Generalisations — the hidden mark scheme
The word that is not in the standard but is all over the mark scheme
- Search the AS91436 standard for the word "generalisation" and you will not find it. It is not in the achievement criteria and not in the Explanatory Notes.
- The 2025 marking schedule builds its entire second criterion row on it, and repeats it for all three questions:
| Grade | The schedule's own wording |
|---|---|
| A3 | some reference to the sources, attempting to explain the concept, using at least ONE referenced generalisation that addresses the question |
| A4 | reference to the sources, explaining the concept, using at least TWO referenced generalisations that address the question |
| M5 | some specific reference, using at least TWO substantiated generalisations that show some understanding of the concept |
| M6 | specific reference, explaining thoroughly, using at least TWO substantiated generalisations |
| E7 / E8 | specific, relevant reference, explaining comprehensively, with insight |
- This is the most important thing on this page. The schedule counts generalisations, not sources. A candidate who discusses six sources accurately, one after another, has produced zero generalisations and cannot reach Merit.
What a generalisation actually is
- A generalisation is a claim about the sources as a group, which is then supported from named sources.
- Its grammar is distinctive. It has a plural or collective subject and makes one claim:
- Across Sources B, D and F, ___.
- The sources written for publication ___, while those written privately ___.
- Every source produced before 1910 ___, and this changes only in Source H.
- What it is not:
- Not a summary of one source. Source B shows that… is an observation.
- Not a list. Source B shows X, Source D shows Y, Source F shows Z is three observations in a row, not one claim about three sources.
- Not a vague statement. The sources show that attitudes were complicated is unsubstantiable, and the reports penalise "broad, unsubstantiated generalisations."
"Referenced" and "substantiated" are different words, and the difference is the Merit boundary
- Referenced (Achieved) — the generalisation names the sources it rests on. Sources B, D and F all show ___.
- Substantiated (Merit) — the generalisation names the sources and quotes or specifies what in each source supports it.
- Sources B, D and F all show ___: B describes ___, D records ___, and F's [specific detail] ___.
- So the move from Achieved to Merit is not a better claim. It is the same claim with the evidence attached.
- This is unusually cheap. The evidence is in front of you in the booklet. A candidate who writes referenced generalisations and never substantiates them is leaving a grade on the table for want of one clause per source.
The structure that produces generalisations automatically
- Sentence one — the generalisation. Name the concept and make one claim across a group of sources.
- Sentences two to four — the substantiation. One clause per source, with a specific detail from each.
- Sentence five — the second generalisation, usually the other half of a two-part concept, or a qualification.
- Sentences six to seven — its substantiation.
- Final sentence — the insight, if you have one: what the sources together imply that none states.
- That is a paragraph, which is what the 2026 specification asks for, and it contains two substantiated generalisations, which is the Merit requirement.
Why the source-by-source habit is so persistent
- Because it feels thorough. Working through the sources in order, saying something accurate about each, produces a full answer that is entirely correct and scores at Achieved.
- Because the sources are labelled and ordered, which invites sequential treatment.
- The 2025 report names it twice — candidates who "referred to the sources individually rather than identifying where sources supported each other" and who "engaged with the sources sequentially rather than synthesising generalisations from all relevant sources." The report's own word is "synthesising."
- The fix is to read all the named sources before writing anything, and to ask: what do these have in common, and where do they split? Those two answers are your two generalisations.
Worked Example
Worked example
A question is headed QUESTION TWO: Continuity and change and asks in what ways the sources demonstrate continuity and change in attitudes across a period. A candidate writes:
Everything in this answer is accurate. What grade does it support, and how should it be rewritten?
Answer:
Step 1 — count what the schedule counts.
Generalisations: zero. There are four observations, one per source, in booklet order, followed by a conclusion.
The final sentence — this shows there was a lot of change — is a candidate for a generalisation but fails on two counts: it is not referenced to specific sources, and "a lot of change" is the kind of broad unsubstantiated claim the reports penalise.
Against the schedule, this sits at the bottom of Achieved at best, because A3 requires at least ONE referenced generalisation.
Step 2 — diagnose the shape, not the content.
The content is fine. All four readings are correct. The failure is entirely structural: the answer follows the booklet's order instead of an argument's order. This is exactly what the 2025 report describes as "engaged with the sources sequentially rather than synthesising generalisations."
Step 3 — find the generalisations by asking the two questions.
What do these sources have in common? — All four are public statements about women's presence at public meetings. That common subject is what makes them a group.
Where do they split? — They split by date: D and F object, G and H accept. That split is the change.
And what does not move? — All four sources treat women's public presence as something requiring comment. No source treats it as unremarkable. That is the continuity, and it is invisible if you read the sources one at a time, because no source states it.
Step 4 — rewrite with two substantiated generalisations.
Step 5 — check what the rewrite achieved, using no new material.
- Two generalisations, each with a plural subject and one claim.
- Both substantiated — each names its sources and specifies what in each supports the claim.
- Both halves of the concept addressed, which is Merit's "addressed both parts."
- The final sentence is insight: a conclusion drawn from what none of the sources says, which is the standard's own definition of Excellence.