Oral source requirement: museum summary, polished script and an unseen comparison
Oral History exam, 20 marks: knowledge 6, source evaluation 5, argument 5, response 4. Candidate U's approved topic is 'How did ordinary citizens experience the Berlin Wall?' The outline requires at least one primary source. She lists a 2011 museum website summary as her primary source and quotes it extensively. Her presentation is polished and closely follows a study-guide essay; the examiner recognises phrases but has no proof of plagiarism. Asked an unseen question - 'Compare a Stasi informer's memoir with a 1961 newspaper report: what different evidence would each offer?' - she replies that she only researched the website. Examiner 1 wants 15/20 for strong knowledge and clear delivery. Examiner 2 wants 9/20 because the source requirement and live response are weak. The school's rule: a source misclassified at approval is a teacher error, not misconduct, unless the candidate repeated it after written notice.
1. Is this misconduct? What process should the examiners follow?
Read the worked answer
There is no finding of misconduct on these facts. Recognising phrases from a study guide is suspicion, not proof; the candidate may have used the same widely available summary. The source misclassification was approved by the teacher, and the rule says that is teacher error unless the candidate repeated it after written notice. The examiners should continue the oral, ask the candidate to explain how she selected and used the source, and record the answers. They should not accuse her or cut marks for dishonesty. If the school has a plagiarism procedure, it requires evidence, a chance to respond and a written finding; it is not a substitute for a low source mark. The chair should also review why a museum summary was approved as primary. The assessment can mark the source skill low without turning an academic weakness into an integrity case.
2. Apply the criteria and propose a final mark. Explain each sub-mark.
Read the worked answer
Knowledge 4/6: accurate and clearly delivered, but narrow and heavily rehearsed; little breadth beyond the website. Source evaluation 2/5: she used a source, but it is a secondary summary and she did not examine provenance, purpose, audience or limitations. Argument 3/5: a clear line, but largely reproduced; independent judgement is limited. Response 1/4: she could not address the unseen comparison and said it was not in her research. Total 10/20. Examiner 1's 15 overvalues fluency and recall; Examiner 2's 9 is close but may under-credit the clear knowledge. The chair should record 10. If the candidate later shows, under questioning, that she can distinguish a memoir from a newspaper report, the response mark can rise to 2 and the total to 11; the source mark should not rise unless she evaluates provenance.
3. What would you ask next, and how would you explain the mark without accusing her?
Read the worked answer
Ask: 'What kind of source is the museum page? Who produced it, when, and for what audience? What can a Stasi informer's memoir show that a 1961 newspaper report cannot, and vice versa?' This tests source classification and evidence use, not memory. In feedback, say: 'The issue is not that you used a website; the task required you to evaluate evidence and to think with an unseen source.' Explain the four criteria and the sub-marks. Distinguish rehearsal from plagiarism only if the school opens a formal process; do not imply cheating in the feedback. Offer a next step: practise comparing provenance and purpose in two sources. If the candidate can explain the difference orally, note it as evidence of learning, but do not change the recorded mark unless the appeal rules allow a re-mark.