PLEASE help: History NEA AQA

I did OCR History, and got 34/40 (A) in my NEA. Our teacher was a moderator for OCR as well.

He told us that we should aim for 5 primary sources & 5 secondary sources at a minimum, and not go over that. 3 is probably too low and doesn't allow for proper scope. 10-20 is far too much and your NEA will be vague and not answer the question properly and you'll fail to reach into higher levels. Remember, coursework has much higher grade boundaries and they don't change in any given year. 80% is an A and 90% is an A*, so it's very important to get it right.

Thank you! OCR is probably different, but on the AQA mark scheme it says only 3 primary sources and I agree that that seems quite limited. I've found 10 so far and tbh analysing them did take a long time, so I'll aim to include half. For AQA 20 marks can be rewarded for our own context/research, 10 marks for the contemporary sources and then the final 10 marks for the historiography. It also says on the mark scheme that we only need to reference the historiography twice, but what does that mean? Say, for example, I mentioned it for two rebellions, but excluded it for the rest, would that be enough times? Sorry ahaha the mark scheme is super vague and my plan is to study History at university, so achieving top band means a lot to me.

The structure seems to be quite confusing from the mark scheme. For OCR, AO1 was 20 marks, AO2 and AO3 were both 10, just the same as AQA's. Be mindful of the word count though! OCR didn't have one, but AQA will penalise you.

This is the recommended structure our teacher gave us and the one that I used.

You should have a good length introduction which introduces your question and the debate, and it would be good to namedrop and give a very brief overview of one of your historian's views regarding the debate with reference to the text you're using (AO3).

Now, for the main body of your essay:

Each paragraph should include within it 1 primary source and 1 historian. If you have 5 primary sources and historians that means around 5 paragraphs. Within each paragraph you should analyse the primary source and test it against your own knowledge (which will get you AO1 marks). But also consider NCOP for primary sources, that is very important if you want to hit the top bands. Historians should have their views analysed, and evaluated using your own knowledge and then you can make a final statement which agrees with your thesis. Do not evaluate an historian with a different historian, that's weak evaluation.

Generally, you should refer to a different historian in every paragraph. I think the markscheme is saying that you should not refer to the same historian more than twice.

Hope this helps.

If you are doing AQA, you only need 3 (there should be at least 2 different types) primary sources to analyse. However, you can include it in but you dont need to analyse them compared to the three.

Thanks so much!! Sorry, what does NCOP mean? That’s wonderful thank you . Oh phew, my plan was to compare the two historians’ views for the evaluation, but thank you for noting the weakness in doing so.

Thank you!! So I can include as many as I like, as long as three are analyses? I was thinking of including a maximum of 7 for because they’ll be one for each rebellion/plot.

Thank you!! So I can include as many as I like, as long as three are analyses? I was thinking of including a maximum of 7 for because they’ll be one for each rebellion/plot.

Nature (Is it a newspaper? Poster? Journal?)

Content (What's it saying?)

Origin (Where did it come from?)

Purpose (What did the author intend to do with the piece? If it's a journal entry, probably just exercise their thoughts. Poster? Maybe propaganda)

And yeah, an historian v another historian is, pretty much, he said, she said - one's word against another. It's technically allowed but there is little scope for proper evaluation, and, in the OCR mark schemes, at least, fail to reach the top bands.

Hope this helps!

Got it, thanks . That makes sense and it’s sorta a relief too because I was fretting over the fact that my paragraphs would be wayyy too long if I had to include both historians each time. Thank you!!
I agree, it is annoying. Actually, I asked my teacher whether it would be suitable to reference one rebellion per monarch, as it would then be 5 revolts (excluding Lady Jane Grey 😂), but he said I’ll lose marks if it’s that formulaic and that it’s important to cover change and continuity e.g. Henry VII managed to ward off any threat of pretenders/usurpers after using Phillip of Burgundy as a bargaining tool to capture Suffolk, but this threat resurfaced when certain chroniclers questioned Prince Henry’s legitimacy, so Henry VIII executed the Duke in 1513...then how Henry was just old enough to rule without a regent, but his son had to be supervised by Somerset, who was very sympathetic towards the western rebels’ economic grievances and, arguably, stimulated the uprising by convincing them that his leniency was a loophole.
That probably made little sense, but you get the gist 😂. So, I guess my point is it’s difficult because I 100% agree with you about including the most significant rebellions .
But because it has to span 100 years, my teacher said we even have to explain why Henry VII managed to avoid any further rebellions (our depth study is actually the Wars of the Roses 1455-99, so it’s tricky ensuring that I exclude any information from the previous century) and I’m not sure how much detail to go into - do I have to explain why the economy was stable; why the population was satisfied religiously; what terms England was on with France and Scotland?
Last thing sorry, I’m also unsure as to whether I have to include plots, as the title states ‘rebellion’ e.g. do the Throckmorton, Ridolfi and Babington Plots count?

If they do, then my structure will (probably) be as follows:
Introduction: 300 words
Overview of the historiography: briefly explain which historians I’ve chosen, their educational background and beliefs, etc - 400 words.
Paragraph 1: the de la Poles and how Henry VII prevented further revolts (despite dying 3 years later...) - 500
Paragraph 2: Pilgrimage of Grace/Lincolnshire Rising - 650 words because this includes a primary source and historiography.
Paragraph 3: Western Rebellion - 600 words.
Paragraph 4: Kett’s Rebellion - 650 words (same as para 1 in terms of what’s being include, but a painting this time, rather than a parliamentary roll).
Paragraph 5: Wyatt’s Rebellion - 600 words, as there’s a primary source I’d like to include, but I won’t go into too much detail. Also the historiography briefly.
Paragraph 6: Northern Rebellion - 500 words
Paragraph 7: potentially the plots? I’d probably provide some context on Sir Francis Walsingham, soo maybe 600 words because they follow a similar storyline.
Conclusion: I believe that leaves 350 words?
please let me know if this is a mess aha.

Hi,

I didn't study the Tudors so I can't help you much in terms of content, only structure.

Your teacher is right that one plot/revolt per monarch would be too formulaic, and it's important that, with your question especially, that you look at trends, changes and continuity. That would allow you to reach the top levels/bands and allows for great scope of historical debate. However, I don't think paragraph 7 would work too well because if you're covering several plots then it will be muddled and the paragraph just won't have enough depth to cover analysis and evaluation properly. You must avoid storytelling/narratives, because it's a waste of words and will gain you little to no marks. Maybe some AO1 marks, but the lowest bands.

I disagree with your choice of focussing on different rebellions like that. The question talks about whether or not religion was the main cause for revolt(?), so ideally, you should be focussing your subsequent paragraphs around other factors, where the rebellions/plots are to be used as evidence to support or negate the point you're trying to make.

I did my coursework on how widespread economic prosperity was in the US during the 1920s. To that end, I established a criteria of prosperity, and areas I wanted to investigate, e.g. consumer behaviour patterns, changes in women's role in society, the black experience to name a few, and I used various pieces of evidence to support the overarching theme of the paragraph. That means that your essay mustn't focus on a rebellion in the way you're doing, because I fear it would end up narrative. It must look at an overarching theme. Perhaps economic, for example. And then build from there using the evidence of the rebellions you have. Again, sorry for not being to help much with the content.

Hope this helps.

Also, I'm confused as to whether the historians I've selected are strong choices - Geoffrey R. Elton and C.S.L Davies. Elton is often praised as the founding father of Tudor history, and he's very open about how his writing sways towards the political side of the 16th century, but Davies literally reveals in his introduction that he opposes separating the background of events into 'factors', so it's difficult to decipher what he sees as the prime cause.

Oh my goodness thank you so, so much! I was about to start planning it and you're completely right, I can't believe I didn't realise that I should be focusing on each factor before, rather than just repeating the stories of each rebellion. In that case, I could cover religious, economic, social and political factors (both nationally and internationally e.g. relations with Spain), but would it be better to discuss each factor in a separate paragraph, or to combine them somehow?

The reason I ask is because Wyatt's Rebellion of 1554, for example, was primarily provoked by religious discontent (as Mary I sought to practically devolve her father's work and return to Catholicism) and dynastic marriage (since she was eager to marry Philip II of Spain and his nation was staunchly Catholic), so my overall argument is pretty much that religion was present in each rebellion, but in some cases, such as Kett's Rebellion, which was due to rack-renting and other economic grievances, it was far less significant.
I'm really sorry if that doesn't make much or any sense. I set today aside to start planning it and hope to write it midway through September, but now that you've highlighted the issues with my initial structure, I'm not sure how to reshape it. Thanks again!

Each factor must be in a separate paragraph. Otherwise, I'm unsure of how you are supposed to reach the word count?

Yes, you can link factors together. Depending on your thesis, you can say how on the surface level it might look like factor 'A' was the determining factor, but looking deeper factor 'B' was the main cause for factor 'A' even happening. This would be in your evaluation.

You need to decide whether or not religion was the main factor in your introduction and make a thesis statement. Then each subsequent paragraph will be you either agreeing or negating the other factors you're discussing with your thesis statement.

Hope this helps

THANK YOU! My main argument is that religion was purely a pretence for most rebellions, used to conceal the true impetus of socio-economic factors because it managed to arouse more backing from the gentry. Do you know whether I have to/should write about the events in chronological order? I know doing so will ensure that the change/continuity element is clearer, but would it be better to summarise the rebellions cause predominantly by religious factors in one paragraph (Pilgrimage of Grace 1536, Wyatt's Rebellion 1554), then political in another (Kett's Rebellion 1549 (partly), Northern Rebellion 1569), then socio-economic (although this affected all of them :/)? ...sorry, I'm still struggling with the structure and feel like just attempting to write it tomorrow because I usually get 25/25 on my essays anyway, even though I know this requires a lot more research and effort. I've completed all of the research, but it's in separate documents and I don't know how to bring it all together into a succinct plan.

And do we have to read the entire book to achieve a high grade? That paints me in a very lazy light haha, but I'm very fortunate in that our teacher offered us 10 or so Tudor books to take home, and I've order 5 of my own, but I don't have the time to read every single one as we have Drama coursework and essays to do for our other subject. Instead, I've been checking the index for the 'rebellions' category or for specific revolts/surnames of rebels, so I'd say I've found 30 solid quotes so far, but I'm anxious about misinterpreting Elton and Davies' overall arguments if I'm only reading certain sections.