Thanks, I’ll add those to my list.

Are you thinking about Civil Rights? If so, I've recently finished the Jonathan Eig biography of MLK, which I thought was great. For a fiction book, James by Percival Everett is one of the best books I've read in a long time. If you are looking for another topic area let me know and I'll try to help!

Hi, I'm sure I will do - it will be nearer the exams - April/May/June time. I hope the videos are helpful in the meantime!

Thanks for the really insightful detailed comment. That’s a fantastic point.

Hi, sorry to hear this. It seems to be working fine for me. Hopefully it resolves for you.

Thanks for the comment! I’m pleased to hear that. The book is a great read!

Great to hear from you Lara! That’s very kind of you. It is a fascinating episode and the cartoons really bring it to life. Best wishes!

Thanks, that's great to hear!

Thanks for the comment. If the question is asking whether a certain time period was most significant within a larger timeframe, I would suggest starting with the period in question. This means your answer may not be chronological. Generally, chronological makes most sense to me logically but always start with the issue in question. I hope that helps!

Thanks for the comment, that’s a great suggestion!

You are correct. Mea culpa.

Pleased it was helpful!

Pleased it’s useful!

Hi, For your first point - it's difficult to say without seeing the response but if you have given developed summaries at the end of each paragraph that offer substantiated judgements then I can't see why this couldn't get into the top level for a source question. For the second point, contextual knowledge is used to support or challenge inferences made from the source, so to help expand on matters of detail in the source. I hope that helps!

Hi, thanks for the comment and I'm pleased the videos have been helpful. You may have seen this already, but a while back I did a video giving key tips to push essays up to the top of L5 - perhaps incorporating some of these ideas into your work could make a difference? It's here; kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2rMqKh_aq2Vm9U Another tip I would give is thinking about your analytical language and ensuring you are using effective language to really push your analysis further. That said, some teachers don't like giving top marks for essays during the year to ensure students continue to push themselves. So it may be that the same essay would be rewarded more marks in the actual exam. I hope that helps and best of luck with it all!

Thanks for the comment. If you email me at mrgunnhistory[at]gmail.com, I'd be happy to provide some guidance.

@@mrgunnhistory I will do - thank you, that's so kind!!

Yes - you can criticise a source for leaving something out if the omission is vital to the enquiry and has been left out for a reason. For example, if the source is a political speech and is purposely leaving out an event to portray things in a particular way. I hope that helps!

Actually That was by EP Thompson ; it was about 40 years ago .

Thanks for the comment. That is a real classic and a book I enjoyed a lot. It really helped shed light on working class history and opened the door to many more books telling 'history from below'.

Thanks for the comment - good point!

@@mrgunnhistoryyeah, the Gutenberg press..? 😅

Thanks for the suggestion, it's a great idea. This is something I have considered doing and will put on the list to do when I get chance.

Well done!

Send me an email to mrgunnhistory[at]gmail.com and I'll see what I can do

@@mrgunnhistory thanks I have sent it.

Thanks for the comment and hopefully my videos will come in useful!

Some of the principles will apply but I would check the OCR mark scheme to ensure you meet the criteria.

@@mrgunnhistory thank you so much

Interesting, thanks for the comment. I’ll look into that.

For history, the guidance is to not leave any comments on the scripts as an examiner. It may be because of the sheer amount of essays you have to mark as an examiner. I hope that clears things up!

Thanks for the comment. It's difficult to tell without seeing the answer, but if you are very close to the grade above then it may be worth going for the remark. Level 4 and Level 5 of the mark scheme require 'fully supported' or 'fully substantiated judgements', so if you think you have done that within the paragraphs then you may be in with a chance of the score going up. I hope that helps and best of luck with it all.

Thanks! I’ll check those out.

@@mrgunnhistory Also I meant to say they're pretty short not pretty sure and they usually take about 3 to 4 days to read if you're a fast reader.

@@mrgunnhistory I'm pretty sure the author just started continuing the series recently the reprints are on a. ma. zon (Sorry to spell it like that MrTube don't like it for some reason)

Thanks!

Yes, this is a useful thing to do in all essays. Essentially, you are making links between paragraphs and showing how different factors/themes are interconnected. I hope that helps!

@@mrgunnhistory I understand to an extent, However with Russia in the revolution topic (paper 2c) there aren't distinctive key themes like in Britain's paper 1 so how would I go about linking it? here is a piece of information I wrote do you mind telling me if I linked it well ( this is on the question ‘The Tsarist government was transformed in the years 1906-14, How Far do you agree with the Statement’ and it's a little bit taken out of my first paragraph Evidence: Additionally, the Manifesto's promise of a Duma with real power, where new laws could only come into force with the Duma's approval, represented a significant change in governance. Evaluate: This was a substantial transformation as it introduced accountability and shared power in the legislative process. The autocratic system was inherently altered by requiring the Tsar to share legislative power with an elected body. The Duma provided a platform for political parties and opposition groups to influence government policy and decisions, significantly transforming the tsarist regime by eroding the Tsar's absolute control. Links to other parts of the syllabus:This links to the February Revolution of 1917, where the Duma's erosion of the Tsar's absolute control demonstrated its significant

@@moab_gaming1239 Hi, the final part of your comment seemed to have been cut off, but I get the idea. With linking for this question, the key would be to make links between the different ways the Tsarist government was transformed (or not), so if your first paragraph is on the Duma and your second paragraph is on the power of workers (for example), then you would make links between those two things. I hope that helps!

That’s a good idea and something I’ll aim to do in the future. I would suggest looking through the examiners reports for past papers as they are useful in understanding how the mark scheme is applied.

Thanks for the suggestion!

I'll need to go back to it soon - I've reread The Things They Carried but not Matterhorn.

Hi, This is a great question. Your first example is correct - valid criteria means means by which the issue in question can be judged. However, to be rewarded, It can be done either way - either defining key terms and setting out parameters or by having a clear basis for your argument (ie the GDR's economy was successful because XYZ' - essentially you are doing the same thing either way. Criteria is the area that students do have most difficulty with - I've made a couple of videos on this issue which may be useful too; Focusing on criteria; kzbin.info/www/bejne/m3O2aYaojtJ0a6c Another way of thinking about criteria; kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6SqiqRmod2Gm9k I hope that helps!

That’s great to hear, thanks!

Hi, Thanks for the comment. I wouldn't worry too much about this - if you have been engaging with the focus of the question consistently throughout the answer then the order of the paragraphs isn't a huge issue. You've focused on the argument in question initially, which is good and offered some alternative ideas, so I don't think you need to worry - examiners aren't expecting a single approach. I hope that helps and best of luck with it all!

You can briefly introduce the lines of argument from the interpretations within Section A if you want to, but as you say, this section is primarily giving your view. In terms of the second intro - this could either come at the start of the whole essay or at the start of the second section. I personally think it makes sense for it to be early on in the essay but ultimately the coursework structure is up to you and whatever is most logical for you. I hope that helps.

Hi, Good question. The suggestion you make is a good one - as you are essentially linking back to the factor in the question in another paragraph (always a good thing). However (as you suggest), it may come across as contradictory if you do this consistently and yet argue that the factor in the question isn't the most important factor. This is why summaries at the end of each paragraph are really important - you can link back to the factor in the question but still fully weigh up the relative importance of each factor then. I hope that helps!

@@mrgunnhistory thank you. I have two further questions. 1) Since it could come across as contradictory would it be better to not use such evaluation - is it even necessary to reach the top levels? 2) When it comes to the organisation bulletin in the top band, how critical is to follow a structure of one paragraph for and then two paragraphs against? For instance, if the question was about the accuracy of something and you though that the statement was not accurate, the traditional structure would be to write a paragraph supporting the statement and then two against. But what if someone wrote one paragraph against the statement and then a paragraph supporting the statement and then another paragraph against the statement. Would that be disorganised and wrong or would it be fine?

@@SarahLayton-hu7jm Hi, here are some answers 1) It isn't necessary. You can do it, as long as your overall argument is coherent and logical but be wary of too many counterpoints which can make the whole thing seem less coherent. 2) This would be fine. There isn't an expectation of one paragraph for and one against, it is very possible to get L5 for two paragraphs on the focus of the question and one against provided you cover a sufficient range of evidence. I hope that helps!

Hi, here is a video I have done on counterpoints; kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJ_XgaOhmdlgaZY Generally, your first paragraph will be the factor in the question and your other two paragraphs will be alternatives. Counterpoints are useful but don't feel the need to do it every single paragraph. I hope that helps!

That's a great question. Worst case scenario you could potentially cut out the intro and use two pieces of evidence per paragraph (I would still aim for three), focusing more on linking back to the question consistently and writing a decent conclusion. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but I hope that helps!

I think so, I’ve had students who are doing CIE tell me that these approaches work. Best of luck with it all!

Hi, thanks for the comment. If you have only covered between 1884-1928 in a question with dates from 1780-1928 it will mean that you can't access L5 (which needs 75% coverage) for the bullet point on evidence. You could still end up with a L5 mark if your analysis, criteria and structure are good but for the bullet point of the mark scheme on evidence you wouldn't be able to get L5. In other words, you may not get 20/20 but you could still get a high score if everything else is worthy of L5. I hope that makes sense!

@@mrgunnhistory thank you. I was reading the examiners’ report and apparently I wouldn’t even reach L4 with that coverage, it would be more L3. Does this mean that even if everything else was good, I wouldn’t get at least 17/20? Also, what if I minimally referred to an earlier time period? For instance, in my first paragraph supporting the 1884 reform act, I talked about how from 1832-1884 there had been minimal change and how in the 1850s there had been riots for more change; but after 1884 there was much more change. So, I didn’t talk in depth about the 1830s or 1850s but I did mention it somewhat. Is the result still the same as you said?

@@TainaWoods If you minimally referred to the earlier period then that may push it to L4 - it is difficult to say without seeing the answer an something like that depends on the level of detail you have in the answer. As you say, you could still score highly if the essay is meeting the criteria for the other L5 bullet points. I hope that helps!

Hi, that's a great question. Just looking at grade boundaries from 2019, the % needed for an A* varied from 82-86% depending on the option, whereas 2023 was 85-88%. It's hard to say whether things will go up or down, as these things are calculated once all the marking has been done. However, last year's were higher than before so hopefully they won't be as high. It's generally the case that scoring 17/20 (85%) or above will guarantee an A*.

@@mrgunnhistory Got you! Thank you for all your help sir

Have the same argument all the way through is really useful but sustained analysis is more about not having any sections that slip into narrative description. Essentially, make sure you are linking your evidence back to the question rather than telling the story. I hope that helps!

Thanks! Chickenhawk is now on the top of my to-read list.

The main thing to remember with paragraph three (on provenance) is explaining the impact of the provenance on the value of the source for each enquiry. Going through each point (nature, origin, purpose) would work. I hope that helps!