June 2025: AS Paper 1

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Most students found this question accessible. Credit was given for a range of different definitions, given the contested nature of globalisation. Some merely repeated the term or a contracted version of it in their answer. Some students were able to give an example of a policy related to globalisation or an implication of it and received partial credit.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for growing interconnectedness of economic, cultural, social and political spheres
• one aspect (e.g. McDonaldisation), a related policy or just an example = 1 mark
• repeating the term not credited
• a range of definitions accepted as the concept is contested

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

This question was well answered on the whole. Many students were able to select a reason that may prompt the formation of a subculture, gaining the first mark. However, fewer were able to expand on this and relate this to how this results in the group forming. Credit was given for both pro and anti-school subcultures along with other pupil adaptations.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for a cause (labelling, academic failure, pre-existing class/ethnic/gender subcultures) explained as leading pupils to group together
• many gave the cause but not how the group forms
• pro- and anti-school subcultures both credited

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

This question was well answered on the whole. Some students repeated their points or had issues with adequate elaboration to get the mark for development. A very small minority of students got confused regarding theories.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for each of three features clearly outlined, 1 if only partially outlined
• credited: social solidarity, skills for work, meritocracy, secondary socialisation, role allocation, universalistic standards
• marks lost by repeating points or not developing them

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Students had a good understanding of material deprivation identifying and developing a range of different factors. Better responses were able to develop and analyse these. Following a logical chain of discussion and reasoning. Some students engaged in repetition and or got material factors confused with other internal and external factors.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must be material factors (diet, housing, income, extra resources)
• confusing them with cultural or in-school factors loses focus
• drift into general theory = 1–3
• top band analysis e.g. a reasoned conclusion that in-school factors also matter

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Students had a good knowledge of policies in relation to this question. Not all were able to relate this knowledge to improving the educational achievement of pupils. There was also some confusion about the details of some policies that were deployed for example the way pupil premium operates. Higher-scoring students were able to identify a policy and its impact on achievement and then use theory/sociological perspectives to analyse and evaluate its impact. Furthermore, at the high end of the mark scheme, students were able to offer a contested viewpoint about some policies in order to develop their evaluation. At the lower end, this was juxtaposition. Many students used the item to expand on their knowledge and/or provide prompts.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must link each policy to its impact on achievement
• top band weighs policies against each other and against other explanations of achievement, with contested views of policies
• lower answers juxtaposed
• some confused how policies such as Pupil Premium work

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This question was generally answered competently by most students, though only up to a certain point. A notable proportion demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding the secondary nature of documents. Several responses appeared to rely on pre-learned material concerning research in education that was relevant only to primary methods. As these points were not applicable to secondary sources, they could not be credited. Additionally, some students showed limited understanding of the nature of documents and the processes by which they are compiled and collected, despite the item offering some guidance in this regard. Nevertheless, a number of students produced rich, detailed, and varied responses that effectively addressed the suitability of using documents to investigate educational issues. The most advanced responses not only engaged critically with the item but also extended the discussion to the study of teacher–pupil relationships, incorporating prompts from the item and introducing further relevant methodological considerations.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must apply the method to the specific issue (teacher–pupil relationships)
• application to education in general only caps at 13–16
• little or no reference to documents = max 4
• many did not grasp that documents are secondary data and used primary-method points that could not be credited
• best answers used item hooks (validity, access, representativeness, school and pupil-made documents)