This assessment is designed to get you thinking in new and sophisticated ways about primary sources, and about the ways in which they can be presented.

Choosing a source

This can be any of the primary sources examined in the module, for any of the weeks. From the primary resources included with each week's reading, to objects from databases such as Mass Observation Online, and also extends to week 9's film, television and audio-visual sources. You are welcome to focus on extracts from longer documents, if you prefer (commonly referred to as 'gobbets'). Please reach out to the module tutor if you have any queries or would like to discuss ideas for this.

Choosing a format

The second part ot this assessment involves choosing a medium to present in. This could be, but is not limited to:

• a blog post
• a poster
• a podcast

Key here will be thinking about how your source might work best with a given medium. E.g. if the source is visual, is there a way of depicting this and analysing this? You may also want to think about how particular media work well for certain kinds of analysis that you want to peform. E.g. a blog-post might allow you to write a film review, or a podcast could let you include clips from the film or TV programme.

What makes a good primary source analysis?

Being able to analyse primary sources (or shorter 'gobbet' extracts) is a key skill for a historian, and is a great place to hone broader critical thinking skills. A good answer involves providing a commentary that is concise, precise and focused. It is not a mere paraphrase of the document or a translation into your own words, which adds nothing to your audience’s understanding of the source.

In addition to the standard questions of who, what, where, when, why, how of the source, which ask you to understand the source as an object, its contexts and its people, you should also think about:

• Where does this source fit within the history of twentieth-century Britain and the history of the social sciences in Britain? Have any other historians used this material - and to do what? Do you agree with their interpretations or would you like to see it used in different ways?
• What are the 'afterlives' of the source? Is it well-known several years later (e.g. like a film)? Has it ended up in an archive or museum? Is there anything in the source that was shocking at the time of its production but which might not be now? (Or, conversely, something that was quite mundane at the time of its production, but which might unsettle a current audience?)
• Representation. Whose voices do we hear through the source, and whose voices do we not hear? Does this pose a problem, or is it surmountable? Are their limitations built into the source which mean that it can only reflect certain perspectives and opinions?
• Interpretation. Show awareness of different interpretations for the source, and how it might mean something different at specific moments, but - above all - foreground your own analysis and understanding of it.
• Limitations and circumventing them. Every source has its limitations - there is only so much a single episode of (for example) the BBC's Man Alive series can tell us about its topic. What are they for your source? Where might we go to find out more information and background to the source (archives, other episodes in the series, critical reviews in the press)? And what other sources might enable us to develop a fuller picture of it? You absolutely do not need to actually undertake this research (which would be very laborious and time-consuming!) for the purposes of this assessment. But it is helpful to have a think about how you might go about this, in addition to demonstrating to your marker that you are aware of these possibilities.

What is being assessed?

• Analysis and Argument: analysis of the meaning of the source and signs of understanding both the source's content and its context; clarity and strength of argument; engagement with the question of where the source fits (or might fit) within the broader historiographical debates and questions.
  • Communication: clarity of expression; persuasiveness; engagement with audience
  • Knowledge and Understanding: comprehension of the document’s context, content, and
  authorship

Marking Criteria

Class	Scale	Mark	Generic Descriptor	Source Analysis Descriptor
First	Excellent First	100	Work of original and exceptional quality which in the examiners’ judgement merits special recognition by the award of the highest possible mark.	The analysis is exceptionally clearly expressed (either orally or in written form) and demonstrates excellent understanding of the source and its wider historical context. You explicitly engage with, and demonstrate respect for, your audience. You critically engage with historiographical and/or methodological issues raised by the source. Your work provides a very well-evidenced and highly persuasive argument and makes a sophisticated and original contribution to knowledge about the source and its meaning. The analysis is of a professional standard and may approach a publishable standard furthering scholarly enquiry.
		94	Exceptional work of the highest quality, demonstrating excellent knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. At final-year level: work may achieve or be close to publishable standard.
	High 1st	88	Very high quality work demonstrating excellent knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. Work which may extend existing debates or interpretations.	The analysis is very clearly expressed (either orally or in written form) and demonstrates excellent understanding of the source and its wider historical context. You engage with, and demonstrate respect for, your audience. You engage with historiographical and/or methodological issues raised by the source. You provide a well-evidenced and persuasive argument and make a sophisticated contribution to knowledge about the source and its meaning.
	Upper Mid 1st	82
	Lower Mid 1st	78
	Low 1st	74
Upper Second (2.1)	High 2.1	68	High quality work demonstrating good knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills.	The analysis is well expressed (either orally or in written form) and demonstrates understanding of the source and its wider historical context. You engage with your audience. You identify historiographical and/or methodological issues raised by the source. You provide an evidenced argument.
	Mid 2.1	65
	Low 2.1	62
Lower Second (2.2)	High 2.2	58	Competent work, demonstrating reasonable knowledge and understanding, some analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills.	The analysis demonstrates understanding of the source and to some extent its wider historical context. You may not engage with your audience. You may identify historiographical and/or methodological issues raised by the source but superficially and without development. The presentation may provide an argument based on some evidence, though it may also be descriptive rather than analytical. The quality of the expression may be limited (whether orally or in written form).
	Mid 2.2	55
	Low 2.2	52
Third	High 3rd	48	Work of limited quality, demonstrating some relevant knowledge and understanding.	The analysis demonstrates some understanding of the source and possibly its wider historical context. You do not engage with your audience. The presentation may provide an argument based on some evidence, though it is likely more descriptive rather than analytical. The quality of the expression is limited (whether orally or in written form).
	Mid 3rd	45
	Low 3rd	42
Fail	High Fail (sub Honours)	38	Work does not meet standards required for the appropriate stage of an Honours degree. Evidence of study and demonstrates some knowledge and some basic understanding of relevant concepts and techniques, but subject to significant omissions and errors.	The analysis demonstrates limited understanding of the source but is subject to significant omission or errors. You do not engage with your audience. The presentation is descriptive rather than analytical and lacks a clear argument. The quality of the expression is poor (whether orally or in written form).
	Fail	32	Work is significantly below the standard required for the appropriate stage of an Honours degree. Some evidence of study and some knowledge and evidence of understanding but subject to very serious omissions and errors.	The analysis demonstrates limited understanding of the source and is subject to very serious omission or errors. You do not engage with your audience. The presentation is descriptive rather than analytical and lacks a clear argument. The quality of the expression is very poor (whether orally or in written form).
		25	Poor quality work well below the standards required for the appropriate stage of an Honours degree.
	Low Fail	12		The analysis demonstrates very limited understanding of the source and is subject to very serious omission or errors. The quality of the expression is very poor (either orally or in written form).
Zero	Zero	0	Work of no merit OR Absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases	No submission or work of no merit.