Exam technique and synthesis: sources, interpretations and judgements
Bringing the Unit Together
This lesson synthesises the whole unit — the Hundred Years’ War, the Black Death, and the Peasants’ Revolt — and focuses on the specific exam skills you need to perform well on source and interpretation questions. These questions test different abilities from straightforward recall: they ask you to evaluate evidence, analyse reasoning and construct a substantiated judgement.
Source Utility: The Three-Element Test
A source utility question asks you how useful a source is for a specific enquiry. The most common student mistake is to judge usefulness purely on the basis of who wrote it — “the source is biased because it was written by a monk who supported the king.” This approach caps your marks. A high-mark answer uses all three elements:
Content: What does the source actually say? What specific information does it give you? Summarise and select the relevant detail for the enquiry.
Provenance: Who wrote it, when, and why? What is their likely viewpoint, and how does that affect what they chose to include or omit? A lord’s account of the revolt will emphasise different things from a rebel’s.
Own knowledge: Does what you know about the period support, challenge or add context to the source? This is where your unit knowledge becomes actively useful. If the source describes the Black Death causing labour shortages, you can confirm or nuance this with what you know about the Statute of Labourers.
High-mark source utility answers integrate all three elements: content (what the source says), provenance (who wrote it, when and why), and own contextual knowledge (what you know that helps you judge the source). A response that addresses only one or two of these cannot reach the top band.
Compare Interpretations: Why, Not Just What
The most common error on compare interpretations questions is explaining how two interpretations differ rather than why they differ. These are fundamentally different tasks.
Explaining how they differ: “Interpretation A says the revolt was a failure because serfdom was not abolished. Interpretation B says it was a turning point because serfdom declined over the following century.” This is description — it shows you can read, but it does not engage with the historians’ reasoning.
Explaining why they differ: “Interpretation A was written using chronicle sources hostile to the rebels, leading the author to emphasise immediate suppression. Interpretation B, written in 1973 by a social historian drawing on manor court records, could trace the long-term economic changes unavailable to chronicle writers — which is why their conclusions differ.” This is analysis: it identifies the reasons behind the difference.
Imagine a question: “How useful is Source A for an historian studying the causes of the Peasants’ Revolt?” Source A is a chronicle written by a monk at St Albans Abbey in 1382 describing rebels as “the lowest of the low, incited by the devil.”
Content: The source tells us the rebels were widely seen by the establishment as dangerous criminals motivated by evil. This is useful for understanding how the ruling class perceived the revolt.
Provenance: Written by a monk in 1382 — one year after the revolt. Monks were part of the Church establishment, which suffered during the revolt (Archbishop Sudbury was killed). This author had strong reasons to portray the rebels negatively. This limits the source’s usefulness for understanding the rebels’ own motivations.
Own knowledge: I know that the rebels had specific political demands (abolition of serfdom, the Mile End programme) and were responding to the Poll Tax and Statute of Labourers. The source’s dismissal of their motives is therefore one-sided, but its very hostility tells us something useful about the establishment’s response to popular revolt.
Evaluate an Interpretation: Agree AND Disagree
For 12-mark “evaluate an interpretation” questions, the most common error is pure agreement or pure disagreement. You must argue both ways using your own knowledge, then reach a substantiated overall judgement. Credit goes to:
1. Developed points in support of the interpretation, using specific factual evidence.
2. Developed points that challenge or qualify the interpretation, using specific factual evidence.
3. A clear overall judgement that explains which view you find more convincing and why.
Example: if asked how far you agree that “the Black Death was the main cause of the Peasants’ Revolt,” you would argue in support (labour shortages → Statute of Labourers → resentment; population decline changed economic balance) and against (the Poll Tax of 1380 and the cost of the French Wars were more immediate triggers; John Ball’s ideas had a direct role), before reaching a judgement about whether long-term structural change or short-term triggers were more important.
A substantiated overall judgement does not simply say “I partly agree.” It explains the basis for the conclusion: “The Black Death was a necessary precondition of the revolt — without the labour shortage and resentment it created, the Poll Tax alone would not have triggered mass rebellion — but the immediate cause was the fiscal pressure of the French Wars and the injustice of the 1380 Poll Tax, making the Black Death the more fundamental long-term cause rather than the most important single factor.”
The Extended Essay: Period Essay Structure
For 16-mark period essays covering this unit, the key requirement is a substantiated judgement on the specific question asked. A common mistake is to cover two or three factors adequately but fail to weigh them against each other. The top band is reached by arguing why one factor was more significant than others — not by covering everything.
Structure: brief introduction that signals your overall argument; main paragraphs each organised around one factor or theme with embedded evidence; a conclusion that directly answers the question with a clear, justified overall judgement. The conclusion should not simply repeat your introduction — it should emerge from the argument you have just made.
Writing in the first person or as a narrative (“I was a peasant in 1381 and I felt angry”) caps your analytical marks — extended responses must be written as historical analysis, not creative writing. Covering only one side of the argument prevents you reaching the top band on “how far do you agree?” questions — you must always acknowledge and engage with the counter-argument. Beginning every paragraph with the same sentence structure (“Another reason was...”) signals a list rather than an argument — instead, each paragraph should build on the previous one and contribute to your overall case.