Reviewing a source answer without claiming an official mark means judging your own writing by what it does, using a checklist, and describing the result in words. It matters whenever you practise source questions at home or in tuition, which is most weeks in the run-up to the exam.
This lesson follows preparing a revision plan, because the weekly skills session in that plan needs a reliable way to learn from each answer.
Why avoid a mark?
A mark carries authority that your own review cannot have. Cambridge marks real papers using a scheme and trained examiners. When you write “6 out of 8” on your own work, you are imagining a precision that is not there, and a flattering number can make you stop improving.
A checklist does something better. It points at specific habits you can change next time.
What goes on the checklist?
- Points to the source. Did I use a short quotation or a clear reference to the text?
- Separates layers. Did I keep apart what the source states (fact it reports), the source’s viewpoint (who wrote it and why), and my interpretation (what I conclude)?
- Judges with a reason. If I judged reliability or usefulness, did I give a reason from the source or its context?
- Answers the question asked. Did my last sentence respond to the wording of the question?
For each, record one of three words: yes, partly, not yet.
Worked example
Invented extract (written by us, labelled as invented). “Report to the town council, written by a market inspector after a week of visits: Stalls on the east side were closed by noon on four days. Traders told me the new fee is too high. I found the fee notice displayed clearly.”
Question: How useful is this extract for finding out why stalls closed early?
A student’s answer: “The extract is useful because it says stalls closed by noon on four days. This is the inspector’s own observation, so it is a reported fact. The reason, the fee, is only what traders told the inspector, so it is their viewpoint, not proven. The inspector was writing for the council, so may have wanted to show the rule was clear. I therefore think the extract is useful for the pattern of closing but only partly useful for the cause.”
Review with the checklist:
| Check | Result | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Points to source | Yes | Quotes “closed by noon” |
| Separates layers | Yes | Fact, viewpoint and judgement kept apart |
| Judges with a reason | Yes | Names the council audience |
| Answers the question | Partly | Does not say what other evidence would help |
The student does not write “7 out of 8”. They write one next step: add what other evidence would confirm the cause.
What is a plausible mistake?
Mistaken review: “My answer was a 6. Good enough.”
It goes wrong because the number cannot be checked and gives no direction. Worse, if 6 feels fine, the missing step stays missing.
Correction: replace the number with the checklist and a single named improvement for the next answer.
Check yourself
1. Which of these is a reported fact, and which is a viewpoint: “four stalls were closed” and “the fee is too high”?
Show answer
“Four stalls were closed” is a reported observation. “The fee is too high” is a trader’s viewpoint, so it needs a reason or other evidence before you rely on it.
2. Why is a self-awarded mark a problem even if it is close to the truth?
Show answer
It suggests official precision, it cannot be verified, and it gives no guidance on what to change. A described gap does.
3. Write one improvement target for the sample answer above in a sentence.
Show answer
For example: “Next time, finish by naming one other kind of evidence, such as stall records, that would test the traders’ claim.”
Where does this lead next?
Continue to distinguishing teaching feedback from completing coursework. For source skills in depth, see evidence and source interpretation and its practice set.
If you would like a second reader for your answers, online one-to-one History tuition is built around that kind of close reading.