Interpreting a Source Under External Assessment Conditions
In the external examination, students answer a question requiring them to analyse an unseen source. The source is a 2019 opinion piece arguing that workplace gender-equality policies benefit corporations more than women, citing a survey of 500 employees at one multinational firm. The question asks students to 'evaluate the usefulness of this source for an investigation into whether gender-equality policies improve women's outcomes'. A student, Chloe, writes that the source is 'useless because it is an opinion piece' and moves on to summarise her own knowledge of policy. Her answer runs to two pages but earns a mid-range mark. A classmate, Sam, writes a shorter answer that identifies the source's genre, its single-firm sample, the absence of comparison data, and what it can and cannot support.
1. Explain why Sam's shorter answer is likely to score higher, with reference to the demands of source evaluation.
Read the worked answer
The question asks for evaluation of usefulness, not dismissal or replacement. Chloe makes two errors: she treats 'opinion piece' as automatically disqualifying, and she substitutes her own knowledge for analysis of the source. Neither demonstrates the skill being assessed.
Sam's answer works because it:
- Identifies the genre and its implications - an opinion piece is argued and selective, but it can still be useful as evidence of how a debate is framed, and it may cite data worth checking.
- Interrogates the evidence - a survey of 500 employees at one firm is a small, non-representative sample; findings cannot be generalised to all workplaces.
- Notes what is missing - no comparison group, no longitudinal data, no measure of outcomes beyond self-report.
- Specifies usefulness conditionally - the source is useful for understanding critical arguments and for locating claims to test, but weak as proof that policies fail women.
Usefulness is relational: a source is useful for a particular purpose. Sam answers that question; Chloe answers a different one. Length is irrelevant if the reasoning is absent.
2. Chloe argues that her broader knowledge should earn credit. How should the marking guide treat this, and what feedback would help her improve?
Read the worked answer
Broader knowledge earns credit only where it serves the question. If Chloe used her knowledge of policy to test the source's claims - for example, comparing the firm's survey with national data on pay gaps - that would strengthen her evaluation. Used as a substitute for engaging with the source, it is off-task.
A marking guide should reward: identification of the source's type and purpose; analysis of sample, method, and scope; recognition of what the source can and cannot establish; and a judgement about usefulness for the specified investigation. It should not reward length or the volume of recalled content.
Feedback for Chloe should be concrete:
- Reframe 'opinion' as a category to analyse, not a verdict. Ask: what is this source evidence of?
- Practise the 'useful for what?' question - write one sentence stating the purpose, then judge the source against it.
- Use knowledge as a test, not a replacement - bring in one external comparison to check a claim.
- Annotate a source under timed conditions, listing genre, sample, method, gaps, and possible uses.
The aim is to move her from reacting to the source to interrogating it.