You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Knowing the history is necessary; deploying it under examination conditions is a distinct skill, and it is the skill this final lesson teaches. Unit Y107 is examined by a single paper divided into two very different halves, each rewarding a different discipline. Section A is the four-source enquiry (Lesson 9), assessing AO2 — the analysis and evaluation of contemporary sources as evidence. Section B is the period-study essay, assessing AO1 — secure, precisely-dated knowledge deployed as sustained analytical argument and a substantiated judgement across the whole span of 1547–1603. The two halves reward almost opposite habits of mind: Section A rewards the sceptical, source-by-source weighing of evidence for provenance and purpose; Section B rewards the confident marshalling of your own knowledge into a single, developing line of argument. A candidate who is strong at one and weak at the other will underperform; this lesson equips you for both, but concentrates — because Lesson 9 has already covered the enquiry in depth — on the period-study essay that most students find hardest to do well.
The single most important truth about the Y107 essay is that it is an argument about a proposition, not a chronological tour of the reign. The commonest way to lose marks — across every topic in this course — is to narrate the history in sequence rather than use it to answer the question. An examiner rewards the essay that interrogates the terms of the question, sustains one organising line of argument across the whole period, deploys precise knowledge and historiography as evidence for that argument, and reaches a discriminating, substantiated judgement. This lesson shows you what those moves look like, how the command words signal what a question wants, and — through a fully worked Section B essay with Mid-band, Stronger, and Top-band responses — exactly what separates the bands.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y107 (British period study & enquiry): England 1547–1603 — The Later Tudors, and it addresses the whole unit and its assessment. Y107 is one of the units of the British Period Study and Enquiry component of the OCR H505 A-Level, and it is examined by a single paper in two sections:
The unit sits within the wider H505 qualification alongside the other examined components and the coursework (Non-Examined Assessment). Because Y107 is a period study, the examiner rewards command of developments across the whole period 1547–1603 rather than isolated episodes, and the ability to use that command to argue a case. Our approach treats the exam skills as the culmination of the content lessons — a pedagogical arrangement of our own, not a transcription of the specification's ordering (refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording). This lesson gathers the whole course into its assessed form.
The paper's two sections are genuinely different tasks, and managing them well begins with understanding what each rewards and how they differ.
| Feature | Section A — the enquiry | Section B — the period-study essay |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment objective | AO2 — analysis and evaluation of sources as evidence | AO1 — knowledge deployed as analytical argument and judgement |
| Stimulus | Four contemporary written sources + a stated interpretation | A proposition or question about the period |
| Set topic | The Mid-Tudor Crises 1547–1558 only | The whole span 1547–1603 |
| Core skill | Weighing each source by provenance, tone, purpose, context; cross-using all four | Interrogating the question; sustaining one argument across the period; substantiated judgement |
| Cardinal error | The "reliable/unreliable" binary; ignoring provenance; using fewer than all four sources | Narrating the history instead of arguing about the proposition |
The practical implication is that you must switch mode between the two sections. In Section A you are a sceptical evaluator of evidence, asking of each source "what is this evidence of, and how far does it support the interpretation?" In Section B you are a confident builder of argument, marshalling your own knowledge into a single developing case. Managing your time so that both sections receive the sustained attention they need — rather than lavishing time on the section you prefer — is itself an examination skill. A brilliant enquiry and a rushed essay (or vice versa) will not secure a top overall mark. A simple discipline helps: fix in advance roughly how long each section deserves, spend two or three minutes planning before writing each answer, and hold to the boundary even when one section is going well — the marginal mark gained by over-running a strong answer is almost always smaller than the mark lost by rushing the other.
Section B questions are built around the second-order concepts of the discipline, and recognising which concept a question turns on helps you pitch the analysis. Y107 draws on four in particular, and every specimen essay in this course is organised around one or more of them.
| Concept | What a question turns on | What it looks like in Y107 |
|---|---|---|
| Causation | Why something happened, and the relative weight of causes | Why Somerset fell; why the 1549 risings broke out; why relations with Spain deteriorated; why the Armada failed |
| Change and continuity | How much changed, and how much stayed the same, over time | The religious see-saw of 1547–63; the making versus the success of the Settlement; whether government became more contested or more stable |
| Consequence | The results and significance of an event or development | The consequences of the 1553 succession crisis; of the burnings; of the loss of Calais; of the Armada's defeat |
| Significance | How important something was, in its own time and after | The significance of the Poor Law of 1601; of Mary Queen of Scots; of the Elizabethan Settlement's durability |
The practical value of naming the concept is that it tells you what kind of argument the question wants. A causation question ("why did the 1549 rebellions break out?") wants the weighing of causes against one another, not a narrative of the risings; a change and continuity question ("how far did the reign of Mary alter the trajectory of the Reformation?") wants a judgement about degree of change, holding change and continuity in tension; a significance question wants an assessment of importance, ideally distinguishing short-term from long-term and contemporary from retrospective significance. Reading the question to identify its underlying concept — and then delivering the kind of analysis that concept demands — is a quiet but reliable way to lift an answer, because it aligns your argument with what the mark scheme is actually looking for.
Lesson 9 covers the enquiry in full; what follows is a concise technique summary to consolidate it. The task gives you four contemporary written sources and a stated interpretation, and asks how far the sources, taken together, support that interpretation. The AO2 skill is the evaluation of sources as evidence.
A secure Section A answer follows a clear method:
| Step | What to do |
|---|---|
| Read the interpretation first | Identify exactly what the stated view claims, so you know what you are testing the sources for |
| Evaluate each source in turn | For every one of the four, weigh provenance (who, when, what form), tone, and purpose (why, for whom) — asking what it is evidence of, never "is it reliable?" |
| Apply contextual knowledge | Use your own knowledge of the mid-Tudor crises to test each source's claims — plausible, exaggerated, selective, self-serving? |
| Cross-use the sources | Set them against one another; use each to corroborate, challenge, or qualify the others; let the tensions between them do analytical work |
| Reach a judgement | Conclude how far, taken together, the four sources support the interpretation — a weighed verdict, not a tally |
To see the difference between weak and strong source-handling, contrast two ways of treating a single source — say a foreign ambassador's dispatch reporting instability at the mid-Tudor court. The weak treatment writes: "This source is quite reliable because ambassadors were well-informed, so it proves there was a crisis." That sentence commits both cardinal errors at once — it ranks the source for "reliability," and it treats the source's claim as established fact. The strong treatment writes instead: "As a confidential report from a well-placed but interested foreign observer, this dispatch is good evidence of how the regime appeared to informed outsiders — but its purpose was to inform and persuade the ambassador's own master, so its emphasis on instability may be angled to encourage intervention, and my knowledge that government continued to function (Loach, Loades) lets me qualify how far it supports a full 'crisis' reading." The second version evaluates by provenance and purpose, tests the claim against contextual knowledge, and reaches a measured use of the source — which is exactly what AO2 rewards. Internalising that shift, from "is it reliable?" to "what is it evidence of, and how far does it support the interpretation?", is the whole art of Section A.
The two errors that most often cap Section A answers are worth restating because they are so common. The first is the "reliable/unreliable" binary — the belief that evaluation means deciding whether to "trust" a source. It does not: every source is partial, and the task is to establish what each is evidence of. The second is failing to use all four sources: a top answer weighs all four and uses them together, and ignoring one caps the mark. A third, subtler failing is to evaluate the sources one by one but never cross-use them — the strongest answers set the sources against one another, letting the tensions between them (a government functioning even as rebellion rages) carry the analytical weight. Master the four lenses, use every source, cross-refer them, and let the interplay drive your judgement, and Section A becomes the more tractable half of the paper.
Section B is where most marks are won and lost, and where the "narrate versus argue" distinction is decisive. The essay tests AO1 — but AO1 at A-Level does not mean the display of knowledge; it means knowledge deployed as analytical argument to reach a substantiated judgement. A page of accurate narrative that never addresses the proposition scores poorly; a leaner answer that uses its knowledge to argue a case scores highly.
The essential moves of a strong Section B essay are these:
| Move | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| Interrogate the question | Identify and, where useful, problematise the key term (what does "crisis," "success," "failure," "greatest" actually mean here?). The best essays often challenge the framing of the proposition |
| Establish a line of argument | State a clear overall case in the introduction and sustain it — every paragraph should advance and return to it |
| Argue across the whole span | Because Y107 is a period study, deploy evidence from across 1547–1603 (or the relevant stretch), showing command of development, not one episode |
| Deploy precise evidence | Support every analytical point with specific, dated knowledge — names, events, statutes, dates — as evidence for the argument, not as decoration |
| Integrate historiography | Use named historians and schools (paraphrased) as part of the reasoning — deploying Loach or MacCaffrey to decide a point, not merely to name-drop |
| Reach a substantiated judgement | Conclude with a discriminating verdict that follows from the argument — specifying in what respect and to what degree the proposition holds |
The technique that most reliably lifts an essay is disaggregation — the move modelled throughout this course. Faced with a sweeping proposition ("the reign was a crisis," "her foreign policy was a success," "the Catholic challenge was the greater threat"), the strong answer breaks the claim into its dimensions, tests each separately, and reaches a differentiated verdict — because the evidence almost always points in different directions depending on which dimension is examined. A blanket "I agree" or "I disagree" flattens that complexity; the discriminating essay specifies where the proposition holds and where it does not. Planning, too, is worth the two or three minutes it takes: a brief plan that fixes your line of argument and the dimensions you will test prevents the drift into narrative that sinks so many answers.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.