FINDING A “PATHWAY”THROUGH ASSESSMENT

UNIT HI3: SOURCE QUESTIONS

• You will be required to answer one Single Source evidence question and one Multi Source evidence question from a choice of four within your In Depth Study. You are guaranteed a question on each area but you will not know whether they will be Single or Multi Source questions. Therefore to be safe, you will need to learn at least three of the topics.

• Time allowed : it is advised to take 35 minutes for the single source and 55 minutes for the multi-source

• In the Single Source question, you will be required to show knowledge and understanding, be able to interpret the source, making deductions and reaching conclusions, and finally evaluate the source in relation to the topic studied and reach a judgement.

QUESTION FORMAT : SINGLE SOURCE

• There will be 3 types of questions in the Single Source
  
  1. Explain briefly the meaning of the phrase.[4 marks]
  2. What information can be inferred from the source about...?[8 marks]
  3. How useful is the source to an understanding of....? [20 marks]
  
  There is thus a hierarchy of difficulty from simple comprehension and explanation, to interpretation, and then evaluation, and this is reflected in the marks awarded for each section.

• Examiners have identified several weaknesses within the responses of students, in relation to answering document questions:
• Poor reading of the Sources

• Failure of candidates to place the Sources within their historical context

• Failure to appreciate the contribution of sources

• Mistimed answers

EXAMPLE : THE SINGLE SOURCE

“To me the most memorable and nightmarish of my experiences at this time was the session of the Reichstag which passed the Enabling Bill. The very atmosphere of the place was one of death ... for the Reichtstag was being asked to do nothing other than to commit suicide.

5 Hitler needed a two-thirds majority ... and this he could not obtain without the 93 votes of the Centre Party. Bruning, had been re-elected leader in the Reichstag but the head of the party itself was Monsignor Ludwig Kaas. Bruning was opposed to voting for the Bill without a written pledge from Hitler to respect the President’s veto. The Kroll Opera House was packed; nearly 300 nazi deputies, half a hundred Nationalists; a marked absence of

10 Communists; and fewer Socialists than could have been present, because some were in hospital, some had fled the country and some were too frightened to leave their homes Along the corridors SS men had been posed .... Outside, a mob of SA chanted “Give us the Bill or else fire and murder”. The session opened with a Hitler speech remarkable for its lack of colour. He was followed by Otto

15 Wels, leader of the SPD, who .....delivered a speech of such naked courage that one wanted to stand up and cheer. He gave his party’s vote against the Bill. The effect on Hitler was demonic. So infuriated was he that he gave a second speech. Only exhaustion brought the Fuhrer to a close. In the silence which followed, Goering called on Kaas to speak. At a party meeting before the session, Kaas, had had to

20 admit that he had received no letter from Hitler. Bruning steadfastly opposed support for the Bill but Kaas carried the Right wing of the party with him. In breathless silence, he gave the Centre’s vote in favour of the Bill.”

(From Knaves, Fools and Heroes, the memoirs of Sir John Wheeler-Bennett, a British Historian, (1974)

• Explain briefly the meaning of the phrase “the President’s veto’. (Line 8) (4)
• What information may be inferred from the source about the Centre Party’s
  attitude to the Enabling Bill? (8)
• How useful is the source to the understanding of the steps taken by the Nazis
  to ensure the passing of the enabling bill?

(You are advised to use in your answer relevant background knowledge as well as information derived from the source).

GUIDANCE

• There will be a choice of question, so you should look at question c) to determine the nature of the topics- you will not have enough time to read both sets of sources. Make up your mind which question you are going to answer and then commit yourself fully to it. Forget about the other question.

• Consider your wider knowledge of the topic and list the key issues related to it.

• Consider the date, author and circumstances relating to the source.

• Then you should actually read the source, whilst at the same time relating your knowledge to the source. Carry out an almost verbal autopsy on the source and highlight key words/ideas etc. Already you are starting to think about what isn’t included in the source.(This may take about 5-10 minutes) You should now start answering the questions.

NB. Many students start by reading the questions first without considering them within the context of the source.

This, I think is a major fault.

• Question (a) is straightforward, identify the central issue and answer giving as much factual accuracy as you can. In this case “the President’s veto”. The greater the factual accuracy the higher the level.

• In question (b) again highlight the key words i.e. “Centre Party’s attitude to the Enabling Bill.” You will obviously need to show your knowledge of the Centre Party and the Enabling Bill, take nothing for granted, it is your role to show the examiner exactly what you know. However, in order to achieve quality of response and level 2 here[4-8 marks], you must consider the source in the context of the issue i.e. What it tells you and what it doesn’t tell you. The tone of the document is also important and needs comment upon

• In question (c) again identify the key issue, in this case “How useful”, “steps taken by the Nazis”, “passing of the Enabling Act”. “How useful” in this case refers to what the source confirms, contradicts and leaves out about the steps taken by the Nazis to pass the Act. Make an analytical comment and back it up from the source. Point out the limitations of the evidence and point out what it doesn’t say. Of course, the source might only give you a limited view because of the bias of the author, and this I think is also worth mentioning. You will only be able to point out what it doesn’t say, if you know your work!!!

DON’TS:

• Don’t give a summary of the source.

• Don’t start your answer with “it says”.

So to achieve a quality answer in (b) [level 2], you would be expected to point out the divisions of the Centre Party over the Act, but also to consider what they had to gain from its passing, together with the political leanings of the party.

In (c) to achieve a level 3 mark, and quality of response, you would point out that although the source gives a reasonably good account of the steps taken by the Nazis, it doesn’t give the full picture. There were other tactics employed i.e. Reichstag Decrees; negotiations with the Centre Party; Hitler feigned moderation and religious conviction. etc.

Using this systematic approach, you thus have a pathway to quality of response within the Single Source.