You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Command of the content of the early Tudor period is necessary for success in Unit Y106, but it is not sufficient. The examination rewards not knowledge in the abstract but knowledge deployed to specific ends — the critical evaluation of contemporary sources in Section A, and the construction of a sustained analytical argument in Section B. A student who knows the reign of Henry VIII inside out but who narrates it when asked to analyse, or who summarises a source when asked to evaluate it, will not do justice to that knowledge. This final lesson is therefore devoted to technique: to the specific skills the two sections of the Y106 examination demand, and to the difference between an answer that has the knowledge and an answer that turns the knowledge into marks.
Unit Y106 is a "British period study and enquiry," and its two-part structure reflects the two distinct historical skills the qualification assesses at this level. Section A is a source enquiry, testing the evaluation of contemporary source material — the AO2 skill developed at length in the previous lesson, applied to the set topic of the Mid-Tudor Crises of 1547–1558. Section B is a period-study essay, testing the analysis of the wider period 1485–1558 through a sustained argument answering a set question — the AO1 skill rehearsed in the "Specimen Question" sections of every content lesson. The two skills are different in kind: one is the close, critical reading and cross-use of a defined body of sources; the other is the marshalling of broad knowledge into an argument about a proposition. Both must be mastered, and this lesson addresses each in turn, with a fully worked Section B essay to model the standard.
The lesson is organised around the shape of the examination and the demands of its two sections. It sets out how the paper is structured and what each section rewards; it distils the technique of the four-source enquiry (drawing together the AO2 skill of the previous lesson into practical exam advice); it sets out the technique of the period-study essay — planning, argument, and the sustaining of a line across a reign or a period; and it offers a worked Section B essay, with a Mid-band, Stronger, and Top-band trio, to show exactly what separates the bands. It closes with guidance on command words, the characteristic patterns of mark-loss, and where to go to deepen the skill.
The organising principle of the whole lesson is a single distinction that separates strong answers from weak ones across both sections: the difference between reproducing historical material — narrating events, summarising sources — and using it — evaluating sources critically to reach a judgement, and marshalling knowledge into a sustained argument answering the precise question set. Everything that follows is, in one way or another, an elaboration of that distinction, because it is the single most important thing to understand about the Y106 examination.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y106 (British period study and enquiry): England 1485–1558 — The Early Tudors, and it addresses the assessment of the whole unit — both its Section A source enquiry (AO2) and its Section B period-study essay (AO1). Unit Y106 is one of the "British period study and enquiry" units within OCR's A-Level History specification (H505); such units combine a source enquiry on a defined topic with a period-study essay on the wider period, and they sit alongside the non-British "period study" units and the thematic and depth studies that make up the qualification as a whole. This lesson consolidates the exam technique for both halves of the unit; it is our own synthesis of the skills the examination demands, drawing together the AO1 and AO2 work of the whole course, and is not a transcription of the specification's assessment rubric. (Refer to the official OCR specification for exact details of the assessment.)
Because Y106 is a "period study and enquiry," the two objectives are assessed by two distinct tasks, and the lesson insists throughout on matching the technique to the task: source evaluation and synthesis for Section A, sustained argument for Section B.
The Unit Y106 examination is divided into two sections, each assessing a different historical skill, and the first requirement of good technique is to understand what each section is for and to bring the right approach to each. The two sections reward genuinely different things, and a common cause of underperformance is bringing the wrong technique to a section — evaluating sources when an argument is wanted, or arguing in the abstract when close source-work is wanted.
| Section | Task | Objective | What it rewards |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section A | A source enquiry: evaluate a set of contemporary written sources on the Mid-Tudor Crises 1547–1558 to judge how far they support a given interpretation | AO2 — the analysis and evaluation of contemporary sources within their historical context | The critical evaluation of each source by provenance, tone, purpose, and context; reading against the grain; and the synthesis of the whole set into a single, weighed judgement |
| Section B | A period-study essay: a set question on the period 1485–1558, answered by a sustained analytical argument | AO1 — the demonstration and application of knowledge and understanding through analysis | A sustained line of analysis answering the precise question; deployment of accurate, relevant knowledge as argument; engagement with the proposition; and a substantiated judgement |
The most important thing to grasp about the shape of the paper is that the two sections demand opposite motions of mind. Section A works inward and downward: it requires close, critical attention to a defined body of four sources, reading each carefully for what it is and cross-using them to reach a judgement about how far they support a view. The knowledge you bring is deployed to contextualise the sources — to explain why each says what it says — not to display itself for its own sake. Section B works outward and upward: it requires the marshalling of broad knowledge across the whole period into a sustained argument answering a set question. Here the knowledge is deployed as argument — selected, organised, and directed at the proposition — rather than to interpret a particular document. The discipline of each section is different, and time and technique must be allocated accordingly. A candidate who writes a Section A answer as though it were a period-study essay — arguing about the mid-Tudor crisis in general without close attention to the sources — will miss the AO2 skill the section rewards; a candidate who writes a Section B essay as though it were a source enquiry will fail to construct the sustained argument the essay demands.
The unifying principle across both sections, however, is the one stated at the outset: the reward is for using historical material to a specific analytical end, not for reproducing it. In Section A this means evaluating and synthesising sources rather than summarising them; in Section B it means arguing about a proposition rather than narrating a period. Hold that principle in view, match the technique to the task, and the shape of the paper becomes a framework for demonstrating skill rather than a hurdle.
The technique of the Section A source enquiry was developed in full in the previous lesson; here it is distilled into practical guidance for the examination. The task is to evaluate a set of four contemporary written sources on the Mid-Tudor Crises of 1547–1558 and to reach a judgement about how far, taken together, they support a given interpretation. The mark-scheme rewards AO2 — the analysis and evaluation of contemporary sources within their historical context — and the technique is a sequence of disciplined moves.
First, understand the interpretation you are asked to test. The question gives you a view to assess — typically a statement about the mid-Tudor years — and your task is to judge how far the four sources support it. Read the interpretation carefully and hold it in view throughout: every source must be evaluated for its bearing on that view, and the final judgement must answer the question of how far the set as a whole supports it. An answer that evaluates the sources without reference to the interpretation, or that drifts into a general discussion of the period, misses the point of the task.
Second, evaluate each source by provenance, tone, purpose, and context. For each of the four sources, ask: who produced it, when, and in what capacity (provenance); in what register and with what evident stance (tone); to what end (purpose); and in what circumstances, for whom (context). These four considerations are the core of AO2, and they must be applied, not merely mentioned. It is not enough to state a source's provenance; you must use it to explain what the source can and cannot tell you, and to read the source against the grain — asking what its saying what it says, in that way, for that purpose, reveals beyond its overt content. A council minute's procedural calm, a petition's loyalist framing, an ambassador's relative disinterest, a martyrology's partisan purpose — these are the evidential facts that critical evaluation uncovers.
Third, never sort the sources into "reliable" and "unreliable." This is the cardinal error, and it must be avoided absolutely. A source is not to be believed or disbelieved but interpreted; even a partisan or inaccurate source is valuable evidence of the attitudes and purposes of its maker. The question is always "what is this good evidence for?" — and a source that is poor evidence of one thing (a martyrology of a regime's motives) may be superb evidence of another (of religious division and its memory).
Fourth, use all four sources, and cross-use them. Section A assesses the evaluation and synthesis of the whole set. Every source must be weighed, and — crucially — the sources must be set against one another: noticing where they corroborate and where they conflict, using the strengths of one to test the claims of another, and grouping them by the dimension of the interpretation they speak to. Cross-use is the move that turns four separate evaluations into a single enquiry.
Fifth, synthesise a judgement. The answer must build, from the critical evaluation and cross-use of all four sources, a single, weighed conclusion about how far the set supports the interpretation. Where the interpretation admits of disaggregation — as the "mid-Tudor crisis" claim does, into political and religious dimensions — the judgement should reflect that: the sources may support the view in one respect and qualify it in another. A substantiated, discriminating verdict grounded in the whole body of evidence is what the top band rewards.
The discipline, in short, is: read the interpretation, evaluate each source against the grain by provenance, tone, purpose, and context, refuse the reliable/unreliable binary, cross-use all four, and synthesise a weighed judgement. That sequence, practised on the sources of the mid-Tudor crises, is the whole technique of Section A.
Section B is a period-study essay: a set question on England 1485–1558, to be answered by a sustained analytical argument. The mark-scheme rewards AO1 — the demonstration and application of knowledge and understanding through analysis — and the essential thing to grasp is that the reward is for analysis, not for narrative. The single commonest way to underperform in Section B is to tell the story of a reign or a development when asked to analyse it; the knowledge is the raw material, and the argument is the answer.
Planning: begin with the proposition, not the topic. A period-study question sets a proposition — a view to be assessed, a factor to be weighed, a judgement to be reached. Before writing, interrogate the exact wording. What is being claimed? What would count for it and against it? Are there loaded words — "greatest," "failure," "more than," "any genuine" — that the question turns on? The best answers are built around the precise terms of the proposition, not around the general topic it concerns. A question about whether Henry VII's financial recovery was his "greatest achievement" is not an invitation to describe his finances but to weigh them against his other achievements and to interrogate what "greatest" should mean. Plan the argument — the line you will take and the factors you will weigh — before you begin, so that the essay is a structured case and not a series of unconnected points.
Argument: sustain a single analytical line. A strong period-study essay advances a sustained argument: a clear line of analysis, stated at the outset and developed consistently, that answers the precise question. Each paragraph should be a step in that argument — a factor weighed, a distinction drawn, a criterion applied — and each should return to the terms of the proposition. The discriminator between the middle and the top bands is very often the sustaining of a single analytical distinction all the way through: the identification of the criterion on which the question turns (survival versus stability, effectiveness versus modernity, occasion versus character, outcome versus competence) and its consistent application to a discriminating verdict. Weak essays list factors; strong essays weigh them against a criterion and reach a judgement.
Sustaining a line across a period: the demand of the period study. Because Y106 is a period study spanning 1485–1558, many questions reward the command of change over time — the ability to reach across a reign or the whole period rather than settling into narrow case-study description. A question about consolidation under Henry VII, or about the character of the mid-Tudor years, rewards an answer that traces the development across the relevant span, distinguishing phases and noticing how the situation changed. The strongest answers use chronology analytically — arguing, for instance, that dynastic security mattered most in the early years of Henry VII and noble control in the later ones, or that the mid-Tudor "crisis" was political in appearance but religious in reality. This is the difference between narrating change (telling the story in order) and analysing it (arguing about its pattern and its causes), and it is central to the period-study skill.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.