Questions on a Germany depth study often ask about a change: in a school, a law court, a youth organisation or daily life. Strong answers first define the change, then use evidence to test claims about it. This lesson shows how.
It follows distinguishing an event from an interpretation and is part of the Germany depth-study pathway.
How do you define a change?
Use four boundaries:
- What: the specific thing that changed, such as a rule, a timetable or a membership requirement.
- Who: the group affected.
- When: the start and end dates you are looking at.
- Where: the place or institution.
A defined change can be tested. A vague one cannot.
How do you test a claim with evidence?
For each claim, find a source that shows it, say what type of source it is, and say what it cannot show. Where two sources of different kinds agree, the claim is stronger. Where they disagree, say so and explain why that might be.
Worked example
The scenario and extracts below are invented for practice. The town and school do not exist.
Defined change: In one invented town school, between 1932 and 1936, a weekly lesson was added in which pupils read official publications.
Source A (invented practice extract). School timetable, 1936: “Thursday, period 5: Civic reading, all classes.”
Source B (invented practice extract). Letter from a pupil to a cousin, 1936: “On Thursdays we have to read aloud from the pamphlets. Half the class thinks it is dull, but nobody says so.”
Source C (invented practice extract). School register of lessons, 1932: no entry for civic reading.
Question: What can you claim about the change, and how strongly?
Step 1: Claim the change exists. Sources A and C together show a lesson that was absent in 1932 and present in 1936. They are both official records, so this is a firm claim about the timetable. This is an established fact within this exercise.
Step 2: Claim about experience. Source B shows one pupil’s view that the lesson was disliked but not criticised openly. This is a source’s viewpoint, and one pupil cannot represent the class.
Step 3: Say what is missing. None of the sources shows why the lesson was added or how teachers delivered it. Any claim about motives would be speculation.
Answer: There is good evidence that the timetable changed. There is limited evidence about how pupils felt. There is no evidence in these sources about reasons.
The mistake to watch for
Mistaken answer: “Source B proves that all pupils hated the lesson and nobody dared to speak.”
“All pupils” and “nobody dared” go beyond a single letter, and “hated” is stronger than “dull”. The correction is to say Source B suggests that one pupil found the lesson dull and noticed a lack of open complaint, and to name what you would need to claim more.
Check yourself
1. Define this change using what, who, when and where: “Youth life changed.”
Show answer
It is too vague to test. A defined version: “Between two named years, in one named town, attendance at a particular organisation’s weekly meeting became expected for pupils of a named age group.” The exact details depend on your syllabus.
2. Sources A and C agree about the timetable. Why is that stronger than Source B alone?
Show answer
They are two records of the same type that independently show an absence and then a presence, so the change itself is documented. Source B is one person’s viewpoint.
3. Write one cautious sentence about why the lesson was added, using only the sources.
Show answer
“The sources show that the lesson was added but they do not state why, so a claim about motive would need further evidence.” The key idea is to avoid claiming what the sources do not contain.
Where this leads next
Next, compare two historical sources with explicit provenance, where you weigh two sources against each other. For wider practice, use the integrated set.
If boundaries and evidence checks keep slipping under time pressure, our online one-to-one History tuition can practise them on questions from your own depth study.