Examiner’s commentary This is a simple response that provides excellent evidence for the stated factor (this is only description). The candidate has however not explained how these individuals have developed medicine (i.e. why there discoveries were important) It does not refer to any other factors 1 1-4 Basic explanation of one or more factors Answer demonstrates basic knowledge and understanding that is relevant to the question. Answer demonstrates a basic line of reasoning, which is coherent, structured with some substantiation; the relevance might be implicit. Candidates recognise and provide a basic explanation which is relevant to one or more factor.
What is needed to make this a level 2? The role of the individual was important in the development of medicine because of key people such as Jenner and Pasteur. Edward Jenner, a country doctor working in Gloucestershire, heard a rumour that milkmaids who had contracted cowpox, a very tame infection of the skin, never caught smallpox. Jenner risked his reputation in order to test this theory out on an 8-year-old boy, James Phipps. Jenner rubbed a dose of cowpox pus into the hand of the boy and the child became ill with cowpox. Several weeks later, Jenner gave James Phipps a large dosage of smallpox, but he did not contract the disease. The cowpox had made him immune. This new discovery was labelled by Jenner vaccination because the Latin word for cow is vacca. This was a major development in medicine because thanks to Jenner and his pioneering work we now had a vaccine for a major disease, which led to further vaccines to be developed. Furthermore, his work on vaccination led to the eradication of smallpox as a disease in 1980. Louis Pasteur in 1861 became known as the father of modern science by discovering that germs cause disease. He did this while researching why wine was turning sour in Lille and in the wine he could see tiny organisms which were germinating (growing), therefore he called his discovery the germ theory. This was a major breakthrough in medicine as it was the first significant step in starting to understand what causes disease, and ultimately how we can treat or prevent it and moved people away from ancient ideas that miasma caused disease.
What is needed in a conclusion? How do you write a good conclusion?
What is a conclusion? A conclusion is not you simply summing up your points from the essay! A conclusion is instead is a place where you get to have your final say on the issues in your essay, the importance of your ideas and show the reader the value of your completely developed argument. In your conclusion you should be clearly answering the question and explaining, with conviction, why your argument is the strongest. A conclusion is not a place for you to bring in a new idea that you haven't already mentioned in the main part of your essay!
Is this a good conclusion? Has the role of the individual been the main factor in the development of medicine in Britain since the Medieval times? Explain your answer with reference to key individuals as well as other factors. Use a range of examples from across your study of Health and the People: c1000 to the Present day. (16 marks) + [SPaG: 4 marks] In conclusion, the role of the individual was the most important factor because without people such as Pasteur, Jenner and Lister and their respective discoveries of the germ theory in 1861, vaccination and carbolics in 1861 then medicine would never have developed from the Medieval period. Is this a good conclusion?
Has the role of the individual been the main factor in the development of medicine in Britain since the Medieval times? Explain your answer with reference to key individuals as well as other factors. Use a range of examples from across your study of Health and the People: c1000 to the Present day. (16 marks) + [SPaG: 4 marks] In conclusion, the role of the individual was the most important factor because without people such as Pasteur, Jenner and Lister and their respective discoveries of the germ theory in 1861, vaccination and carbolics in 1861 then medicine would never have developed from the Medieval period. Praise: It answers the question (makes a judgement) Provides evidence to support Improvements: 1)It does not acknowledge how other factors have contributed to the development of medicine (i.e. it is unbalanced) 2)It does not explain with any conviction why the role of the individual is the main factor (i.e. its not persuading the reader why its argument is strong)