Cambridge Pre-U Getting Started In-service Training Liberating learning Developing successful students

Paper 1

One format of Questions for Paper 1 Read the documents in the accompanying Resource Booklet and answer all the questions below. 1 Study Document 1 (a) (i) Identify two examples or pieces of evidence in Document 1. [2] (ii) Evaluate these two examples or pieces of evidence.[4] (b) Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the reasoning in Document 1. [12] 2 Study Documents 1 and 2 To what extent does the perspective in Document 2 challenge or reinforce the perspective in Document 1?[12] [Total: 30]

Paper 1 Q1 (a) (i) Candidates identify two examples or pieces of evidence ( 2 marks) Critical that what they offer is actually example/evidence and not merely a statement taken from the text This is a ‘point’ mark scheme, not a best fit

Question 1 (a) (ii) Candidates may use a variety of criteria to evaluate the evidence and no set criteria are to be expected. At the higher levels candidates may consider both the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence, although it is likely that most answers will focus on the weaknesses. There are two marks available for the evaluation of each piece of evidence and in order to access the higher mark candidates should have fully evaluated the evidence, where the evaluation is not developed or is general award one mark. Candidates should go beyond simple evaluative comment –

Question 1(b) Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses in the reasoning (12) Level marks Sustained evaluation of strength and weaknesses of reasoning, critical assessment with explicit reference to how flaws and counter argument support the claim. Highly effective, accurate and clearly expressed explanation and reasoning; clear evidence of structured argument/discussion, with conclusions reached/explicitly stated in a cogent and convincing manner. Level marks Some evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of reasoning, but evaluation may focus on one aspect; assessment of flaws etc may not link clearly to the claim. Effective and generally accurate explanation and reasoning; some evidence of structured argument/discussion; conclusions may not be explicitly stated or link directly to the analysis. Level marks Little or no evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, although flaws etc may be identified. Level of communication is limited, response may be cursory or descriptive; communication does not deal with complex subject matter.

1(b) Key concepts – Critical Assessment At the highest level this will be explained rather than asserted Goes beyond one aspect Is explicit The view is structured

1(b) Evaluate strengths and weaknesses Identify flaws Assess the use of analogy Assess any counter argument Evaluate strengths or weaknesses in the reasoning by identifying flaws and showing how far they weaken reasoning

This is a level of response mark scheme What is required is SUSTAINED evaluation, not just comments There should be a BALANCE between strengths and weaknesses – i.e. both should be taken into account – there is not an expectation that they will be equally balanced The reasoning should be highly effective, accurate and clearly expressed There should be a STRUCTURE There should be cogent and convincing JUDGEMENT

What does this mean? Sustained evaluation – not just intermittent critical comment or description There should be some attempt to consider both strengths and weaknesses – though the aim is deconstruction, this does not mean total demolition Consideration of flaws and reference to the language of criticism are important, but candidates should not apply critical terms mechanically; they should be explained and used

What does this mean (cont.)? Effective explanation and reasoning means that there is some developed explanation and the view convinces. “The argument is weak because it appeals to history” isn’t convincing – why is the appeal to history unconvincing? Why is the analogy unconvincing?

Is this better? The author appeals to history, but this may not be valid. What applied to one period may not be true of today. The Victorian reforms applied to one country and were undertaken in a different context. The author is applying changes in one developed country to changes in different, less developed countries in an international not a national context..

Effective reasoning and judgements Assertions do not convince Assumptions do not convince Prejudice does not convince There should be a judgement and not merely a resume of the points in the argument The answer should be organized and not merely a series of observations The conclusion should follow from the points made

Best Fit In a best fit mark scheme, not all of the criteria need necessarily be met

Q.2 To what extent does the perspective in Document..challenge or reinforce the perspective in Document...?

Mark scheme Level marks Answers at this level will demonstrate a sustained judgement about whether the reinforcement or challenge is effective. There will be sustained evaluation of alternative perspectives; critical assessment with explicit reference to key issues raised in the passages leading to a reasoned and sustained judgement. Highly effective, accurate and clearly expressed explanation and reasoning; clear evidence of structured argument/ discussion, with conclusions reached/explicitly stated in a cogent and convincing manner. Level marks Answers at this level will be more than just a comparison of the two documents; there will be some evaluation, but this will not be sustained and may focus on one perspective; assessment may not link key reasons and evidence clearly to the perspective or to the reasoned judgement. Effective and generally accurate explanation and reasoning; some evidence of structured argument/discussion; conclusions may not be explicitly stated or link directly to analysis. Level marks Answers at this level will compare a few points and there will be little or no evaluation of perspectives, although some relevant evidence or reasons may be identified. If there is any judgement it will be unsupported or superficial. Level of communication is limited; response may be cursory or descriptive; communication does not deal with complex subject matter.

Question 2 Compare the alternative perspectives (i.e. views, arguments and conclusions) in the two documents Refer to key reasons and evidence State and explain your own reasoned judgement about how far the perspective in one extract challenges the other

Key elements in mark scheme Highly effective accurate and clearly expressed explanation (of differences) which is structured STRUCTURED This means that key differences/similarities are identified. Candidates deconstruct the passages and then compare/contrast on a point by point basis. Consecutive descriptions will not meet this criterion.

Sustained evaluation; critical assessment The answer is not merely a ‘spot the differences’ piece of comprehension Higher level comparison will judge the relative effectiveness and quality of argument of the two passages There will be a judgement about their relative value and nature which follows from the analysis

Some key indicators in assessment Is the answer reliant on describing elements of the passage? Is there a judgement at all about the passage(s)? Is the judgement developed and explained or dependent on assertion or application of learnt criteria ? Is there a sense of developed critical deconstruction based on genuine analysis and consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments?

Assessment and Teaching There are different skills here, some of which candidates will have already and some which they will need to acquire or develop Is it worthwhile asking them to consider what skills they have from KS3 and GCSE that are relevant? Is it worthwhile making it quite clear what skills they will need and how to assess whether they are developing those skills appropriately?

The basic skills Reading and understanding an extended passage Picking out the evidence that the author uses When have candidates done this before? Can all of them actually do this, and to what level?

Comparison Can candidates actually compare the content of passages point by point? When have they been asked to do this before? Can they all do it?

Evaluation This may not have been an explicitly demanded skill before A level When have candidates had to make a supported judgement about a view, argument, proposition? Is there experience to build on? How is progress going to be measured?

How are you going to measure the level of attainment of skills? Differentiation is particularly important here There is likely to be a very different development rate here, as acquisition of content is not involved, so intellectual skills are being tested in a ‘pure’ way It is important that able students are challenged and those who find this type of thinking more challenging are encouraged

Some teaching issues To manage different rates of learning To encourage all abilities to discuss To avoid students taking short cuts To overcome prejudices about contemporary issues To ensure that skills feed back into Pre-U/A level subjects To ensure that the broader picture – enrichment and opening minds – does not get lost and that deconstruction does not become nitpicking and negative To promote a sense of achievement and pride in progress during the course

Some possible solutions Students and teachers have a clear idea of the different skills levels attained and what is needed to develop and improve skills Discussion is specifically expected, valued and rewarded All colleagues are aware of the skills being taught in GPR and are encouraged to refer to them and reward their application.