value for the question "what image of the good life did the consumer culture project?" The skilled historian, faced with a source, first fixes firmly on the enquiry set by the question, and then asks what this particular source — with its particular origin, purpose, and content — can contribute to answering that. This is the habit of mind that Section A rewards above all others, and it is worth stating in the plainest terms because so many marks turn on it.
To evaluate a source's value for an enquiry, interrogate it systematically under four heads. These are not a checklist to be recited mechanically but four angles of attack that, used together, unlock what a source is worth. The strongest answers weave them together; the method below sets them out separately only for the sake of learning.
Provenance means the origin of the source: who produced it, when, in what form, and in what circumstances. Provenance is the foundation of evaluation because it determines what kind of evidence the source can be. A private diary and a public speech, a secret recording and a published memoir, a photograph and a statute — each has a different evidential character flowing directly from its provenance.
The decisive analytical move is to use provenance to explain why the source has the value it has — for instance, that a secret recording documents intent precisely because it was private, or that an advertisement reveals projected values precisely because it was designed to sell. Reporting provenance without drawing this consequence earns little; using provenance to explain the source's value is the heart of the skill.
Tone and emphasis concern what the source chooses to foreground and the manner in which it does so. A source's emphasis — the aspects it dwells on, the language it uses, the things it passes over — is itself evidence, for it reveals the preoccupations and purposes of its author and milieu. A civil rights leader's dignified appeal to constitutional principle, a segregationist statement's measured legalism, a protest text's moral urgency, an advertisement's aspirational glow — each emphasis tells the historian something about how a cause presented itself or how a culture imagined the good life. Reading emphasis analytically — asking why the source stresses what it stresses — turns a description of content into evidence of mentality and intention.
Purpose is why the source was made — what its author was trying to do. Almost every source is trying to do something: to persuade, to sell, to justify, to record, to expose, to mobilise, to deny. Identifying the purpose is essential, because it shapes what the source will and will not reveal and how its content must be read. A source produced to persuade must be read as advocacy; a source produced to sell must be read as an idealisation; a source produced to deny wrongdoing must be read as strategy. Crucially — and this is where strong answers separate themselves — a source's purpose does not diminish its value but directs it: a persuasive speech is valuable evidence of the case its author wished to make, a self-serving denial is valuable evidence of the concealment it attempts. The historian reads with the purpose in view, extracting from a source exactly what its purpose makes it good evidence of.
Finally, the source's content must be set against the historian's own knowledge of the period — the "context." This is where AO1 knowledge does its work in the service of AO2. Contextual knowledge allows you to test the source's claims (does what it says fit the known record?), to explain its significance (why does this content matter for the enquiry?), and to detect its silences (what does it leave out, and why?). A source that corroborates the known record gains value as confirmation; a source that conflicts with it invites the question of why; a source that omits what one would expect reveals something by its silence. Content read in context — not in isolation — is what allows a source to be genuinely evaluated rather than merely summarised. This is why secure command of the period, built in the earlier lessons, is indispensable even to a paper that assesses source skills.
Two further moves distinguish the strongest source work, and both build on the four-part method.
The first is to weigh value against limitation for each source. Every source is good evidence of some things and poor evidence of others, and the skilled evaluation states both. The limitation, crucially, is best expressed not as "it is biased" but as a bounded scope: this source is invaluable for X but tells us little about Y. A leader's public letter is invaluable for how the movement justified itself but says little of the grassroots organising behind it; a secret tape is invaluable for the president's intent but captures a single conversation rather than a whole institutional pattern; an advertisement is invaluable for projected values but conceals cost and exclusion. Naming the limitation as a limit of scope — rather than as a disqualifying flaw — is the mature form of the skill.
The second is to read the two sources relationally. Section A sets two sources, and the best answers do not evaluate them in isolation and staple the two together; they read them against each other, showing how their different provenances and purposes make them complementary — how, between them, they illuminate an enquiry that neither could illuminate alone. Very often the two sources represent the two sides of a conflict or the two faces of a phenomenon: the movement and the resistance, the dream and its critics, the official case and the reporting that exposed it, the public denial and the evidence that unmasked it. Grasping the relationship between the sources — reading the enquiry as living precisely in the space between them — is the single most reliable mark of a top-band answer.
The difference between the "reliability" reflex and the "value" method can be seen in a single contrast. Faced with a self-serving public denial by a president, the reflex response says: "This source is unreliable because the author was lying to protect himself, so it has little value." The value method says: "As an account of what the president actually knew, this source is worthless — but that is not the enquiry. As evidence of his strategy of concealment, the very fact that the denial is false makes it of the highest value, because it documents the public face of the cover-up that the private record would later expose." The same source, the same known falsehood — but the reflex throws the source away while the method extracts precisely what it is good for. Every strong Section A answer performs this move: it converts what looks like a source's weakness into a specific evidential value, by fixing on the enquiry and asking what the source, given its nature, is genuinely good evidence of.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.