HOW TO HELP STUDENTS WRITE ESSAYS
At A level, GCSE and even at KS3, the ability to coherently frame, substantiate and argue a case is critical. During my
years of teaching I have arrived at the following structure, which I use with students from Y7 onwards. I hope it will help
provide a framework for helping students of all ages and abilities write quality essays.
All the examples are taken from my students essays.
READING THE QUESTION
Firstly, students need to be able to recognise that history essay questions fall into two categories:
a) Either/or
For example:
Cromwell initiated a revolution in government in the 1530s. How far do you agree? (A Level)
The Treaty of Versailles was short-sighted and vindictive. How far do you agree? (GCSE)
Is absolute power possible (from my Y8 SOW)
b) Why
For example:
Henry VIII broke with Rome to increase his personal power. How far do you agree? (A Level)
The Nazi-Soviet Pact was the principal cause of war in 1939. How far do you agree? (GCSE)
Why did the First World War begin in 1914? (KS3)
This categorisation is important for two reasons.
1) At GCSE and A Level, the ‘why’ is often hidden in a statement. Practice in recognising that many history
questions are ‘why’ questions helps to avoid the pitfall of only talking about the issue stated in the question.
2) It enables students to plan their assertions which will frame their answer (see below).
As a general rule, I tell KS3 students that answers must have at least two paragraphs: a ‘for’ and an ‘against’ paragraph
for an either/or question, or at least two reasons for a ‘why’ question.
For higher ability students, and as students progress towards GCSE and A Level, I suggest extending this with a greater
range of reasons for ‘why’ questions (three or four). For either/or questions, some students need to stick at the ‘for’ and
‘against’ structure, which is essentially two paragraphs, but some can begin to break down the issue into more nuanced
ways.
For example:
The Treaty of Versailles was short-sighted and vindictive. How far do you agree? (GCSE)
Rather than exploring the TOV as a whole in a ‘for’ and ‘against’ structure of two paragraphs, good students should start
to break down the issue of the TOV, e.g into military, territorial and financial areas, exploring the ‘for’ and ‘against’ of
each issue within a paragraph. In this way, you are moving the students beyond analysis at whole essay level (i.e ‘for’
and ‘against’ the proposition) towards analysis by issue, which is much more nuanced and a better building block for A
Level.
STRUCTURING A BASIC PARAGRAPH
The building block of an essay is the paragraph. A good paragraph has three parts:
ASSERTION – a statement of argument/opinion (not a statement of fact)
EVIDENCE – facts and examples to back up your assertion
EXPLANATION – convincing the reader that the facts you have given answer the question asked
I call this a ‘traffic-light’ paragraph, as this provides a useful way of discussing it with students, so they can evaluate their
work metacognitively.
For example:
Some people think the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is how violent they are. For example, Osama
bin Laden blew up the Twin Towers and killed lots of people, but Martin Luther King only made speeches to get his point
across. This might mean that people fighting for freedom are not violent but terrorists use terror to make people scared.
(‘Is there a difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?’, from one of my Y8 students last week)
Western powers had refused to recognise Japan as an equal and Japan wanted to assert her authority. The Washington
Naval Agreement in 1922 is an example of this; the League limited Japans army size to 2/3 the size of Britain’s, even
though they were a permanent council member and Britain and France could keep their army. Japan wanted to prove
that they were equal to both Britain and France, and Japan felt by successfully invading Manchuria they would be able to
assert her authority.
(‘Why did Japan invade Manchuria?’, GCSE, 6 mark, part b ‘why’ question, OCR)
Thirdly, Bismark knew that attacking the Catholics would facilitate an allegiance to the National Liberals. Bismark needed
the support of the biggest party in the Reichstag to prove his indispensability to the Kaiser. In 1871, the Liberals held the
majority in the Reichstag because their policy of free trade made them popular in the time of economic prosperity. They
were an anti-clerical party so sharing their policies would allow him to make the alliance he needed. He therefore used
Kulturkampf, his attack on the Church, as a way of promoting negative integration: he hoped it would unite the
Protestant majority in the Reichstag and therefore distract the Liberals from striving for their agenda of constitutional
reform and increased democracy.
(‘Why did Bismarck persecute the Catholics?’, A Level – 12 mark ‘explain why’ question, AQA)
SIMPLIFYING FOR LOWER ABILITY
This basic structure can be differentiated up or down, at any level of study.
To differentiate for lower ability, I would suggest:
a) Providing a range of assertions from which students can choose two or three.
For example: ‘Is Absolute Power Possible?’
Some people think that absolute power might be possible. [The inclusion of ‘some people’ in an assertion, I have found,
really helps students who struggle with the fact that they are expected to write both sides of an argument when, to them,
the answer is clear; this helps them to acknowledge an alternative answer with less confusion]
Absolute power is possible for a short time.
Absolute power will always be challenged eventually.
Absolute power is only possible if you use force against your enemies.
It is possible to have absolute power over people’s behaviour, but not over their thoughts.
Absolute power is possible over small groups but not whole countries.
etc
b) Asking students only to provide evidence to support their ideas (old NC level 5 – describing the past) rather than
having to explain, as the explanation is the trickier element.
EXTENDING FOR HIGHER ABILITY / ANALYTICAL QUESTIONS AT GCSE AND A LEVEL
To differentiate for higher ability, and as students move into KS4 and 5, I would suggest the following structure:
ASSERTION – a statement of argument/opinion (not a statement of fact)
EVIDENCE – facts and examples to back up your assertion
ANALYSIS – a possible interpretation of the facts/examples, which would disprove your argument as identified in your
assertion. More often than not, this will appear here in the paragraph, rather than at the end, as the most common type
of analysis is a contrasting two interpretations (see below). Analysis may appear at the end, but you need to be careful it
isn’t ‘bolt on’.
EXPLANATION – your own argument, convincing the reader that the facts you have given answer the question asked
For example,
The military clauses of the TOV were fair, from the point of view of the time. Germany had to reduce her army to
100,000 men, was forbidden to conscription soldiers, to have an airforce or a navy and had to leave the Rhineland demilitarised. Although it could be argued that this left Germany vulnerable to attack, Germany had admitted all the guilt
for starting the war in 1914 and had previously invaded France in 1871 so it seemed sensible to stop her being able to do
that again.
[‘The TOV was short-sighted and vindictive. How far do you agree? GCSE]
There was no intention; Parliament was called in 1529 to put pressure on the pope rather than to exert Henry’s
authority. After the failure of Wolsey to secure an annulment at the Legatine Court at Blackfriars, Henry, knowing that
many MPs who objected to the independence of the Convocation were anti-clerical, allowed them to present a list of
grievances to curb what they viewed as abuses of clerical power. This legislation dealt with the clerical abuses of
mortuary fees, probate fees, pluralism and non-residence. This assault was still within the parameters of the Church,
attacking problems within the Church rather than the Church itself. Many Lords refused to pass this bill, and would not
moderate their position, which resulted in some amendment of the bill. Henry allowed this, as he was unable to force
them to back down. Only by issuing a general pardon, in return for the cancellation of a debt, which excluded clerical
crimes of praemunire, could he threaten the bishops significantly enough to approve the bill. Ostensibly, this shows that
Henry was using Parliament to enforce his supremacy over the Church, however if this had been the case then
Parliament would not have been prorogued after only 3 months, after Henry had gained so little ground. This was simply
an attack on clerical corruption rather than clerical authority; Henry was testing the water to see where his support lay.
He also hoped that by threatening bishops with praemunire the pope would concede in granting the annulment: though
Parliament stepping in to reform the Church from within had set a precedent for future inroads into clerical
independence, the Church still held very significant power in Parliament and could not be easily manipulated to meet
Henry’s ends.
(‘Did Henry VIII always intend to break with Rome? A Level)
WHAT EXACTLY IS ANALYSIS?
Obviously, at GCSE and A Level the ability to ‘analyse’ is essential for accessing the higher levels of the markschemes
(and, more importantly, for writing good history!). But it can be hard to explain to students exactly what analysis is,
especially if your history students study English, where ‘analysis’ really means ‘deconstruct’, whereas in History it means
more ‘compare and contrast possible interpretations’.
The key to success is to ensure that the core explanation is congruent with the assertion, i.e that if you took the analysis
out you would still have a clear ‘traffic light’ paragraph.
1. Contrasting interpretations – offering two different explanations/conclusions. New evidence may be introduced,
but isn’t essential.
For example:
The pretenders were never really a threat to Henry VII’s crown, though they were seen as such. In May 1487
Lambert Simnel arrived in England, claiming to be Edward, Earl of Warwick. Although he was clearly an imposter
(Henry had locked the Earl of Warwick in the Tower upon becoming King), Simnel was crowned by the king’s
enemies in Ireland as Edward VI. He also received support from Edward IV’s sister (Margaret of Burgundy), who
sent 2000 German mercenaries to fight Henry. Given that Henry had won the throne in battle, with foreign
backing, that this was only two years previously, and that battle of any kind was both expensive and
unpredictable in outcome, Simnel posed a real threat. However, with hindsight, he wasn’t as significant a threat
as Henry feared at the time: Simnel was defeated easily at the Battle of Stoke, whereupon he was made to work
as a turnspit in the Royal kitchen, suggesting the threat was so minimal that Henry could afford to be merciful.
[A level]
2. Comparison - exploring relative significance of your current argument by comparing it with another.
For example:
The financial penalties of the TOV were really unfair. Germany had to pay £6.6bn in reparations to Britain and
France to pay for the war. There was no way that Germany could pay these reparations, as her economy was in
crisis after the loss of the war. However, these terms weren’t as unfair as the War Guilt Clause, because this was
the justification for the reparations in the first place and it also made Germany feel unfairly treated for a longtime, even after the Dawes plan made the reparations manageable. [GCSE]
[discussion of impact of war on women in Nazi Germany]….However, this impact of war on women in Nazi
Germany was not as significant as the impact of Nazism on youth [discussed earlier in the essay]. This was
because the war closed down opportunities for youth, restricting them to army drill for boys, and fund raising
for girls. In comparison, the war actually liberated women, facilitating a return to employment, as men went off
to war, rather than the previous Nazi insistence on ‘kinder, kuche, kirche’ as the limits of the female role. [A
Level]
3. Counter-factual - suggest ways in which things could have been different.
For example:
Bismarck ended Kulturkampf as he needed a stronger alliance than the Liberals. Following the slump of 1873,
the Liberals had lost votes, as the public saw their conspicuous consumption as decadent and immoral. Bismarck
no longer wanted their alliance anyway, as tariffs would be a better economic policy in a slump than the Liberal
policy of free trade. In the elections of 1878 the Centre Party saw an increased share of the vote. As Bismarck
needed to work with the majority party in the Reichstag, and as the CP wanted tariffs, this was a good
opportunity for Bismarck to switch allegiance. However, if the old Pope hadn’t conveniently died and been
replaced by Leo XII, who wanted conciliation, Bismarck would have been unable to forge an alliance with the
Centre Party, owing to the bitterness of Kulturkampf, and might have found himself facing a Reichstag with a
Centre Party majority which wouldn’t work with him.
[‘Why did Bismarck stop persecuting the Catholics?’ A Level]
LINKS AND PRIORITY
Ideally, judgments about priority shouldn’t be a surprise conclusion at the end, but should be suggested throughout the
essay. This is what you would call ‘building an argument’.
To help students do this, I’ve used a simplified version of a really good Teaching History idea from 2005 (about Alphonse
the Camel if you want to look it up). Now, I tend to give students a short list of words that can be built into assertions to
give a sense of priority. The words I have found most useful are:
Words to suggest a
cause is the most
important
Fundamentally,…
The over-riding reason was…
The most important/significant/etc…
The key reason…
Words that suggest
something about
timing
A long-term reason was…
In the short-term…
The catalyst/trigger was…
X was precipitated by…
Words that suggest
causes with hidden
importance
An underlying reason/factor was…
A latent factor was…
Words that suggest
causes which seem to
be important but
actually were not
Ostensibly…
Apparently…
On the surface…
Although it seems that…
Words which link
ideas together
X exacerbated…
X facilitated…./was facilitated by…
X undermined…/was undermined by…
X set a precedent for…
X justified…./was justified by…
MARKING STRUCTURE METACOGNITIVELY
So that students can ‘see what I see’, to close the gap between teacher and student understanding of student work, and
to enable a productive discussion about how to improve, I mark essay work as follows:
Assertion
Evidence
Explanation
Analysis



A
For example:
Western powers had refused to recognise Japan as an equal and Japan wanted to assert her authority.  The
Washington Naval Agreement in 1922 is an example of this; the League limited Japans army size to 2/3 the size of
Britain’s, even though they were a permanent council member and Britain and France could keep their army. Japan
wanted to prove that they were equal to both Britain and France, and Japan felt by successfully invading Manchuria they
would be able to assert her authority. 
There was no intention; Parliament was called in 1529 to put pressure on the pope rather than to exert Henry’s
authority. After the failure of Wolsey to secure an annulment at the Legatine Court at Blackfriars, Henry, knowing that
many MPs who objected to the independence of the Convocation were anti-clerical, allowed them to present a list of
grievances to curb what they viewed as abuses of clerical power. This legislation dealt with the clerical abuses of
mortuary fees, probate fees, pluralism and non-residence. This assault was still within the parameters of the
 Many Lords refused to pass this bill,
and would not moderate their position, which resulted in some amendment of the bill. Henry allowed this, as he
was unable to force them to back down. Only by issuing a general pardon, in return for the cancellation of a debt,
Church, attacking problems within the Church rather than the Church itself.
which excluded clerical crimes of praemunire, could he threaten the bishops significantly enough to approve the bill.
 Ostensibly, this shows that Henry was using Parliament to enforce his supremacy over the Church, A
however
if this had been the case then Parliament would not have been prorogued after only 3 months, after Henry had gained
so little ground. This was simply an attack on clerical corruption rather than clerical authority; Henry was testing the
water to see where his support lay. He also hoped that by threatening bishops with praemunire the pope would concede
in granting the annulment: though Parliament stepping in to reform the Church from within had set a precedent for
future inroads into clerical independence, the Church still held very significant power in Parliament and could not be
easily manipulated to meet Henry’s ends. 