You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The Edexcel GCSE History (1HI0) Paper 3 Modern Depth Study is an 80-minute examination carrying 52 marks, taken in the summer of Year 11. The paper is divided into two sections: Question 5 (Russia content) worth 32 marks, and Question 6 (source and interpretation work) worth 20 marks. The paper includes an additional 4 marks for Spelling, Punctuation, Grammar and specialist terminology (SPaG) on Question 5(c) or 5(d). This lesson explains the structure of the paper, the assessment objectives, the command words used, the timing expected of each question, and — with worked examples drawn from Russia content — the characteristics of Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 and Level 4 responses. The final section presents a full Grade 4 / Grade 6 / Grade 9 exemplar on the interpretations question about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Paper 3 is organised around the Modern Depth Study — in the case of this course, "Russia and the Soviet Union 1917–91" — and is the only paper in the specification that uses sources and interpretations in combination.
| Question | Command | Marks | Assessment Objectives | Suggested time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5(a) | "Give two things you can infer from Source A about…" | 4 | AO3 | 5 minutes |
| 5(b) | "Explain why…" (with two bullet-point stimuli) | 12 | AO1 + AO2 | 15 minutes |
| 5(c) or 5(d) | "How far do you agree…" (judgement essay; candidates choose one) | 16 (+4 SPaG) | AO1 + AO2 + AO4 | 25 minutes |
| 6(a) | "How useful are Sources B and C for an enquiry into…" | 8 | AO3 | 13 minutes |
| 6(b) | "Study Interpretations 1 and 2… what is the main difference / why might they differ / how far do you agree" | 4 + 4 + 16 | AO1 + AO4 | 22 minutes |
The total time available is 80 minutes and the total marks are 52 (plus 4 SPaG). The suggested timings are inclusive of reading and writing; candidates should leave approximately 3–4 minutes at the end for checking.
Assessment Objectives
The task is to produce two supported inferences from a single contemporary source. An inference is a conclusion that the source allows the reader to reach but that it does not explicitly state; it must be distinguished from information (what the source says directly) and from speculation (what the source does not support).
Structure. For each of two inferences, write: (i) an inference sentence; (ii) a supporting detail from the source. Do not write a paragraph; the question is testing precision, not range.
Worked example (Source A hypothetical — an NKVD operational order, July 1937):
"In accordance with the resolution of 2 July 1937, limits are set for first category (shooting) at 10,000 and second category (camp 8–10 years) at 20,000 in Moscow region… Families of those assigned to the first category are to be registered with regional NKVD offices."
What I can infer from Source A about the mechanics of the Great Terror: the NKVD operated through numerical quotas (the source sets numerical limits of 10,000 first category and 20,000 second category for Moscow region, demonstrating a centrally planned mass operation).
What I can infer from Source A about Stalinist terror as a family event: the repression extended beyond the accused to their families (the source requires that families of first-category persons be registered, implying subsequent action against them).
Each inference receives 2 marks: 1 for the inference, 1 for the supporting detail. Common errors are describing the source ("the source says there are limits") rather than inferring from it, and making inferences that the source does not support.
The task is a causation essay on a specified event or development, with two stimulus bullet points provided for use. Candidates must use both bullets and at least one point of their own. The question targets Level 4 (10–12 marks) for candidates who produce a sustained analytical answer supported by precise own knowledge and reasoning about causation.
Structure. Three paragraphs, each addressing a cause; each paragraph structured PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link-to-question). At least one of the paragraphs must move beyond the stimulus bullets.
Worked example — "Explain why Stalin emerged as leader of the USSR by 1929." Stimuli: Lenin's Testament; Stalin's role as General Secretary.
Paragraph 1 (Point 1 — Stalin's institutional position as General Secretary): Stalin's election as General Secretary in April 1922 gave him control over party appointments and the membership lists of the Central Committee. This allowed him to build a client network through the Lenin Enrolment of 1924, when approximately 240,000 new members were admitted and were personally loyal to Stalin. When the Left Opposition of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev mobilised against him in 1926–27, Stalin commanded the Party vote; Trotsky was expelled in 1927. The institutional position was therefore the decisive structural advantage.
Paragraph 2 (Point 2 — the marginalisation of Lenin's Testament): The Testament dictated by Lenin in December 1922–January 1923, criticising Stalin's "rudeness" and recommending his removal as General Secretary, would have destroyed Stalin's authority if published. The collective leadership suppressed the Testament at the Thirteenth Party Congress of May 1924 — Zinoviev and Kamenev concurring with Stalin to protect their position against Trotsky. The Testament's subsequent invisibility until Khrushchev's Secret Speech reflected Stalin's political management of the party archive.
Paragraph 3 (Own knowledge — doctrinal victory over Trotsky and the Right): Stalin defeated his rivals through successive ideological pivots. Against the Left in 1924–26 he aligned with Bukharin's Right, supporting NEP and "socialism in one country" against Trotsky's "permanent revolution". Against the Right in 1927–29 he pivoted to rapid industrialisation and collectivisation, defeating Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky. The pivots are often described as cynical; they were politically necessary, and the institutional advantage from the General Secretary's office made it possible to win each vote in turn.
Markers reward: (i) use of both stimuli, (ii) precise own knowledge (the Lenin Enrolment 1924, Trotsky expelled 1927), (iii) explanation of causation (why each factor contributed to the outcome), (iv) link to the question (leadership by 1929).
The judgement essay is the heaviest-weighted question on the paper. The stem is usually "How far do you agree with this statement about…?" Candidates are offered two alternatives (5(c) and 5(d)) and select one. The statement is polemical; a strong answer will agree in part and disagree in part, and will produce a substantiated judgement at the end.
Structure. An introduction; two paragraphs supporting the statement; two paragraphs against the statement (or qualifying it); a conclusion with an explicit judgement. The SPaG marks require consistent technical accuracy and specialist vocabulary — collectivisation, kulak, Sovnarkom, Cheka, NEP, Five-Year Plan, Stavka, glasnost.
Worked example — "The Five-Year Plans were more important than collectivisation in transforming the Soviet economy 1928–41. How far do you agree?"
Introduction — establish the two sides. The First and Second Five-Year Plans (1928–32, 1933–37) transformed Soviet industrial capacity; collectivisation (from 1929) transformed Soviet agriculture. Both were implemented simultaneously and depended on each other. The essay will argue that the Five-Year Plans were more important in positive transformation but that collectivisation was more consequential socially and politically.
For the statement. First, the Plans produced quantitative achievements unprecedented in peacetime: steel output rose from 4 million tonnes (1928) to 18 million (1940); electricity output quintupled. Second, the Plans created cities: Magnitogorsk, Novosibirsk, Dneprostroi; urban population rose from 28 million (1928) to 63 million (1940). Third, the industrial base made the victory of 1941–45 possible, demonstrated by the relocation of 1,523 plants to the Urals in late 1941 and the subsequent outproduction of Germany in tanks.
Against the statement / in favour of collectivisation. First, collectivisation's social transformation was more profound: 25 million peasant households were amalgamated into approximately 250,000 collective farms; the peasantry as an autonomous class ceased to exist. Second, collectivisation financed industrialisation through compulsory state procurements at below-market prices, making it the enabling policy. Third, collectivisation's human costs — approximately 1.8 million deported kulaks; 5–7 million famine deaths 1932–33 — were the defining social event of the period.
Judgement. The Plans were more important in what they built; collectivisation was more important in what it destroyed and in what it made possible. If "transformation" is measured by positive output (steel, electricity, tanks), the Plans. If "transformation" is measured by the social structure of the Soviet Union, collectivisation.
This is a Level 4 (13–16 mark) response: it deploys precise own knowledge (figures), uses second-order conceptual reasoning (causation — "enabling policy"; comparison — "what they built vs what they destroyed"), and produces a substantiated judgement.
The task is to assess the utility of two sources for a specified enquiry — not for general interest. The key evaluative frames are content, provenance (nature, origin, purpose), and context (how the sources relate to the candidate's own knowledge of the period).
Structure. Two paragraphs, one per source, each addressing content, provenance and context; a brief conclusion weighing relative utility.
Worked example — Sources B (a 1934 Pravda editorial on Stakhanov) and C (a 1962 Khrushchev-era article on industrial norms): "How useful are Sources B and C for an enquiry into Soviet industrial productivity in the 1930s?"
Source B (Pravda 1934) is useful because of its content — direct reportage of the Stakhanovite movement's initiation; its provenance as a Pravda editorial makes it the authoritative expression of the regime's intended message, valuable for understanding the regime's propaganda strategy but not a reliable measure of actual productivity (Stakhanov's 102 tonnes in a shift were a staged event supported by auxiliary workers). In context the candidate should use own knowledge of Stakhanovism as a campaign from August 1935 to raise production norms, noting the divergence between its propaganda significance and its economic substance.
Source C (Khrushchev 1962) is useful because of its content — critical reassessment of industrial discipline from within the Soviet system; its provenance as a glasnost-period (proto-glasnost under Khrushchev's later reform period) article permits more candid judgement than a 1930s source; in context the candidate should recognise that Khrushchev-era critiques typically distinguished Stalin's methods from the Soviet project itself, and therefore offered a partial rather than complete reassessment.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.