H2 History Source-Based Case Study: A-Level Guide

The A-Level H2 History source-based case study is worth 40 marks — 20% of the subject — and unlike the five sub-questions students met at secondary level, it asks only two: compare two sources for 10 marks, then test an assertion against the whole set for 30. At 30 marks that second question matches each essay and is three times part (a), and its top band requires something students are rarely taught: treating the sources as a set rather than one after another. This guide from Ancourage Academy, whose JC1 H2 History tuition runs in small groups, works through both.

Syllabus 9174 sets two papers of three hours each, worth 100 marks apiece. Every H2 History student sits two case studies, so the technique below is worth 40% of the subject in total — more than either essay pair. Students arriving from O-Level / SEC History often assume the format simply scales up. It does not; it changes shape.

The Shape of the H2 Paper

Each paper is a compulsory case study followed by two essays, and the case study is always set on a prescribed theme announced in the syllabus.

Two structural facts follow. The case study theme is fixed and known in advance, so it can be prepared in depth. And essay questions are never set on the theme chosen for the case study in the same paper — which means the case study theme is examined only through sources.

One practical note: as at O-Level / SEC G3 History (K330), candidates receive the question paper in hard copy but are provided with a digital answer booklet, and are required to type their responses. Typing speed and on-screen planning are exam skills in this subject.

Two Sub-Questions, Not Five: What Changes From O-Level / SEC

The reduction from five sub-questions to two removes the scaffolding: there are fewer separately marked tasks to carry a weaker answer, even though the H2 descriptors still credit partially successful work.

The source set may include texts, statistics, political cartoons and maps, and may deliberately set differing accounts of the same situation — accounts that diverge over time, or that were written for different audiences. That divergence is the material of the answer, not an obstacle to it.

Part (a): Comparing Two Sources for 10 Marks

Part (a) asks for similarities and differences between two sources, supported with source detail, and the level descriptors place an answer that tends to treat the sources separately, with most or all of the comparison implicit, in Level 2.

• Level 1 (1–3): describes the content of each source, largely by paraphrase or quotation. Answers built only on contextual knowledge, with no source use, are credited here
• Level 2 (4–6): uses both sources with clear explanation of similarities and differences, supported by source details. At the lower end the sources are treated separately and the comparison is implicit
• Level 3 (7–8): good use of both sources, with a sense of critical evaluation and some insight into the reasons for the similarities or differences
• Level 4 (9–10): full comprehensive use of both, a strong sense of critical evaluation throughout, and critical insight into the reasons for both similarities and differences

The mark is not for spotting agreement. It is for explaining why two sources agree or diverge — and that explanation almost always lives in provenance.

Why "Reasons for the Similarity" Is the Level 4 Move

Ascending from Level 3 to Level 4 means giving critical insight into the reasons for both the similarities and the differences, sustained throughout — Level 3 accepts some insight into one or the other, or uneven insight into both.

A reason is a claim about why the author of a source said what they said. Four generate most of them: who was speaking, to whom, when, and to what end. A Soviet diplomatic cable of 1948 and an American memorandum of 1948 may converge on the facts of a crisis while diverging on responsibility — the convergence is explained by both being internal documents not written for publication, the divergence by their governments' opposite strategic needs. That sentence, not the observation of agreement, is what the top band rewards.

The syllabus formalises this under the historical concept of Evidence: sourcing, contextualisation and corroboration, used to determine the value of sources as evidence. Sourcing asks who and why; contextualisation asks what else was happening; corroboration asks what the other sources say.

Part (b): Testing an Assertion for 30 Marks

Part (b) presents an assertion and asks candidates to test it against the whole set of sources and their own background knowledge — 15% of the subject in one answer.

The Level 6 descriptor, worth 26 to 30, asks for an answer that treats the sources as a set and makes excellent use of them; demonstrates a very good understanding of the question; and shows critical evaluation of the sources in context to support and challenge the hypothesis — that is, balanced. It may question how far a conclusion can be reached on this evidence. It will either explain fully why the evidence on one side is better or preferred, or justify an amended or alternative historical interpretation. The descriptor adds a condition students should know: for Level 6, the Level 5 answer must also be secure — you do not skip a rung.

At the upper end of Level 6 the answer presents a sustained analytical argument and reaches a supported conclusion. "Sustained" is doing real work in that sentence: the argument must run through the answer, not appear at the end.

Treating Sources as a Set

Working through Source A, then Source B, then Source C is the single most common structural error in H2 case studies, and it is the opposite of what the phrase "as a set" asks for — connecting, evaluating and weighing the sources against each other.

The alternative is to group the sources by what they do to the assertion:

1. Group by position, not by number. "Sources A, C and E support the assertion, though for different reasons" is a paragraph opening; "Source A says…" is not
2. Explain the divergence within a group. Two sources supporting the assertion for different reasons is more revealing than two agreeing for the same one
3. Cross-reference explicitly. A source's reliability is established by what the others say. Corroboration is a use of the set, not of one document
4. Weigh, then conclude. Say which body of evidence is preferable and why — provenance, proximity, corroboration — rather than counting sources on each side
5. Consider amending the assertion. The descriptor explicitly permits justifying an amended or alternative interpretation, which is often the most honest reading of a mixed set

Background knowledge belongs in this answer, but as context that lets you evaluate a source, not as a substitute for one. An answer built on knowledge with no source use is capped at Level 1 in part (a), and the same instinct damages part (b).

Sourcing, Contextualisation, Corroboration

Sourcing asks who produced a source and why; contextualisation places it against events at the time; corroboration checks it against other sources — the syllabus names eight historical concepts, and these do most of the work in a case study.

The remaining four — Chronology, Change and Continuity, Diversity and Historical Significance — carry more weight in the essay section, which carries 60 of the paper’s 100 marks.

Timing on a Three-Hour Typed Paper

At 180 minutes for 100 marks the paper runs at about 1.8 minutes a mark, which gives the case study roughly 70 minutes and each essay roughly 54.

Because responses are typed into a digital answer booklet, practising on screen matters. Students who plan on paper and type from the plan usually do better than those who compose directly, for the same reason the plan matters at secondary level.

Five Habits That Hold a Case Study Back

Five habits hold H2 case studies back — working through the sources one by one, provenance as a formula, testing only one side of the assertion, letting knowledge replace evidence, and concluding by counting sources — and each produces answers that read well and still miss what the descriptors reward.

1. Sequential source treatment. The set is the unit of analysis, not the document
2. Provenance as a formula. "This is a speech, so it may be biased" is not evaluation. Bias in which direction, and how does that affect this claim?
3. One-sided testing. Level 6 requires support and challenge. A convinced answer is an unbalanced one
4. Knowledge replacing evidence. Contextual knowledge should let you judge a source, not stand in for it
5. Conclusion by counting. Four sources supporting and two challenging does not settle anything. Weigh the quality of the evidence, not the quantity

The published level descriptors sit in the appendices of the SEAB H2 History syllabus and are worth reading in full once, early in JC1.

At Ancourage Academy we mark case studies against those descriptors in small groups of three to six at Bishan and Woodlands, because putting the Level 6 wording next to your own paragraph shows exactly what the descriptor is asking for. Bring a marked case study to a trial class (usually $18) and we will locate it on the ladder.

Common Questions About the H2 History Case Study

How many marks is the H2 History source-based case study worth?

Forty marks in each paper — 20% of the subject per paper, 40% in total. It is split into part (a), comparing two sources for 10 marks, and part (b), testing an assertion against all the sources for 30 marks. Both test Assessment Objectives 1 and 3.

How many sources are set, and how long are they?

For the H2 History case study, a maximum of six sources totalling no more than 900 words, or the equivalent where non-textual sources are used; H1 History sets five sources and 800 words. The set may mix texts, statistics, political cartoons and maps, and may deliberately include differing accounts of the same issue written at different times or for different audiences.

What does "treat the sources as a set" mean?

It means organising the answer by argument rather than by document — grouping sources that support the assertion, grouping those that challenge it, explaining why members of each group diverge, and cross-referencing between them. Working through Source A, then B, then C is the structure least likely to show the cross-referencing the Level 6 descriptor asks for.

Which theme is the case study set on?

In H2 History, Paper 1's case study is set on Theme I, The Development of the Cold War 1945–1991, and Paper 2's on Theme III, Regional Conflicts and Cooperation — the theme is prescribed, not chosen. Essay questions are not set on the case study theme in the same paper, so that theme is examined through sources alone.

Do I write the H2 History paper by hand?

No. Candidates receive the question paper in hard copy and are provided with a digital answer booklet, in which they are required to type their responses. It is worth practising planning on paper and typing the answer, since that is the exam condition.

Related: From the O-Level / SEC SBQ to the A-Level argument · The H2 History essay · Secondary to JC transition · JC subject combinations · General Paper guide