His3b exemplar

A Level History Unit 3B The Triumph of Elizabeth: Britain, 1547 - 1603

Exemplar Scripts and Commentaries

Version 1.0 1

Copyright Š 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (company number 3644723). Registered address: AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX 2

Contents

1

HIS3B Question Paper

p5

2

Question 1 Candidate A Response

p7

3

Question 1 Candidate A Commentary

p 11

4

Question 1 Candidate B Response

p 12

5

Question 1 Candidate B Commentary

p 16

6

Question 1 Candidate C Response

p 17

7

Question 1 Candidate C Commentary

p 21

8

Question 2 Candidate D Response

p 22

9

Question 2 Candidate D Commentary

p 26

10

Question 2 Candidate E Response

p 27

11

Question 2 Candidate E Commentary

p 31

12

Question 2 Candidate F Response

p 32

13

Question 2 Candidate F Commentary

p 36

14

Question 3 Candidate G Response

p 37

15

Question 3 Candidate G Commentary

p 40

16

Question 3 Candidate H Response

p 41

17

Question 3 Candidate H Commentary

p 45

18

Question 3 Candidate I Response

p 46

19

Question 3 Candidate I Commentary

p 49

3

4

5

6

Candidate A

7

8

9

10

Commentary Question 1 Candidate A This demonstrates many of the qualities expected of a Level 5 response. It shows a full understanding of the demands of the question. The argument is clearly sustained through the answer and there is a wide range of supporting evidence. There is conceptual depth and substantial evidence of independent thinking and exercise of judgement, which is strongly evident particularly in the comparative evaluations of the two reigns. (A good example of this can be found in the discussion of financial policy in the second paragraph). It does not cover all aspects of the two reigns, but what is covered is addressed with commendable conceptual depth. The answer demonstrates historical debate effectively, though only one historian is mentioned by name, thereby demonstrating that historiographical approaches are not essential for the achievement of marks at Level 5. The answer has been fluently and stylishly written.

11

Candidate B

12

13

14

15

Commentary Question 1 Candidate B The candidate has produced an effective Level 4 response which lacks the fluency, control and conceptual depth to reach Level 5, though it is undoubtedly knowledgeable and analytical in approach. The relative lack of fluency and control is evident in the way in which the candidate establishes the parameters of her answer in the first paragraph.

The second paragraph contains a sound analysis of Marian government. This is generally well understood, though there are some rough edges. Paget and Gardiner, for example, had hardly been “great supporters of bringing about religious reform during Edward‟s reign”. Some conflicts are not resolved, particularly in respect of the relationship between the number of councillors and the quality of government. There is an effective comparison of government under Somerset and Northumberland, though this section of the answer could have concluded with a more emphatic judgement. There is an effective understanding of both Mary‟s naval and militia reforms and of the policy towards heretics.

The conclusion is thoughtful – with due credence being given to the work of Northumberland. (More might have been made of Northumberland‟s contribution in the main body of the answer).

In short, this answer shows many of the qualities which are typical of a solid Level 4 response. The question has been clearly understood and there has been a generally effective attempt to evaluate the material. There is some detailed evidence offered. In the final analysis, however, the answer lacks the analytical development to be considered for a mark higher than that awarded.

16

Candidate C

17

18

19

20

Commentary Question 1 Candidate C Though this Level 3 response had some merits, it also had a substantial number of limitations which prevented it from gaining a higher mark. The answer demonstrated an understanding of the demands of the question. In the introduction the candidate showed that they knew what they needed to do; unfortunately, the rest of the answer demonstrated that the ability to do this was rather patchy.

Apart from a very brief second paragraph on Mary‟s reign, the candidate adopted a chronological approach which enabled them to deal separately with the three periods of rule covered by the question. The most successful part of the answer was that which dealt with Somerset‟s protectorate. This paragraph demonstrated some analytical skill in which assessment was backed by relevant and appropriate evidence. The Regency Council, the expensive Scottish foreign policy and the Vagrancy Act of 1547 were all discussed. Furthermore, the candidate was able to establish some measure of governmental responsibility for the rebellions of 1549. Though the argument lacked tightness in places, it was undoubtedly evident.

Unfortunately, the treatment of Northumberland was much less secure, a common feature of weaker responses to this question. Some of Northumberland‟s key measures were mentioned and a favourable judgement of Northumberland‟s presidency was arrived at. Unfortunately, the basis on which this judgement was based was rather thin.

Mary‟s reign was treated in a similarly cursory fashion. There was a discussion of the burning of heretics, but this was not carried through with any conviction. Other aspects of Mary‟s reign were ignored.

There was an attempt at producing a conclusion, but this lacked depth and conviction.

In short, the answer produced some assessment, but lacked depth and the level of historical interpretation was superficial.

21

Candidate D

22

23

24

25

Commentary Question 2 Candidate D This is a good example of an answer which was deemed to have sufficient understanding to be placed in the lower part of Level 4, but which lacked the range and sustained evaluation to merit a greater reward.

The answer began quite well, though it is not really good practice to assert one‟s conclusion emphatically in the first sentence. The opening paragraph certainly demonstrates an awareness of the conflicting religious pressures facing Elizabeth at the start of her reign, whilst the second paragraph explores the Protestant aspects of the Settlement. There is a clear awareness of the ambiguities and confusions surrounding the Settlement and how these contributed to later problems, such as the Vestiarian Controversy, though there is some confusion about the Eucharistic implications of the 1552 Prayer Book.

There is an attempt, not altogether successful, to discuss the significance of Elizabeth‟s own religious views. The judgements are over-simplified, and the argument is not helped by the historiographical reference to Neale and the „Puritan Choir‟. The essay then loses its way somewhat. There is a rather laboured attempt to demonstrate Elizabeth‟s religious moderation by comparison with the radical approach to religious change which provoked discontent in 1549. The candidate would have been better served by focusing on the relevant implementation of the Settlement in the later stages of Elizabeth‟s own reign. There is a forceful conclusion, though the historical judgements expressed there are rather naïve.

This response therefore has enough analysis to get into the lower part of Level 4, but the latter part of response is rather weak and the range of evidence used is only just sufficient for this level.

26

Candidate E

27

28

29

30

Commentary Question 2 Candidate E This showed just enough relevant understanding and conceptual grasp to be placed in low Level 4. However, it lacked sufficient development to be awarded a higher mark. The candidate began by placing the 1559 Settlement in context. There was, perhaps, too much concentration on the background to the Settlement; in the question the context is best established by examining the state of the Church across the whole period with due cognisance given to its condition at the end of the reign. The second paragraph demonstrated a clear understanding of the Act of Uniformity, with the insight that “this was clearly leaning towards Protestantism but not quite fully�. Unfortunately, the implications of this insight were not developed.

The candidate did have an awareness not only that Elizabeth had seen the Settlement as final but also that many more radical Protestants saw it as interim. The implications of this were understood at a basic level, but the further exploration of the theme, which would have gained a much higher mark, was missing. The answer then rather lost its way in the penultimate paragraph, but recovered its relevance in the final paragraph, which contained a neatly expressed conclusion.

31

Candidate F

32

33

34

35

Commentary Question 2 Candidate F Whilst this candidate showed some relevant knowledge and understanding, they did struggle to cope with the requirements of the question, and this meant that the answer could not be placed in Level 4. The candidate began by writing out the question, a practice not to be recommended under examination conditions. There was an attempt to establish a context related to the 1559 Settlement in the first and second paragraphs, though there is no attempt to place the condition of the Church throughout the period in context.

On the other hand, there is an effective understanding of the religious position in which Elizabeth found herself at the start of the reign. There was an attempt to relate the material on Catholicism to the terms of the question, but this was largely unsuccessful. Rather more successful was the attempt to argue that the physical fabric of churches did represent a move in a Protestant direction, though the implications of this insight were not developed. A relevant theme which was mentioned but which should have been developed much further included the Prayer Book. The insight that there was a “steady but relentless effect of gradual Protestantism� was not really explored. The answer produced some relevant but limited assessment only.

36

Candidate G

37

38

39

Commentary Question 3 Candidate G The candidate here tried to argue a case. Relevance was consistently maintained. However, there were limitations with this answer, particularly in respect of the quality and accuracy of the supporting evidence, for example the apparent confusion between Ireland and Scotland. There was some effective evaluation of English involvement in the Netherlands and there was also a relevant conclusion. However, the material used was minimal for a Level 4 response, for which only the most basic mark was available.

40

Candidate H

41

42

43

44

Commentary Question 3 Candidate H This was an uneven response, which might be seen as typical of many answers which achieved Level 3 marks.

Though the elaboration of objectives towards Spain was over-simplified, there was much promise in the early stages of the answer. There was a sustained discussion of the importance of Leicesterâ€&#x;s expedition to the Netherlands (though Leicester is misidentified). Unfortunately, however, the Netherlands in the 1590s was ignored, as also is the war at sea. This left too many significant gaps in the treatment of Anglo-Spanish relations. The conclusion tended to misfire, as it was focused far more on the 1570s than on the period from 1585 to 1603.

45

Candidate I

46

47

48

Commentary Question 3 Candidate I This was a relatively weak answer which was assessed towards the lower end of Level 3.

The approach was descriptive. There was little detail, and the analysis of key areas, such as the defeat of the Spanish Armada and English involvement in the Netherlands, were very simplified. There is a grasp of the financial implications of foreign policy, but this was insufficiently developed. The conclusion does demonstrate relevance, but the basis on which that conclusion was reached was insubstantial.

49